The problem is not the lack of use of the direct testimony… it is that is it TESTIMONY!
And you seem to forget that.
Er… no. I remember it well. Indeed the fact that the witnesses testimony of what they saw does not match what actually happened is the point.
I already explained what it could be in my earlier posts. You have not yet struck at my argument… only the semiotics of it.
Well I’ve read back over them and I cannot see you present an alternative anywhere. Perhaps you would care to repeat it since this is a rather key element to the entire discussion.
It depends on what you mean by “cause”.
God is the Prime Mover, and the Cause for the Universe, so all things are caused by Him.
Don’t worry, I’m not using the term “cause” in the Aristotelian sense but rather in the common English language sense of the word.
What I meant was that the belief that “the sun had danced” was not caused by God in the way you are describing it, just like in my example where I jump and am mistaken by a giant.
In what way do you think I am using the term? Having read through your posts again I wonder if what you are arguing against is “cause” as in “cause using mind control”. If you thought that was what I was arguing then your arguments do make a bit more sense. Just to be clear I am not suggesting God used some kind of mind control. Indeed I have completely ignored God’s methodology in this act. It simply does not matter to my argument.
Imaginary position is your imaginary argument that does not follow reason.
I have already demonstrated the incoherence by attacking your premises and also understandings of God’s attributes.
Hehe, nope, I’m afraid my position is quite real and thus far you have not shown any incoherence at all (note that attacking my premises and descriptions of Gods attributes is not showing incoherence, even if you had succeeded).
Funny how you changed your “assumptions” now that I explained to you that your argument was flawed.
Actually they haven’t changed one whit. I’ve broken them down a bit more simply so you can understand them more easily, but they are still the same old assumptions.
And these assumptions do not follow to your conclusion.
Ok, then please go ahead and show this to be the case instead of just making another bald assertion.
Also, the first assumption is a series of several assumptions that you need to elaborate on to explain your position. You are putting together the definition of miracle, of causality, of perception, of the Supernatural, etc…
Indeed, but the only part of that which really matters is the part outside of the brackets. Essentially the assumption is “Fatima was a miracle”. All the rest of it is just an explanatory note. To avoid you getting tied up in misunderstandings again.
Because it simply doesn’t matter how, or why, or using what etc. If you think the definition of those terms is really important why don’t you propose definitions and I’ll check that they’re fine.
I have. For example in my last post.
Actually you didn’t, you said you didn’t like premise 6 because you thought it would conflict with free will and you said you didn’t like the wording in 7. You identified no errors.
I don’t want to know what the attributes are per se… I want to know what you read about them from the Catholic Church to use them in a completely incoherent way.
I want to know what is your understanding of them.
It is very easy to say “God is omniscient” but can you explain what you understand that it?
Omniscience is knowing everything. In other words saying that God is omniscience we are saying that nothing can be added to his knowledge, because it is already complete.
Not word for word, but it’s the only logical inference from what you said. So I thought I’d check if you meant what you wrote.
The problem here is with your use of Causality and Belief with regards to Free Will.
If I throw a pie at your face do I cause the belief in you that I am evil? Or is it something that you freely choose to believe?
No, that would be a strange inference indeed. If you throw a pie in my face and I see you do it, then you cause me to believe you threw a pie in my face. I do not “choose” to believe you threw a pie in my face, I believe you did it because I saw you do it.
Once again I wonder if you’re just obfuscating here.
No you are not… because when you talked about the “Salvation” you mentioned only those physical explanations of the event.
Because you only wrote about what people saw not being all the available information. You didn’t produce an example of something where what people saw was contrary to what was actually happening. Thus there is no analogue to the events at Fatima. This is not complicated, I struggle to see why you can’t get your head around it.
Arguments like (and I am paraphrasing) “Do you feel ok with God deceiving?”
or “Doesn’t God deceiving go against Church History?”
So… you agree that I haven’t attempted to argue that God is evil then? Once again we have already covered the fact that deception is not necessarily immoral and certainly isn’t sufficient for “evil”.
Fingers crossed we’ll have no more silly comments about me arguing things I’ve never said.
