>>17783031
>Copper is NOT a rock.
Does pic related show both A) a rock and B) copper?

>Saying that copper is a rock is a lie. Saying that what Tacitus and Josephus describe are flying soldiers is not a lie.
Your objection to what I'm saying highlights exactly what I was trying to show in regards to how you described what was seen. It misses hugely important nuances and distinctions. Can the copper in copper ore be described as rock? Yes, but one of those "yes"s that you say with a deep sigh. Similarly, can these angels in the sky be described as "flying soldiers"? Yes...but you sigh even deeper with that yes.

Do you see what I'm saying? Without being strictly false, you can word anything such that it sounds unreasonable and outlandish. To most people, the claim "angels came at one of the most religiously significant moments in history, and we have solid evidence" doesn't sound unreasonable or outlandish, but like something interesting to look further into. Just as "we can put copper to interesting uses in logic circuits" doesn't sound unreasonable or outlandish. You have to leave out important nuances and start talking about flying soldiers and thinking rocks to make these sound outlandish and silly.

>Does not prove what you're trying to prove
It seems to to me, I even gave you the text highlighted. Can you explain why what was provided is insufficient?

>Nowhere did I mention generating rabbits in hats
Anon that's just a standard example of magic o_o Replace that with whatever else you have magic doing in your thought experiment

>Are those fundamental particles reducible to mathematically specified properties akin to those of actual fundamental particles?
Of course

>that are either inspired by natural phenomena or made up of whole cloth
Which do you believe to be more probable here with what was seen in Jerusalem?

>molecular composition of Vespasian's spit
Unknown, evaporated centuries ago.