Disproving Odin - An Experiment in arguing with a theist with Theist logic

[GrandizerII]

If there's no explanation, then there's no explanation. Full stop. It's a logical contradiction to say there's no explanation, while simultaneously declaring the supernatural as an explanation.

Supernatural basically means unexplained scientifically... I love how you guys always try to argue semantics.

But "currently unexplained scientifically" does not mean/imply "supernatural". This isn't mere semantics, by the way. This is logic.

But we do have an explanation anyway (Min did a great job of providing it). You just don't want the explanation to be true for understandable psychological reasons.

Yes Min did an excellent job of providing a photo taken inside the Sam Houston coliseum 20 years after the fact and another photo taken at the Ed Sullivan show, which is totally unrelated.

The point is that the explanation he linked to gives us a good idea of what that "light" could've been. And I haven't seen you actually refute that (you laughed it off in your usual manner, but didn't provide any effective refutation). But if you can't be bothered to do that, we can go back to the default case of there being no explanation for the phenomenon as of yet. It makes no difference, because you still need to demonstrate that the supernatural was behind such a phenomenon.

Rather, the issue is in your gullibility and lack of critical thinking skills.

Well then I'm glad the Denmark thread exists to prove that false...

The Denmark thread doesn't prove the case that you have demonstrated proper critical thinking skills in this thread (nor in many other threads). If anything, that you think referring to that thread does such a thing actually demonstrates my point, not negates it.