So, peacegirl, here is what you said:
Quote:
|
In order for a camera to work, light has to be striking the lens.
|
So the light has to be striking the lens. Now according to Lessans, if God were to turn on the sun at noon, we would see the sun immediately, but we would not see the neighbor standing next to us for eight and a half minutes.
So here is the scenario.
1. God turns on the sun at noon.
2. Your neighbor has a camera pointed at the sun.
3. The light has to be
striking the lens, according to you, for the camera to take a picture of the sun.
4. However, according to Lessans, even though we would see the sun immediately, when God turned it on, we would not see our neighbor for eight and a half minutes. So the light is not striking the neighbor until that much time has passed. If the light is not striking the neighbor, it’s also not striking the camera.
5. You now say that we take pictures in real time, just like seeing in real time. But you also say that the light has to be at the lens of the camera, in order to take a picture. But according to Lessans, the light will not be at the camera for eight and a half minutes, because that is how long it will take for the light to reach your neighbor, who is holding the camera. So the camera, according to Lessans, cannot take pictures in real time.
Therefore, you have contradicted your father’s claims. It behooves you to return to your original position, which was that while we see in real time, the camera takes pictures in delayed time. If you don’t return to your original position, you are in disagreement with Lessans.
However, if you
do return to your original position — that we see in real time, but cameras take pictures in delayed time — this position is wholly refuted by the fact that what we see, and the images made by cameras, are the same. That would be impossible if we saw in real time but took pictures in delayed time.
So either you are making a claim that contradicts plainly observed reality, or you are making a claim that contradicts Lessans.
Which is it, peacegirl? We’re dying to know.
By the way, you can't wriggle out of this jam by dismissing Lessans' claim here as "merely hypothetical." This just shows you don't know the meaning of "hypothesis." He is a making a claim of the fashion that: Assuming what I say is true, if x occuirs, we should expect y to happen. If y does not happen, then what Lessans says about the world is untrue. Since y does not happen, Lessans is wrong.