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

[Edwardo Piet]

This discussion isn't about Yahweh, now is it? In the other thread I clearly stated that I would provide evidence for God if someone provided evidence against and well see who had the most for and against... no one took me up on it.

It doesn't matter who has the most evidence. It matters who has the best evidence.

Or even any evidence lol. No amount of zeros is gonna get to 1 lol.

[haig]

I still use film in my medium format vintage Hasselblad. Sometimes the transparencies come back with little markings on them. Sometimes it's happened in the lab. Sometimes it's light leaking into the camera if I have been careless. It had never occurred to me to claim it as being evidence of the supernatural.

Yeah, because a world renowned expert never would of thought of that...

Even if it is a real photo, which I have my doubts, why do you think it is a sign of god? Bye the way the photo could be real but it could be staged.

It could be a person with a mirror and flashlight shining the light on the ceiling. Who the frig knows.
What evidence can you provide that the light is not man made? Is that where the eye witness report comes in?

But as usual, religious folks are desperate to find some evidence to support their religious fervor.

[Edwardo Piet]

[Neo-Scholastic]

Exodus isn't contemporaneous to Genesis?  What have you been smoking?  The text clearly testifies that Moses thought of the days in Genesis as literal days, otherwise his parallel with the Sabbath doesn't make sense.

You're quoting Moses as a contemporaneous source for Moses. You're either stupid or dishonest.

[Angrboda]

Exodus isn't contemporaneous to Genesis?  What have you been smoking?  The text clearly testifies that Moses thought of the days in Genesis as literal days, otherwise his parallel with the Sabbath doesn't make sense.

You're quoting Moses as a contemporaneous source for Moses. You're either stupid or dishonest.

My original counter to Steve was that the original intent of the author was what mattered. Since Moses is the author in question, obviously his testimony is relevant. I think the only one being stupid here is the one who thinks that the opinion of the very author of the text doesn't matter in trying to interpret the author's intention. You're trying to retrofit an argument about the need for independent corroboration in questionable accounts onto the question of whether the original intent was a literal, historical document, and it just doesn't fit. The logic doesn't line up.

[Nay_Sayer]

From the same page Minimalist linked to:



There you go, Huggy. It wasn't a halo after all.

Actually, if you zoom in even further, You actually caught something here.



http://thumbsnap.com/s/PEGga5vT.png

[Ravenshire]

I still use film in my medium format vintage Hasselblad. Sometimes the transparencies come back with little markings on them. Sometimes it's happened in the lab. Sometimes it's light leaking into the camera if I have been careless. It had never occurred to me to claim it as being evidence of the supernatural.

Yeah, because a world renowned expert never would of thought of that...

No where in that document does it claim that it cannot be light from a natural source. Improper shutter speeds or light leakage could easily cause it, as could lens flare.

Your photo isn't as unshakeable as you would have us believe just because one person found no doctoring of the negative

[Astreja]

Soooo, Huggy... Can this mysterious glob of light answer prayers? Heal pediatric cancer patients? Restore missing limbs? (Heck, can it even find your car keys?)

Sorry, but I see no point in worshipping mysterious globs of light. Got anything better?

[Huggy Bear]

This was fun but morons like Huggy are so easily fooled because they want to be fooled.

http://en.believethesign.com/index.php/T...Photograph


Hey look.  Paul, John and Ed Sullivan pass muster too.

A Better Explanation?

The picture immediately above on the right was taken in the Sam Houston Coliseum in 1969. At right is Willie Somerset (#12) of ABA's Houston Mavericks basketball team. Note the "pillar of fire" type light by the player's hand. If we zoom into the light by the players hand (see photo on left), we see something that is not that dissimilar to that of the picture of the "pillar of fire" that was photographed over William Branham's head.

LOL, you think I don't know about that site, that is literally the most unobjective site you can reference, I mean this is like trying to debunk the holocaust by referencig a holocaust denier.

From your own dumb-ass site.

It must also be appreciated that the picture of the basketball players is from 1969, almost 20 years after the photograph of William Branham was taken. It is likely that the lighting for a church gathering would have been set up completely different from that of a basketball game and also likely that the light fixtures would have been completely different 20 years earlier.

Also the Beatles didn't appear there until 1965, so were talking about a period of 15+ year after the photo was taken, did it ever occur to you that those light didn't exist 15 years earlier? No I bet it didn't... moron indeed.

Here are photographs taken inside the coliseum in 1947 and 1956.






Where are these lights?

Now let's consider Branham's outright lies.... always fun with these holier than thou motherfuckers!

George Lacy was the fifth president of the American Society of Questioned Document Examiners, which he helped found in 1942. He owned and operated an indepedent forensics lab in Houston, Texas. There are a number of things that William Branham was not honest about relating to Mr. Lacy's involvement with the picture:

1. Mr. Lacy was not an employee of the FBI. He was NEVER the head of the FBI for fingerprint and documents.
   
2. The FBI had no involvement with the examination of the Houston photograph.
   
3. Mr. Lacy lived and practiced in Houston and was not brought from California to Houston to examine the photograph.
   

William Branham appears to have invented all of these various stories in an attempt to hype the Houston photograph.

Go back to sleep Huggy.  Maybe you can dream of holy jewish zombies wandering Jerusalem.

This is literally taken from The American Society of Questioned Document Examiners own site.

http://www.asqde.org/about/presidents/lacy_g.html

During Mr. Lacy's early work in law enforcement he arrested Charles Ponzi, the namesake of the Ponzi Scheme.  He began his career in forensic science as a general criminalist and ballistics expert.  As a ballistics expert, he worked on the Bonnie and Clyde case.  He later specialized in questioned document examination.  He was responsible for establishing the Houston Police Crime Laboratory.  Mr. Lacy maintained a private practice in Houston, Texas for many years.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Ponzi

Amid reports that he was about to be arrested any day, Ponzi surrendered to federal authorities that morning and accepted Pride's figures.

Pray tell who theses federal authorities are if they aren't the FBI?

I don't think anyone has claimed that Lacy lived in California.

Lastly, Branham had no ownership of the picture, the photographer owned the copyright.

I should add the picture of the Beatles is from the Ed Sullivan show, it wasn't even taken at the coliseum...

[Astreja]

I still use film in my medium format vintage Hasselblad. Sometimes the transparencies come back with little markings on them. Sometimes it's happened in the lab. Sometimes it's light leaking into the camera if I have been careless. It had never occurred to me to claim it as being evidence of the supernatural.

In fact, some cameras are notoriously leaky and some become leaky as they age.  The "miracle" could have been caused by something as simple as a hairline crack in the camera bellows.