Mass delusion or genuine miracle?

[joe370]

Yes, indeed, it isnt relevant HOW God deceived people. I’m just making the point that IF it was a miracle THEN God deceived people. There’s no need to worry about the mechanics of the deception from my point of view.

Well, if you are going to stick with the word deception then all I can say is: Thank God for such glorious deceptions from God. I wish I could be deceived by God, like that everyday…

 

[Candide_West]

Well, if you are going to stick with the word deception then all I can say is: Thank God for such glorious deceptions from God. I wish I could be deceived by God, like that everyday…

Well, I can think of no more suitable a term. “tricked” seems too small for an event so large, “lied” implies verbally, “misled” tends to make people think it was unintentional, “fooled” and “dupe” seems rather insultIng to those who were present…

And yes, I’m pleased to hear that you’re happy to believe in a deceptive God. I was rather surprised initially, but I guess there’s no reason to be unduly concerned at the prospect.

 

[joe370]

Well, I can think of no more suitable a term. “tricked” seems too small for an event so large, “lied” implies verbally, “misled” tends to make people think it was unintentional, “fooled” and “dupe” seems rather insultIng to those who were present…

And yes, I’m pleased to hear that you’re happy to believe in a deceptive God. I was rather surprised initially, but I guess there’s no reason to be unduly concerned at the prospect.

How about simply saying: miracle with no natural explanation? However if you feel the word deception is a bit more apropos that’s cool.

It seems you would like everyone to call the event a deceptive act, but only in a positive way, so why are you surprised? You know what I really believe: MIracle I don’t mind it if you want to dress it up as a deception because in this case those two words are absolutely synonymous.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Ah, but words are powerful.

Deceptive has a perjorative connotation–the idea of deceit is that somebody tricks you. It’s a bad thing.

So calling God a deceiver is calling God bad–saying He does evil, bad things.

I don’t know about the rest of my fellow Christians, but I’m pretty sad when God is maligned, whether the person doing so uses words on a message board, or just ‘thinks’ them in his heart.

 

[Marc_Anthony]

How exactly did He deceive? Did He say He was going to physically move the sun? Or did He merely promise a miracle, in which case He made a miraculous event occur to make it appear that over Fatima, Portugal the sun was moving?

I’m apparently missing something with the deception thing here.

 

[Candide_West]

How about simply saying: miracle with no natural explanation? However if you feel the word deception is a bit more apropos that’s cool.

Yes, that’s another description although one that misses out what I would consider to be a very important element. “Miraculous deception” seems appropriate on the whole.

It seems you would like everyone to call the event a deceptive act, but only in a positive way, so why are you surprised? You know what I really believe: *I don’t mind it if you want to dress it up as a deception because in this case those two words are absolutely synonymous.

Just to be clear I don’t have any issues with your view of these events. You believe it was a miracle and are happy to accept the logical consequences of that belief.*

 

[Candide_West]

Ah, but words are powerful.
*
Deceptive has a perjorative connotation–the idea of deceit is that somebody tricks you. *It’s a bad thing.

Indeed it does, people in general don’t like having others make them believe things are true when they are not.*
*

So calling God a deceiver is calling God bad–saying He does evil, bad things.

Well, not necessarily. I think there are cases when deception is the correct thing to do. A previous example is where a man with a gun breaks into the house in the middle of the night and asks with obvious evil intent if your wife is at home. I would quite happily tell him she wasn’t even if I knew she was hiding in the house and I don’t think many people would say that this deception was immoral or evil.

Similarly its entirely possible that God might deceive people for their own good. This seems to be the view that Joe370 holds (please correct me if I’m wrong Joe).
*

I don’t know about the rest of my fellow Christians, but I’m pretty sad when God is maligned, whether the person doing so uses words on a message board, or just ‘thinks’ them in his heart.

Once again I haven’t (at least to my knowledge) maligned God. As far as I can tell all I have done is identified a logical conclusion of believing that the event at Fatima represents a miracle performed by God.*

Clearly personally I don’t believe that it was a miracle. But IF I were to believe it was a miracle THEN I would also have to accept that whoever was behind it had undertaken a deception.*

 

[Candide_West]

Hey Marc, how you doing?

How exactly did He deceive? Did He say He was going to physically move the sun? Or did He merely promise a miracle, in which case He made a miraculous event occur to make it appear that over Fatima, Portugal the sun was moving?

I’m apparently missing something with the deception thing here.

Well the deception in this case is simply making people believe that the sun was dancing when it was not. IF it was indeed a miracle THEN it was a deception.

You’re right though that it wasn’t a verbal deception and that’s why I didn’t use the term “lie”.*

 

[joe370]

Candide West

Similarly its entirely possible that God might deceive people for their own good. This seems to be the view that Joe370 holds (please correct me if I’m wrong Joe).

I would never use the word deceive when referencing the miracle of Fatima. However, in view of the fact that you won’t let go of the idea of God deceiving the folks at the cova (and when you say deceive you said you meant miracle - correct?) I decided to agree to be OK with the word deception regarding that awesome miracle that occurred in 1917.

When discussing the events of Fatima with other people I would never use the word deception for the simple fact that that word is usually used in a negative way.

I would say: God performed an action that is clearly beyond any sort of natural explanation, making it a miracle. Miracles can not be explained so calling it a deception is an opinion, and is not based on any factual information. If you want to assume that it was a deception on the part of God, who I am I to tell you otherwise.

 

[joe370]

Hey Marc, how you doing?

Well the deception in this case is simply making people believe that the sun was dancing when it was not. IF it was indeed a miracle THEN it was a deception.

You’re right though that it wasn’t a verbal deception and that’s why I didn’t use the term “lie”.*

If deception and miracle are synonymous then I would word it this way:

Well the miracle in this case is simply making people believe that the sun was dancing when it was not. IF it was indeed a miracle THEN it was a miracle.

 

[joe370]

quote=Candide West;9772012]Indeed it does, people in general don’t like having others make them believe things are true when they are not.*

You seem to be implying that the miracle aka deception that occurred at Fatima induced some sort of antipathy by the witnesses at the Cova (if in fact you are applying the following words to the event) and everyone knows the exact opposite reaction took place:

“…people in general don’t like having others make them believe things are true when they are not.”

If this is true then I would never call the events that went down at the Cova a deception.

Well, not necessarily. I think there are cases when deception is the correct thing to do. A previous example is where a man with a gun breaks into the house in the middle of the night and asks with obvious evil intent if your wife is at home. I would quite happily tell him she wasn’t even if I knew she was hiding in the house and I don’t think many people would say that this deception was immoral or evil.

That is necessary deception in my opinion, but not a miracle.

Once again I haven’t (at least to my knowledge) maligned God. As far as I can tell all I have done is identified a logical conclusion of believing that the event at Fatima represents a miracle performed by God.

After reading this post I do not believe that you have maligned God for the simple fact that you do not believe that the miracle, you call a “deception”, that took place at the Cova, was worked by God.

If I am wrong and you actually do believe it was the work of God:

When dealing with the miracle of Fatima which is entirely unexplainable, you have decided to draw, what you call, a logical conclusion, but that does not mean that you are right, for the simple fact that you cannot prove it. God could have done in a different way…in a way that is beyond our limited understanding, as mere finite creatures with limited intelligence.

Clearly personally I don’t believe that it was a miracle.

Well, since you do not believe that it was a miracle (I thought you did believe…) then I must refuse to agree with you by calling the miracle a deception.

If it was not a positive deception (something I was willing to concede since you were set on using that word to describe the miracle, or so I thought…I feel deceived…LOL…or I misunderstood) then it was not a deception at all.

To sum up for anyone on this thread:

The events of Fatima were purely miraculous in my humble opinion!

 

[Candide_West]

You seem to be implying that the miracle aka deception that occurred at Fatima induced some sort of antipathy by the witnesses at the Cova (if in fact you are applying the following words to the event) and everyone knows the exact opposite reaction took place:

Indeed, that’s why I said “generally” and not “always”. More mundane examples might be the little deceptions that couples or friends sometimes carry out on each other in order to be able to organise a surprise present or party etc.

That is necessary deception in my opinion, but not a miracle.*

Entirely agree, my point was simply that deception is not necessarily immoral or evil.

After reading this post I do not believe that you have maligned God for the simple fact that you do not believe that the miracle, you call a “deception”, that took place at the Cova, was worked by God.

ok.

If I am wrong and you actually do believe it was the work of God:

No, I do not. I do not believe in any gods or other supernatural entities.

When dealing with the miracle of Fatima which is entirely unexplainable, you have decided to draw, what you call, a logical conclusion, but that does not mean that you are right, for the simple fact that you cannot prove it. God could have done in a different way…in a way that is beyond our limited understanding, as mere finite creatures with limited intelligence.

Well I have presented a logical demonstration of why the miracle must have been a deception. Thus far nobody has identified any errors in my logic. Here it is again (broken up) for you to check if you like:

1. To deceive someone is to intentionally cause someone to believe something that is not true.
2. The people in Fatima believed the sun was dancing.
3. The people everywhere else believed the sun was not dancing.*
4. The sun could not be both dancing and not dancing simultaneously.
5. Therefore at least one of the groups in 2. and 3. believed something which was not true (either the sun was not dancing and some people believed it was, or it was dancing and some people believed it was not).
6. If the event at Fatima was a genuine miracle then God was ultimately responsible for the people in either 2. or 3. believing something which was not true (either giving people the impression the sun was dancing when it was not or giving people the impression it was not dancing when it was).
7. Given that God is considered to be omniscient, omnipotent and perfect he cannot do something unintentionally. So any act of his must be considered intentional (God cannot make a mistake).
8. Given 6. and 7. then God has deceived people as per the definition in 1. (God has either intentionally caused people to believe the sun was dancing when it was not or*intentionally caused people to believe the sun was not dancing when it was).

Well, since you do not believe that it was a miracle (I thought you did believe…) then I must refuse to agree with you by calling the miracle a deception.*

Er, I think we have a bit of a misunderstanding here. I assumed for the sake of discussion that the events at Fatima were a genuine miracle performed by God. If so then that means he deceived people. If on the other the events at Fatima were NOT a miracle then God DIDN’T deceive people there.*

If it was not a positive deception (something I was willing to concede since you were set on using that word to describe the miracle, or so I thought…I feel deceived…LOL…or I misunderstood) then it was not a deception at all. *

Hopefully this is not cleared up anyway, to summarise, if its a miracle then God deceived people. If its not a miracle then he didn’t (although he may of course still not exist).*

 

[joe370]

Candide West;9773199]

Well I have presented a logical demonstration of why the miracle must have been a deception. Thus far nobody has identified any errors in my logic. Here it is again (broken up) for you to check if you like:

1. To deceive someone is to intentionally cause someone to believe something that is not true.

1. The people in Fatima believed the sun was dancing.

1. The people everywhere else believed the sun was not dancing.*

1. The sun could not be both dancing and not dancing simultaneously.

1. Therefore at least one of the groups in 2. and 3. believed something which was not true (either the sun was not dancing and some people believed it was, or it was dancing and some people believed it was not).

1. If the event at Fatima was a genuine miracle then God was ultimately responsible for the people in either 2. or 3. believing something which was not true (either giving people the impression the sun was dancing when it was not or giving people the impression it was not dancing when it was).

1. Given that God is considered to be omniscient, omnipotent and perfect he cannot do something unintentionally. So any act of his must be considered intentional (God cannot make a mistake).

1. Given 6. and 7. then God has deceived people as per the definition in 1. (God has either intentionally caused people to believe the sun was dancing when it was not or*intentionally caused people to believe the sun was not dancing when it was).

From a human perspective this seems reasonable. From the perspective of God it is unreasonable. As far as I am concerned if God can create something (universe) from absolutely nothing then there is, absolutley a possible explanation that is not limited to your demonstration.

Er, I think we have a bit of a misunderstanding here. I assumed for the sake of discussion that the events at Fatima were a genuine miracle performed by God. If so then that means he deceived people. If on the other the events at Fatima were NOT a miracle then God DIDN’T deceive people there.*

So, you absolutely do not believe in a God, or any gods for that matter, but are simply, for the sake of the thread, assuming that a genuine miracle was performed by God at the cova, in Fatima. You did say that already but it slipped my mind; My bad…

Like you, only in reverse, this is the only logical conclusion that I can draw, but anyone else is free to believe otherwise:

Premise #1: Leave God out of the explanation:

If the event at the cova in Fatima was NOT a miracle then God is not responsible for whatever happened there, and therefore we should leave God out of the discussion. Moreover, there must be a natural explanation for the events, and up to now no one has ever put forth a possible natural explanation.

Premise #2 God worked the miracle:

If the event that occurred at the cova in Fatima was beyond any kind of natural explanation, as I believe, then it means that God performed a genuine miracle, and certainly miracles can be talked about, with possible theories as to how they happened, being bandied about, but the theoretical explanation, (and that is all it would be) for the miracle cannot be empirically proven, defined or understood; it’s simply speculation on the part of the person doing the speculating, e.g. you suggesting that it was a “deception” on the part of God! I myself would never claim to know, or even remotely understand how God did something that is so clearly beyond human understanding. After all, if God can create the entire universe from absolutely NOTHING, then God can manipulate creation as God see’s fit, even if we have no idea how God achieved it, just as we have no idea how God created the material universe from nothing. As an aside, I could NEVER logically conclude that something could come from nothing, but that is something that you believe, (I think) and that’s cool. Something (Universe - time and space) coming from nothing, without a creator, in my book would be the greatest miracle of all, making the miracle of Fatima seem like small potatoes. Of course that statement is clearly an oxy moron for miracles require a miracle worker…

 

[Candide_West]

From a human perspective this seems reasonable. From the perspective of God it is unreasonable. As far as I am concerned if God can create something (universe) from absolutely nothing then there is, absolutley a possible explanation that is not limited to your demonstration.

But we’ve already covered this Joe, the possibilities are:

1. It was not a miracle, thus this event tells us nothing about any gods or other supernatural entities.
2. It was the miracle it was claimed to be, and therefore God has deceived people.
3. The sun was both dancing and not dancing simultaneously therefore all reason and rational understanding of the universe are eliminated.

Those are the options. Please notice that there is no “God made people believe the sun was dancing when it wasn’t without deceiving them” on that list. Although thinking about it, it’s actually a logical contradiction much like 3, hence eliminating rationality.

So, you absolutely do not believe in a God, or any gods for that matter, but are simply, for the sake of the thread, assuming that a genuine miracle was performed by God at the cova, in Fatima. *You did say that already but it slipped my mind; My bad…

No worries.

Like you, only in reverse, this is the only logical conclusion that I can draw, but anyone else is free to believe otherwise:

Premise #1: Leave God out of the explanation:

If the event at the cova in Fatima was NOT a miracle then God is not responsible for whatever happened there, and therefore we should leave God out of the discussion. Moreover, there must be a natural explanation for the events, and up to now no one has ever put forth a possible natural explanation.*

Well I posted four possible natural explanations earlier on this thread (deliberate hoax, mass delusion, deliberate lie, atmospheric effect). That of course is assuming that what was reported accurately represents what the people present experienced, which is also of course far from certain.*

If we follow premise #1 then we have no choice but to admit that we don’t know exactly what happened and we probably never will.*

As I said before, if only it had happened now instead of back then, we would have hundreds, or perhaps thousands of video recordings and photos of the event as solid evidence of whatever happened. Alas we have only witness testimony and people make very poor witnesses.

For example in Britain recently there was a story of an lion having escaped and wandering around Essex. In the day or so it took for the police to confirm that there was in fact no lion at all half a dozen independent witnesses had spotted and reported it. Some describing it’s appearance and behaviour in detail.

People are highly suggestible, whether they wish to be or not. That’s one of the reason police take such care in conducting interviews of witnesses, its all too easy to make people remember things that never happened.

Premise #2 God worked the miracle:

If the event that occurred at the cova in Fatima was beyond any kind of natural explanation, as I believe, then it means that God performed a genuine miracle, and certainly miracles can be talked about, with possible theories as to how they happened, being bandied about, but the theoretical explanation, (and that is all it would be) for the miracle cannot be empirically proven, defined or understood; it’s simply speculation on the part of the person doing the speculating

Sure there’s no meaningful way to speculate on how God achieved the miracle IF it was a miracle

e.g. you suggesting that it was a “deception” on the part of God!*

Identifying that IF a miracle occurred THEN that miracle was a deception is NOT speculation. It’s simply describing the event.

Again, I’ve shown my logic, broken down into bitesized chunks. If you believe I’ve made an error then by all means state where and I’ll be more than happy to discuss. I’ve checked my reasoning repeatedly and can’t find an error yet, but it wouldn’t be the first time I made a mistake.

I myself would never claim to know, or even remotely understand how God did something that is so clearly beyond human understanding. After all, if God can create the entire universe from absolutely NOTHING, then God can manipulate creation as God see’s fit, even if we have no idea how God achieved it, just as we have no idea how God created the material universe from nothing.

Agreed, IF God exists then it is meaningless to try to understand how he did anything that he did. That’s why I don’t engage in speculation on potential motives or methodologies for God or any other supernatural entities.

As an aside, I could NEVER logically conclude that something could come from nothing, but that is something that you believe, (I think) and that’s cool.

Nope, I don’t know how the universe started and I’ve got no fear of admitting it. After all it’s only by admitting ignorance that we ever discover things.

I see no reason to believe that the universe was caused by absolutely nothing though. Just as I see no reason to believe that it was caused by some form of personal being, or by a teapot, or…

Hopefully our understanding of this beautiful universe in which we live will one day include a complete understanding of it’s origin. But I suspect we as a species are centuries or millennia away from such understanding as yet.

Something (Universe - time and space) coming from nothing, without a creator, in my book would be the greatest miracle of all, making the miracle of Fatima seem like small potatoes. Of course that statement is clearly an oxy moron for miracles require a miracle worker.

Out of interest, why do you posit “nothing” as a potential cause of the universe? I’m curious because this seems like an odd choice to me.

 

[joe370]

Candide West;9774506]But we’ve already covered this Joe, the possibilities are:

1. It was not a miracle, thus this event tells us nothing about any gods or other supernatural entities.

1. It was the miracle it was claimed to be, and therefore God has deceived people.

1. The sun was both dancing and not dancing simultaneously therefore all reason and rational understanding of the universe are eliminated.

Those are the options. Please notice that there is no “God made people believe the sun was dancing when it wasn’t without deceiving them” on that list. Although thinking about it, it’s actually a logical contradiction much like 3, hence eliminating rationality.

But we’ve already covered this Joe, the possibilities are:

1. It was not a miracle, thus this event tells us nothing about any gods or other supernatural entities.

1. It was the miracle it was claimed to be, and therefore God has deceived people.

1. The sun was both dancing and not dancing simultaneously therefore all reason and rational understanding of the universe are eliminated.

Those are the options. Please notice that there is no “God made people believe the sun was dancing when it wasn’t without deceiving them” on that list. Although thinking about it, it’s actually a logical contradiction much like 3, hence eliminating rationality.

Your list is not exhaustive by any means. Why would you think that your list is final? What is irrational to us certainly is not irrational to God, in my humble opinion. If you feel comfortable locking yourself in to those three options, that’s cool.

No on option number one, in my humble opinion.

Regarding option two, I agreed to use to word “deception” just as long as you understood that it was synonymous with miracle. I was merely attempting to placate since you were unwilling to bend. It was the miracle it was claimed to be, and therefore we should all be as inspired and moved as those folks present at the Cova were. It’s really quite simple.

Option three is not conclusive, for no one can prove what you are suggesting. I believe it to be a miracle, which of course is something beyond the scope of human intellectual capacity. Just because you and I cannot explain the how, does not mean that the creator of the universe cannot. Dimensionally speaking, in my opinion, comparing God’s intellect to us would be like comparing our intellect to an ameba, only multiplied by infinity for God is infinite and we are finite.

Continued…

 

[joe370]

Your list is not exhaustive by any means. Why would you think that your list is final? What is irrational to us certainly is not irrational to God, in my humble opinion. If you feel comfortable locking yourself in to those three options, that’s cool.

No on option number one, in my humble opinion.

Regarding option two, I agreed to use to word “deception” just as long as you understood that it was synonymous with miracle. I was merely attempting to placate since you were unwilling to bend. It was the miracle it was claimed to be, and therefore we should all be as inspired and moved as those folks present at the Cova were. It’s really quite simple.

Option three is not conclusive, for no one can prove what you are suggesting. I believe it to be a miracle, which of course is something beyond the scope of human intellectual capacity. Just because you and I cannot explain the how, does not mean that the creator of the universe cannot. Dimensionally speaking, in my opinion, comparing God’s intellect to us would be like comparing our intellect to an ameba, only multiplied by infinity for God is infinite and we are finite.

Continued…

 

[joe370]

Candide West

Well I posted four possible natural explanations earlier on this thread (deliberate hoax, mass delusion, deliberate lie, atmospheric effect). That of course is assuming that what was reported accurately represents what the people present experienced, which is also of course far from certain.

Of course anyone can simply assume that what was claimed to be reported accurately did not represent what the people present, experienced. Why would so many doubting scoffers e.g. newspaper companies, lie? To me that seems like the easy way out.

Option number one: a deliberately fabricated falsehood made to masquerade as truth? This is only a possibility, in my opinion, if in fact all of those folks (thousands which included atheists and scoffers) at the Cova were in on the hoax. I don’t think you really believe that…

Mass delusion: roughly 50,000 people, comprised of believers and big-time doubters, all sharing the same delusion? I cannot wrap my brain around that notion, and I really tried as a former agnostic.

Deliberate lie? The miracle itself, which was worked on the exact day predicted by the seers, belies the premise, in my opinion only of course. If that seems possible to you, then that’s cool. I understand that you are probably the type of person who has to see it firsthand in order to believe; I used to be like that…

Atmospheric effect? Supernatural atmospheric effect predicted by little children? Sure.

Natural atmospheric effect predicted by children? There was nothing natural about the event, so nah…

A natural atmospheric effect predicted by the children? Regarding such an accurate prediction, I suppose anyone could get lucky once but there was nothing natural about said event.

 

[joe370]

Candide West

Sure there’s no meaningful way to speculate on how God achieved the miracle IF it was a miracle.

It is also impossible to rationally explain how the supernatural atmospheric phenomenon occurred, especially in view of the fact that it was accurately predicted by the seers. The prediction alone is quite compelling.

Identifying that IF a miracle occurred THEN that miracle was a deception is NOT speculation. It’s simply describing the event.

You are describing the event using language that suggest to the reader, that what you say is provable. You and I cannot prove, definitively, that it was a deceptive act done by God or not done by God…It’s a good working theory I suppose, and if you can support it with tangible proof, then I will embrace it. :thumbsuperhaps we should just stick to what we can know to be accurate? For example, all we know is that the sun was dancing etc. etc. so let’s not use language that goes beyond what the witnesses described. The word miracle was definitely used by the witnesses…From that we can infer many things but that is it…I see a miracle…you see a deception, if in fact it was a miracle. It seems, but I could be wrong, when you refer to the supposed miracle as a deception, you are suggesting that less credence should be given.

quote]Again, I’ve shown my logic, broken down into bitesized chunks.

If you believe I’ve made an error then by all means state where and I’ll be more than happy to discuss.

I did…

I’ve checked my reasoning repeatedly and can’t find an error yet, but it wouldn’t be the first time I made a mistake.

OK. All that matters is that you are being true to you, and I believe you are…

Agreed, IF God exists then it is meaningless to try to understand how he did anything that he did. That’s why I don’t engage in speculation on potential motives or methodologies for God or any other supernatural entities.

It’s not meaningless per se; it’s simply impossible, unless of course God let’s us in on the how…

Nope, I don’t know how the universe started and I’ve got no fear of admitting it. After all it’s only by admitting ignorance that we ever discover things.

I see no reason to believe that the universe was caused by absolutely nothing though. Just as I see no reason to believe that it was caused by some form of personal being, or by a teapot, or…

Logically then, you believe that the universe, perhaps, was caused by something, as opposed to nothing, but until you can definitively know what that something is, you’d rather not speculate? That’s cool; most non-believers simply will not concede that point.

Hopefully our understanding of this beautiful universe in which we live will one day include a complete understanding of it’s origin. But I suspect we as a species are centuries or millennia away from such understanding as yet.

Even if we, one day, grasp the complexities of the universe in its entirety, one thing is for sure: we did not design it.

Out of interest, why do you posit “nothing” as a potential cause of the universe?

Just sharing with you what most atheists share with me… Or, they simply suggest that there was no beginning and that the universe just is, and always will be…

 

[Marc_Anthony]

Hey Marc, how you doing?

Fine, thank you.

Well the deception in this case is simply making people believe that the sun was dancing when it was not. IF it was indeed a miracle THEN it was a deception.

You’re right though that it wasn’t a verbal deception and that’s why I didn’t use the term “lie”.*

I don’t know…a miracle was promised. If you look through a kaleidoscope and see the world through a prism with jewels, would you feel deceived if it was removed?

God didn’t promise the sun would move (I’m assuming God through Mary, and assuming that their was a promise here). He promised a miracle. If God put a kaleidoscope, essentially, over Fatima and then removed it, is that a deception when He never mentioned the specifics of the miracle in the first place?

 

[dskysmine]

Ok, but that’s irrelevant isn’t it. What matters is what they perceived. And they perceived the sun dancing. You claimed that God disturbed the natural order in such a way as to make his presence known. But of course THAT is nothing like what the witnesses actually reported. Their statements said that they saw the sun dancing.*

Of course it’s not irrelevant. Why do you think only what they perceived is important?
Why isn’t it important for example that other people there did not witness the miracle?
Why is perception more important than reality?
Just because (some) people feel sad when listening to a music doesn’t invalidate that it used Minor Chords, even though only the musician knows what Minor Chords are. (From the group mentioned)
And what I said was that He made His presence interact with the Natural World, His Supernatural presence. Of course, since I do not know how the Supernatural “works” I cannot say beyond a reasonable doubt how it happened.

No worries, once again Merriam Webster lines up exactly as I use the term.*

Well of course they saw SOMETHING, even with your eyes shut you see something. Now what they SAID they saw was the sun dancing.*Unless we are going to throw out the witness testimony altogether then we have to work on the basis that what they said is what they perceived - the sun dancing.

We don’t seem to be in disagreement on this point, do we?

In this case no, unless you would argue for people lying.
We agree they said what they perceived.
What I was arguing about was the difference between what humans perceive and Supernatural reality.

I said that the Christian God cannot make a mistake and can’t be surprised by something. This is because the Christian notion of God is omnipotent and omniscient. So actually by saying that God is “all-knowing” the church DOES say that God cannot be surprised.*

If you disagree regarding Gods characteristics then please let me know. For example if the God you believe in isn’t omniscient then the problem evaporates. Just like Margaret in the train station. In all probability in the end God would be saying something like “woops… oh well, no harm done as it worked out”.

Your phrase assumed that you knew God’s intentions… that was what I was disputing.
You don’t even know my intentions by replying to you, how would you be able to “know” God’s intentions with the miracle if you don’t even believe in God?
It is merely a construct of what you think His intentions should be in case you were in His place… (Hubris much?)

Ahh, so it’s starting to look as if you believe God is NOT omniscient yes? I say this because if God was omniscient then clearly he would necessarily have expected this.*

Your construct of “what God’s relationship to humans is” is very anthropological.
Your whole understanding of this miracle makes it seem like God needed to “show off” with some petty magic trick. God doesn’t need anything. His Love towards us is unconditional.

Yes, what’s your point? He never gave a timescale so we can’t say any of those failed.*

Ach so…Doesn’t that argument apply to the Miracle of Fatima as well?

Right… I’m not sure I understand your point. I never said people can’t make mistakes, that would be silly.*

My point is that perception is not reality. You seem to conflate both.
(continuation next post)