Deity Existence - Page 69

Jikanu · 06-19-2009, 05:04 PM

But you would think that each different person would see something different than the previous though. not 2 different camps.

And you would think that the wikipedia article would say something like "However, the dye was discovered to be such and such in XXXX year by the chemist Whatshisname." or whatever. And from what i've found, though i havent searched long, it doesnt seem to have been explained yet. i'll keep looking though.

**Ivramire** · 06-19-2009, 05:06 PM

I truthfully didn't see anything in particular in the eyes.

Nada, despite all the suggestions as to what it was and the blown-up images of the paintings.

Jikanu · 06-19-2009, 05:10 PM

The only one that was magnified to the point where you could see very well had the outline in it so it was hard to leave up to interpretation, but i concede that point.

Also, the site that Hrae posted says the dye still hasnt been identified.

**Vasu** · 06-19-2009, 05:11 PM

Originally Posted by Jikanu

But you would think that each different person would see something different than the previous though. not 2 different camps.

What I'm saying is, if the magnified image was put up on display, the person who saw it first may not see anything special, but when somebody who sees a family comes about and tells them, "See, there's a guy there, and his kid!" And immediately there's a "Wow, you're right!" feeling. Like you said, it can be seen in many ways, but since this particular way is most desirable (?) for religion, it will be the most propagated.

Originally Posted by Jikanu

And you would think that the wikipedia article would say something like "However, the dye was discovered to be such and such in XXXX year by the chemist Whatshisname." or whatever. And from what i've found, though i havent searched long, it doesnt seem to have been explained yet. i'll keep looking though.

Well, if it was analyzed again, it might have been discovered. I doubt it's open to every chemist who comes by to observe it.

Jikanu · 06-20-2009, 02:34 AM

Originally Posted by Vasu

What I'm saying is, if the magnified image was put up on display, the person who saw it first may not see anything special, but when somebody who sees a family comes about and tells them, "See, there's a guy there, and his kid!" And immediately there's a "Wow, you're right!" feeling. Like you said, it can be seen in many ways, but since this particular way is most desirable (?) for religion, it will be the most propagated.

Well, if it was analyzed again, it might have been discovered. I doubt it's open to every chemist who comes by to observe it.

For your first point- that would be likely, if only tourists were visiting. However, multiple people studied in such subjects (im guessing at least some would be skeptics) observed the eyes and saw such images.

And do you have proof that it's not up for examination? im sure the church would like to reaffirm the uniqueness of the color.

Also, there's the subject of the fact that the image has lasted for what i believe has been several hundred years, while many copies have deteriorated.

**Hraesvelg** · 06-20-2009, 02:43 AM

That's it. I'm a believer now. I found a picture of Jesus.

Jikanu · 06-20-2009, 02:45 AM

*sigh* your sarcasm makes a point. obviously there's no way i can prove the eyes. However, the dye and remarkable longevity still has yet to be explained.

**Hraesvelg** · 06-20-2009, 02:47 AM

And since so far it has been unexplained, that means it's a miracle. Until it's explained. Then, all of the other unexplained stuff means it's a miracle. Welcome to the God of the Gaps.

Jikanu · 06-20-2009, 02:51 AM

What about the unexplainABLE? What about that which can't be unexplained? even if they FIND some kind of mineral which produces the dye created on the tilma, unless it's in mexico, there's no chance that Juan Diego or anyone he knew could've painted it. and even if it was in mexico, the chances are slim that he randomly found a flower that noone else knew about.

**Hraesvelg** · 06-20-2009, 02:55 AM

Which then, of course means, that it was a miracle and not that, y'know, someone else painted it. There are only sketchy accounts of the guy even existing, and nothing independent of the Catholic Church.

There isn't anything unexplainable. Everything can be explained. Maybe not right this moment, but there IS an explanation, and I have confidence it will be eventually discovered. I don't throw my hands up in defeat when things get difficult.