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

[LadyForCamus]

Huggy, at the end of the day you have a picture of light.  That’s all it ever was, and that’s all it will ever be.   You have no evidence that this light is god, let alone the Judeo-Christian god of the Bible.  Hell, maybe it’s the light of Odin’s essence trying to communicate to the masses that they’re being mislead by a false religion!).  In short, you have evidence of light, and nothing more.

I would agree with that.   One might even be able to make a case, that may discount normal natural sources for the light, but in the end, what you have is a light.   To go a whole lot further than that, is just speculation with little to none foundation to support it.

One question I would ask, in a situation with a crowd like that, is if the people there witnessed this same event?  If only the camera saw it, then that begs the question of why only the camera saw it (similar to if only one person saw it).  It may also open up other possibilities as to the source.

Huggy will correct me if I’m wrong, but I do believe several other people in the crowd said they saw some kind of light, but it was only after the priest explicitly said to them something along the lines of, ‘look at the light!  Look at it!  Do you see it right there hovering over her head?’  I also recall that he was showing a photo of the pillars of fire.  Sounds more to me like amateur crowd hypnosis.

[Minimalist]

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

Actually it was taken from a bunch of other christards who think Branham was a criminal.  But, wtf, you don't care.  You're so stupid you'll believe anything.

The point is the man you think is so holy is a fucking lying con artist.... you know the type.  Billy Graham, Pat Robertson, Ted Haggard, Creflo Dollar, Oral Roberts, Jim Bakker, Doug Phillips, Jimmy Swaggart, and my favorite, Pastor Gas, Robert Tilton.  How much have those fucking criminals stolen from you?  They must see you coming 5 miles away.

[Edwardo Piet]

I would agree with that.   One might even be able to make a case, that may discount normal natural sources for the light, but in the end, what you have is a light.   To go a whole lot further than that, is just speculation with little to none foundation to support it.

One question I would ask, in a situation with a crowd like that, is if the people there witnessed this same event?  If only the camera saw it, then that begs the question of why only the camera saw it (similar to if only one person saw it).  It may also open up other possibilities as to the source.

Huggy will correct me if I’m wrong, but I do believe several other people in the crowd said they saw some kind of light, but it was only after the priest explicitly said to them something along the lines of, ‘look at the light!  Look at it!  Do you see it right there hovering over her head?’  I also recall that he was showing a photo of the pillars of fire.  Sounds more to me like amateur crowd hypnosis.

Doesn't Huggy realize that this is as crappy as UFO photos and bigfoot photos? Bhahahahahaha.

[RoadRunner79]

I would agree with that.   One might even be able to make a case, that may discount normal natural sources for the light, but in the end, what you have is a light.   To go a whole lot further than that, is just speculation with little to none foundation to support it.

One question I would ask, in a situation with a crowd like that, is if the people there witnessed this same event?  If only the camera saw it, then that begs the question of why only the camera saw it (similar to if only one person saw it).  It may also open up other possibilities as to the source.

Huggy will correct me if I’m wrong, but I do believe several other people in the crowd said they saw some kind of light, but it was only after the priest explicitly said to them something along the lines of, ‘look at the light!  Look at it!  Do you see it right there hovering over her head?’  I also recall that he was showing a photo of the pillars of fire.  Sounds more to me like amateur crowd hypnosis.

Thanks for the info... I'm not really familiar and haven't really been following the story, just commenting on the ideas.

[Minimalist]

The power of suggestion works wonders on religitards.

[J a c k]

It’s so naive that I find it a waste of time to discuss it with him.
Poor huggy, but seriously. There’s no point in discussion when someone uses that as evidence.

[Edwardo Piet]

It's a waste of time to discuss, but it's sure as hell fun to laugh about, lol.

[LadyForCamus]

Huggy will correct me if I’m wrong, but I do believe several other people in the crowd said they saw some kind of light, but it was only after the priest explicitly said to them something along the lines of, ‘look at the light!  Look at it!  Do you see it right there hovering over her head?’  I also recall that he was showing a photo of the pillars of fire.  Sounds more to me like amateur crowd hypnosis.

Thanks for the info... I'm not really familiar and haven't really been following the story, just commenting on the ideas.

Well, it’s refreshing to hear from a Theist with a rational perspective on the topic, so thank you. 👍

[Huggy Bear]

Huggy, at the end of the day you have a picture of light.  Even your expert says that it’s light. That’s all it ever was, and that’s all it will ever be.   You have no evidence that this light is god, let alone the Judeo-Christian god of the Bible.  (Hell, maybe it’s the light of Odin’s essence trying to communicate to the masses that they’re being mislead by a false religion!).  The only thing you have evidence of is light.  And, last I checked, light is a pretty natural occurrence around these here parts.

At 9:26 you'll hear him state "he's here, the holy spirit".
At 16:52 you'll hear him mention the Light, following some lady.

It's best to get the full context though.

[SteveII]

The first three chapters of Genesis are linguistically different from the rest of Genesis both in style and come from a different time in history (use of older language). So, who was the author? Certainly not the same as the rest of the book.

The context was that there were other creation accounts from other civilization (including the recent 400 years the Jews spent in Egypt) and it is likely that the Jews were passing this one down long before Genesis was written to teach their children the distinctions from other religions: that the world is a created entity (no endowed with its own spirituality) and done so by the monotheistic God they worshiped. The actual Hebrew is poetic and highly structured--which is easier to recite and teach from generation to generation (oral tradition) and clearly not meant to be a science text (since very few science text are written in poetic form).

So, was it 6 days, 6 periods, 6 billion years? Who knows. As long as you believe that God is responsible for the creation of the cosmos and humans are in the image of God, there are a variety of ways you can assemble a systematic theology and still be internally consistent.

None of this actually answers the objection.  Your speculations about what was 'likely', or what it 'clearly' is are just speculation.  Like a typical fundamentalist, you like to poison the well by the inclusion of unjustified adjectives.  Regardless, there is a clear history of people originally taking Genesis as literal, which isn't answered by anything you've said.

Sure it answers your objections. Clearly there are a bunch of reasons within the text itself that support a non-literal meaning. Since there are no period writings or references that tell us otherwise, the text itself is all we have to go on. The fact that any group of people at any time believed it to be literal is easily explained by not having the hermeneutics or exegetical knowledge/skills/awareness to properly examine what they always had in front of them OR some other reason for believing a literal interpretation not directly associated with the text in question OR having no basic understanding of physics and nature, did not even contemplate there could have been another interpretation. None of these external reasons lock us into anything regarding the text.

---

Metaphysics is a branch of philosophy exploring the fundamental questions, including the nature of concepts like being, existence, and reality.[1] It has two branches – cosmology and ontology. Traditional metaphysics seeks to answer, in a "suitably abstract and fully general manner", the questions:[2]

1. What is there?
2. And what is it like?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metaphysics

Exactly.  It's a bullshit term that has no bearing or relevance to reality.

That is a very ignorant response. From the "contents" box on the article above, tell me why these have no bearing on "reality":

2.1 Ontology (Being)
2.2 Identity and change
2.3 Causality and time
2.4 Necessity and possibility
2.5 Cosmology and cosmogony
2.6 Mind and matter
2.7 Determinism and free will

It is entirely possible that if there is a God, such things can happen.

How?

Because it can be reasoned to from the simple statement: if God exists, he can do things. Can you defeat that logic?

---

You are confusing cause and effect. While the effect will be seen in accordance with the laws of nature, that in no way means that the cause has to be. Thinking that the immaterial, omnipotent creator of the universe consists of or is bound by physical laws is really really messed illogical thinking. 

Every example we have of natural intelligence is a self-organising system that functions because of the laws of thermodynamics. Every example we have of natural intelligence is embodied in a physical environment which can be sensed and acted within. We have good reason to believe that every form of natural intelligence can ultimately be explained in terms of thermodynamics.

If you want to assert that natural intelligence exists in any other form (i.e. not AI) then give an example, evidence and at the very least a hypothesis on how it might function.

So if your god is intelligent (i.e. a being) then all the evidence is that it must also be subject to the laws of thermodynamics and therefore not eternal.

Give me one single example of intelligence that is not subject to the laws of thermodynamics.

Supernatural intelligence. 

By definition, it is not subject to natural laws. 

su·per·nat·u·ral
ˌso͞opərˈnaCH(ə)rəl/
adjective

1. 1.
   (of a manifestation or event) attributed to some force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature.
   

God, by definition, is supernatural.