It's not that rules of evidence dont APPLY its just that there's no evidence against it and some evidence which could or could not be challenged standing for it. For example, if i may re-itterate my opening bit of evidence, the Our Lady of Guadalupe portrait's eyes. Vasu claimed it was Rice Writing, with no evidence that suggested that the man who discovered the portrait knew what rice writing even WAS, or, if he did, that he or anyone he knew had time to practice it.

And you don't have any evidence that it was done by a supernatural deity either. I didn't claim it was rice-writing. I just said that if people can write that small, they can draw that small.

Going back to my initial question, what if there is no tangible evidence that he is the murderer? Just "faith"?

I'd think that the existence of the portrait itself is the evidence...


I don't think that the painter would have to know about rice-painting in particular to be able to do it. What is it anyway except painting on very small surfaces? Not exactly quantum physics. Didn't have time to practice it? There is evidence of that. You're looking at it in the painting.

There has to be tangible evidence if there's been a murderer. the body itself would be evidence. unless of course you're referring to a case in which the person just drops dead for no apparent reason, scientific, medical, you're looking at something unexplainable, correct? Therefore you wouldnt be able to charge the person in the first place. I dont see how this really relates to faith, though, seeing as we're talking in faith that a physical being did something. not a spiritual one.

And writing is a bit different than creating complicated pictures in extremely small spaces.

@Ivra: im talking about the eyes of the painting. within the eyes there are very very tiny images of people that had been made from a color that no dye could make at the time, as confirmed by a chemist who later won a nobel prize. In Detail:

Photographers and ophthalmologists have reported images reflected in the eyes of the Virgin.[40][41] In 1929 and 1951 photographers found a figure reflected in the Virgin's eyes; upon inspection they said that the reflection was tripled in what is called the Purkinje effect. This effect is commonly found in human eyes.[38] The ophthalmologist Dr. Jose Aste Tonsmann later enlarged the image of the Virgin's eyes by 2500x magnification and said he saw not only the aforementioned single figure, but rather images of all the witnesses present when the tilma was shown to the Bishop in 1531. Tonsmann also reported seeing a small family—mother, father, and a group of children—in the center of the Virgin's eyes.[38] In response to the eye miracles, Joe Nickell and John F. Fischer wrote in Skeptical Inquirer that images seen in the Virgin's eyes are the result of the human tendency to form familiar shapes from random patterns, much like a psychologist's inkblots—a phenomenon known as religious pareidolia.[42]

Richard Kuhn, who received the 1938 Nobel Chemistry prize, is said to have analyzed a sample of the fabric in 1936 and said the tint on the fabric was not from a known mineral, vegetable, or animal source.[38] In 1979 Philip Serna Callahan studied the icon with infrared light and stated that portions of the face, hands, robe, and mantle appeared to have been painted in one step, with no sketches or corrections and no apparent brush strokes.[43]

(From Wikipedia)

Time to put this baby to bed. These ARE ink blot tests.

Unretouched.

Retouched to show the "images". I think I see the Loch Ness monster.

Enlarged Image - from http://www.miraclehunter.com/marian_...upe/index.html

Note: These aren't from sites trying to debunk the images in the eyes. These are from people that think this actually shows anything.

What I meant is that there is no tangible evidence to suggest that Mr. Smith has committed the murder, but you have faith that he did. Can we convict him?

As for the physical and spiritual thing, there ids not even a shred of evidence to suggest that "spiritual" beings exist, and you must have something to back up such a preposterous suggestion.

Seems there's a reasonable explanation for this in the Wikipedia passage that you quoted.

This makes perfect sense. Dawkins talks about this too in the God Delusion. His own personal experience was included for that matter.

he doesnt have any proof that that was the reason. Especially since multiple people, unless psychologically alike, will probably see very different things in different inkblots.

Also, you didnt address the situation with the dye.

Exactly.


Thanks Jik.



And as I said before, it was unidentifiable in 1936...


Technology has progressed since then.

I think any anti-theists would've posted like hell if they found the dye. i'll research it, though...

And i dont see how that contributes to your point. Many different people saw one of two things. If it was the rorschach test effect, they would've seen different things for each different person.

That is the most likely reason. Far more likely than divine intervention anyway. As for seeing different things, it's true that different people will see different things... until they're told what to look for.


So a dye not known in 1936 remains unknown? I highly doubt it. If analyzed again, I'm sure they'll find what it is. You'll notice there's no, "Till date, there is no explanation" or whatever.