Mass delusion or genuine miracle?

[flyinghouse]

70,000 people “witnessing” the event, vs 1.8bn other people not noticing a darn thing. Delusion, by any measure. Probably an atmospheric thing, probably inflated numbers of witnesses, probably “massaged” predicition dates, probably embellished witness statements and reportage.

Not a miracle.

Are you the same “wanstronian” who wrote this, because that would really explain a lot…

youtube.com/all_comments?threaded=1&v=_SFdUJLebzU&page=8

Abundant Mockery of religion is absolutely essential at every opportunity if we’re to rid ourselves of this superstitious nonsense and move forward as a species.
wanstronian 7 months ago

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Interesting ideas about the theory of ‘more than one sun miracles’ but has there even been a case outside of Fatima where there was a Catholic prediction that a ‘miracle’ was going to occur, then the sun-miracle occurred, was investigated by the Church and stated to be of supernatural causes?

For a comparison, think of a case where a person ceased breathing, heart stopped, etc. and was pronounced dead (perhaps on an OR table) and then after a period of time ‘revived’. Many will say that these are not miracles but occurred because of the heroic efforts of the hospital staff in providing the necessary actions to revive the patient.

Now, think of say Lazarus, or Jesus.

Instead of seconds or minutes going past before ‘revival’, days go by.

What could have been accomplished by ‘human efforts’ in reviving a seemingly or clinically ‘dead person’ in minutes, with effort, is accomplished in a much later time frame, well beyond what would be utllized in a case of clinical death,. ., and with no ‘outside’ involvement.

IOW, God can ‘create’ miracles from ‘ordinary’ things. Could that be one of the reasons that Fatima is deemed miraculous --not because cases of similar ‘sun dancing’ had existed but because this one occurred with ‘foreknowledge’ (that a miracle would occur) and with some differences apparently between it and the so-called ordinary sun dancing. . .

Just as the resurrection of a person who had ‘died’ a few minutes before and was revived with much medical technology is not thought a miracle, but the resurrection of a person who had died DAYS before and with NO technology or human or any other assistance (aside from God) would indeed be something ‘supernatural’ or miraculous?

 

[Candide_West]

I always wonder why there seem to be a lot of Christians who argue that Fatima was a genuine miracle.*

Let’s assume for the moment that it was a God generated miracle (clearly I don’t believe this to be the case, but for the sake of argument let’s assume that God exists and he really was responsible for the events reported at Fatima).

This creates something of a problem for Christian beliefs. Firstly, we know that the sun did not in fact move closer to the earth and “dance” around in the sky etc, because if it had everyone on earth would have seen it (including those in the Vatican observatory) and subsequently been incinerated as earths atmosphere ignited.*

So IF God in fact did something which made those people believe that this happened, then he mislead them. And (being God) he must have done so knowingly and deliberately. Surely knowingly and deliberately misleading people is lying? Hardly a characteristic that Christians traditionally associate with God.*

Secondly I regularly hear that we cannot put God to the test, so any scientific study into the power of prayer etc is doomed to fail by the simple fact that it is attempting to just that. This is used to show that the lack of empirical evidence for the existence of God is not a problem.*

Ok, but then at Fatima he seems to have indeed submitted himself to a test and provided empirical evidence of his existence. So it turns out it IS possible to put God under the microscope sometimes.*

It’s just a shame he didn’t wait a few more centuries until we could have had the means to record the event and make long term use of the evidence he provided.*

 

[atheistgirl]

Are you the same “wanstronian” who wrote this, because that would really explain a lot…

youtube.com/all_comments?threaded=1&v=_SFdUJLebzU&page=8

Wanstronian has been a member of this forum for more than three years.

It’s safe to assume then, he or she has conducted themselves appropriately on this forum, and in such a manner as to allow his or her membership to continue.

For you to haul up a comment from a totally unrelated site, and post it here, with the express view of calling into question this person, is truely giving scandal and uncharitable.

You don’t even know if it’s the same person.

And if it, so what?

Wanstronian has never made such comments here, and from what I can tell, has conducted themselves in a respectful if forthright manner.

From time to time I’ve been complimented on my politeness.

Want to see the memo I’ve just sent to a customer who’s been giving us the runaround regarding late payment for the past 6 months?

Want to see the cease and desist letter I’ve just sent a competitor?

My lawyers can’t even spell polite

Sarah x

 

[joe370]

Candide West;9657227]I always wonder why there seem to be a lot of Christians who argue that Fatima was a genuine miracle.*

Let’s assume for the moment that it was a God generated miracle (clearly I don’t believe this to be the case, but for the sake of argument let’s assume that God exists and he really was responsible for the events reported at Fatima).

This creates something of a problem for Christian beliefs. Firstly, we know that the sun did not in fact move closer to the earth and “dance” around in the sky etc, because if it had everyone on earth would have seen it (including those in the Vatican observatory)

Why?

…and subsequently been incinerated as earths atmosphere ignited.*

You seem to be assuming that God, the creator of the universe, has limitations? Nah… People have limitations; God can do anything.

So IF God in fact did something which made those people believe that this happened, then he mislead them. And (being God) he must have done so knowingly and deliberately. Surely knowingly and deliberately misleading people is lying?

I understand why you feel compelled to believe this…Since you do not believe that God exists, clearly you are not intending to insult God.

Secondly I regularly hear that we cannot put God to the test, so any scientific study into the power of prayer etc is doomed to fail by the simple fact that it is attempting to just that. This is used to show that the lack of empirical evidence for the existence of God is not a problem.*

OK…

Ok, but then at Fatima he seems to have indeed submitted himself to a test and provided empirical evidence of his existence. So it turns out it IS possible to put God under the microscope sometimes.*

Silly…

It’s just a shame he didn’t wait a few more centuries until we could have had the means to record the event and make long term use of the evidence he provided.

The event was recorded, just not to your satisfaction. Thanks for the feedback friend.

 

[Actaeon]

Never been repeated

So called Miracles of the sun (plural!) are well known - Fatima isn’t the only one, and the ‘‘conduct’’ of the sun and the observed events are very similar. It’s interesting that Fatima isn’t unique, and if it was miraculous, then the same miracle played out in several places over time.

What’s more likely - the same ‘‘miracle’’ repeated over and over, or people observing the same thing over and over because they are essentially seeing the same natural event?

So-called “miracles of the sun” were observed, for instance, in Tilly-sur-Seuilles (France,
1901), Fatima (Portugal, 1917), Onkerzeele (Belgium, 1933), Bonate (Italy, 1944), Espis
(France, 1946), Acquaviva Platani (Italy, 1950), Heroldsbach (Germany, 1949), Fehrbach
(Germany, 1950), Kerezinen (France, 1953), San Damiano (Italy, 1965), Tre Fontane (Italy,
1982) and Kibeho (Rwanda, 1983).

Several little problems with your source’s theory presented (so nicely!) there…

First, while the other places listed DID see annular eclipses, there was no eclipse in May 1917, especially not an annular one… not visible in ANY place in the world, much less fatima.

Second, annular eclipses are visible across a LARGE geographic area… thousands of kilometers wide, to be exact… and they traverse great distances too. If it were an annular eclipse, it would have been observed, likely even from the vatican observatory.

So, it wasn’t observed outside of an area FAR too small to attribute to an annular eclipse, and it doesn’t match the VERY accurate pattern by which scientists have mapped out solar eclipses all the way back to the 20th century BC…

Maybe scientists got it wrong, though… maybe there was an annular eclipse and it was just missed by everyone. That leads us to the description of what an annular eclipse looks like: and that description that you gave us is UTTERLY wrong. How do we know it’s wrong? Because you can watch annular eclipses in videos since they are quite common, and you can see all kinds of photos of them. Here’s a little factoid: they look NOTHING like what was reported here as attributable to annular eclipses.

Finally, let’s go back and look at those descriptions… the ones that he says all of these “miracles” have in common. Not surprisingly, we find that all of those descriptors he uses are from Fatima and Fatima ONLY.

Tilly-Sur-Seulles? Nope, the people claimed to see full bodies in the sky (disfiguring as time went on.

Onkerzele? Nope, while it was ONE visionary, Albert De Vos making her reports… which were quickly discredited. There is no similarity to Fatima here.

Bonate? Nope, again, one woman claiming to have seen an apparition, but no visions having to do with the sun.

Espis, France? Again, one person claiming apparitions, no miracle of the sun here.

Acquaviva Platani? Nope, again, ONE person claiming to have seen apparitions, not anything in the sky.

I’m skipping a few to go to the end, since they’re all similar: Kibeho, Rwanda: a few children seeing apparitions, but again, no vision in the sky.

So in all of those cases, only ONE of them had to do with anything appearing in the sky… and it’s description is TOTALLY different (and only seen by a very few). So I reiterate that the miracle at Fatima is totally without precedent and has never been seen since.

I also note that your source is garbage and encourage you to find a better one… one which, say, has time to research to find out that there was NO annular eclipse before asserting that that’s the answer…

 

[atheistgirl]

First, while the other places listed DID see annular eclipses, there was no eclipse in May 1917, especially not an annular one… not visible in ANY place in the world, much less fatima.

Did you read the article.

Annular eclipses are discounted

I also note that your source is garbage and encourage you to find a better one… one which, say, has time to research to find out that there was NO annular eclipse before asserting that that’s the answer…

Oh the references are great.

I have tons.

Pro and anti - from both Church and secular sources.

On balance, I see no reason what ever to assume anything miraculous happened.

And while the Church approves of Fatima, it, to it’s credit, does not require even the Catholic faithful to believe it.

Which is a good position to hold, I think.

Sarah x

 

[Al_Moritz]

I always wonder why there seem to be a lot of Christians who argue that Fatima was a genuine miracle.*

Let’s assume for the moment that it was a God generated miracle (clearly I don’t believe this to be the case, but for the sake of argument let’s assume that God exists and he really was responsible for the events reported at Fatima).

This creates something of a problem for Christian beliefs. Firstly, we know that the sun did not in fact move closer to the earth and “dance” around in the sky etc, because if it had everyone on earth would have seen it (including those in the Vatican observatory) and subsequently been incinerated as earths atmosphere ignited.*

So IF God in fact did something which made those people believe that this happened, then he mislead them. And (being God) he must have done so knowingly and deliberately. Surely knowingly and deliberately misleading people is lying? Hardly a characteristic that Christians traditionally associate with God.*

I will repeat what I said before:

We have discussed the miracle here:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=9541188#post9541188

Go to post #397 and continuing on the next page.

It was not an astronomical event, but probably a meteorological event. No sun descending to Earth and scorching it, no misleading by God. Please read that earlier discussion.

 

[flyinghouse]

No, it wouldn’t have. If the girls had said that at exactly X time, the sun would spin like a disk, appear to approach the earth, and throw off rays of various colors, then that would only fuel an argument from atheists that their specificity had CAUSED a mass delusion (and I would actually give that theory credence).

The fact that no one knew what to expect, were spread out for miles, and all saw relatively the same thing at the same time is MORE impressive than if the girls had been so specific as to cause people to want to see a specific something at a specific time.

It’s really sad that you actually have to explain something this clear, isn’t it? Not that they don’t already know this deep down but still.

That’s entirely inaccurate, because the only REASON there was a miracle was because the children were doubted in their story. The majority of church officials thought the children were lying, possibly trying to spread heresy. They were there to see the children fail… not succeed.

And even that ignores some historical facts:

1. Not everyone present “saw” the miracle. Many believers reported that they hadn’t seen it, while many sceptics reported that they had. All told, only somewhere between half to two thirds of the people present saw anything (approx 35,000 to 45,000 people). If it were an “atmospheric event”, as you claim, not only would EVERYONE have seen it, but believers would not have been excluded.
2. People as far away as 20 miles, who weren’t even aware of the prediction, still saw something and approximated the time to be the same as that of Fatima. Again, this was not universal witnessing (showing that it wasn’t an atmospheric event)… but these people had no opportunity to be bias towards a miracle (showing that it wasn’t some sort of instituted delusion)

This is the part so many people seem to just love to overlook. A lot of the people gathered there, if not most, were atheists/freemasons and other assorted know-it-alls who didn’t believe the children in the first place. For those skeptics, just as those today, all they wanted was another opportunity to mock religion and engage with each other in more self-congratulation afterwards. Of course in that situation it was a lot worse because the detractors didn’t even have to put on any sort of facade of civility, as demonstrated by the atheist-controlled government abducting the children in prison and threatening to boil them in oil if they didn’t “admit” they were lying.

As courageous as it was for the children to hold firm in the face of such abuse, I really wish we could have seen what the greater miracle would have been that was prevented because of that. I also would have loved seeing what kind of bizarre mental gymnastics people who came after would undergo so they could continue to bury their heads in the sand, because the excuses they piece together now just to explain the “consolation prize miracle” we ended up with are amazing as it is.

 

[Candide_West]

Why?*

Er… “because if it had everyone on earth would have seen it (including those in the Vatican observatory)”

You seem to be assuming that God, the creator of the universe, has limitations? Nah… People have limitations; God can do anything.*

Nope he can’t do logical contradictions. So he can’t create a four sided triangle, he can’t create married bachelors, he can’t do an action and simultaneously not do it. So for that reason he can’t simultaneously drag the sun closer to the earth and also not do it. He can’t move the sun closer to Fatima but not move it closer to Rome (without ripping Fatima from the planet).*

So if he did shift the sun around then he deliberately hid the fact from everyone else on the planet (deception) if he did not do it but made the people at Fatima believe he did then it was them he deceived.*

One way or the other you’ve got God deliberately deceiving people.

I understand why you feel compelled to believe this…Since you do not believe that God exists, clearly you are not intending to insult God. *

Well, you’re right I’m not insulting God, I am assuming what others have said is correct for the sake of discussion and following that to its conclusion. If someone deliberately misleads someone I call that lying. I guess that those who say he did a miracle at Fatima kinda are insulting him by implication because they are saying he deceived people. I’m sure they don’t intend to though.

• OK…

Silly…

Not at all, unless of course you are saying that none of the 70,000 people at Fatima came along for the purpose of just seeing if something would actually happen? In other words to test for evidence of the existence of God? Perhaps even came along with the expectation of seeing nothing happen*and by implication get evidence of non-existence (or heresy).

Otherwise you have got a good start on the scientific method, the girls made a testable prediction, if the story about Fatima is true then God delivered on their prediction to an (at least partially) sceptical audience. So he submitted himself to a prediction and test cycle - the scientific method.*

Terribly nice of him, fingers crossed he does it again at some point.

The event was recorded, just not to your satisfaction. Thanks for the feedback friend.

Er, well for the extent of the recording is irrelevant to this post since I’ve assumed that it actually happened. But surely from your point of view it would better if it had happened now, because we’d have hundreds of video recordings, thousands of photos, and endless other data showing that the impossible had happened and was predicted in advance. In other words rock solid evidence of a genuine miracle and (due to the prediction in advance) good support for Catholicism being true.*

Alas at the time when it supposedly did happen they had no means of actually recording the event. So the evidence is pretty flimsy.*

 

[Candide_West]

I will repeat what I said before:

It was not an astronomical event, but probably a meteorological event. No sun descending to Earth and scorching it, no misleading by God. Please read that earlier discussion.

Er, but if it was a meteorological event which God made happen in such a way as to make people think it was an astronomical event then it is still a deliberate deception. This is because (being God) he couldn’t have “accidentally” created that impression, he must have known in advance exactly what impression people would get, so the miracle he provided was crafted to give a false impression to the observers. That’s still deception.*

Unless of course I’ve misunderstood you and you’re actually saying that there was no miracle hence God is blameless for the mistake the observers made? In which case I’d tend to agree.

 

[Marc_Anthony]

I always assumed it was something along the lines of an optical illusion in the sky, which God made more miraculous with physical effects

 

[joe370]

Candide West;9658618]Er… “because if it had everyone on earth would have seen it (including those in the Vatican observatory)”

I see…

Nope he can’t do logical contradictions.

I personally refuse to limit God’s power; moreover, I see no logical contradictions.

So he can’t create a four sided triangle…,

I understand why you feel this way…

he can’t create married bachelors, he can’t do an action and simultaneously not do it. So for that reason he can’t simultaneously drag the sun closer to the earth and also not do it.

But God can create the infinite universe from absolutely nothing?

So if he did shift the sun around then he deliberately hid the fact from everyone else on the planet

Ergo the miracle.

Well, you’re right I’m not insulting God, I am assuming what others have said is correct for the sake of discussion and following that to its conclusion. If someone deliberately misleads someone I call that lying.

Are you referring to 3 little children misleading…lying?

I guess that those who say he did a miracle at Fatima kinda are insulting him by implication because they are saying he deceived people. I’m sure they don’t intend to though.

I definitely give you points for originality….

Not at all, unless of course you are saying that none of the 70,000 people at Fatima came along for the purpose of just seeing if something would actually happen? In other words to test for evidence of the existence of God? Perhaps even came along with the expectation of seeing nothing happen*and by implication get evidence of non-existence (or heresy).

Atheists like yourself were certainly convinced…How do you explain the rapid drying of the ground and the clothes? Those eyewitnesses of post 19 were lying or delusional?

Otherwise you have got a good start on the scientific method, the girls made a testable prediction, if the story about Fatima is true then God delivered on their prediction to an (at least partially) sceptical audience. So he submitted himself to a prediction and test cycle - the scientific method. Terribly nice of him, fingers crossed he does it again at some point.

Fatima was not meant to be a scientific experiment…

Er, well for the extent of the recording is irrelevant to this post since I’ve assumed that it actually happened.

Unless you see with your own eyes…I understand your incredulity…

But surely from your point of view it would better if it had happened now, because we’d have hundreds of video recordings, thousands of photos, and endless other data showing that the impossible had happened and was predicted in advance. In other words rock solid evidence of a genuine miracle and (due to the prediction in advance) good support for Catholicism being true.*

If it had happened that way would you believe in God? Just curious…

 

[Al_Moritz]

Er, but if it was a meteorological event which God made happen in such a way as to make people think it was an astronomical event then it is still a deliberate deception. This is because (being God) he couldn’t have “accidentally” created that impression, he must have known in advance exactly what impression people would get, so the miracle he provided was crafted to give a false impression to the observers. That’s still deception.*

Unless of course I’ve misunderstood you and you’re actually saying that there was no miracle hence God is blameless for the mistake the observers made? In which case I’d tend to agree.

It does not seem you have made the effort to read the older discussion that I linked to. Please do so.

 

[Candide_West]

I see…

I personally refuse to limit God’s power; moreover, I see no logical contradictions. *

Er, I’ve explained the logical contradiction. He would have had to simultaneously do AND not do an action. That is a logical contradiction.*

Incidentally if you believe that he can do that then the universe loses its intelligibility because you have to throw the law of non-contradiction in the bin.

I understand why you feel this way…*

Yes, because it’s the position commonly held regarding Gods omnipotence (he can do anything which is logically possible). Otherwise you have no way out of all the paradox’s of omnipotence.*

But God can create the infinite universe from absolutely nothing?

Well I don’t personally believe that, no, perhaps you do? either way it’s not a logical contradiction in the way that simultaneously acting and not acting is.*

Ergo the miracle. *

So you are saying that for you the miracle WAS that he deceived people?

Out of interest how do you square your belief in a deceptive God with the other features of the Christian God?*

Are you referring to 3 little children misleading…lying?*

Er, no. I think I’ve been quite clear that if the miracle happened then it means God deceived people. I’ve made no statements or judgements regarding the statements made by the children present.

I definitely give you points for originality….

Why? Other people say God tricked people into believing something happened when it didn’t and you think it’s original to notice that this is deception?*

Atheists like yourself were certainly convinced…How do you explain the rapid drying of the ground and the clothes? Those eyewitnesses of post 19 were lying or delusional?*

??? I don’t, for the purpose of discussion I’ve assumed that it was a genuine miracle. The problems I have raised apply only IF this is true.*

Fatima was not meant to be a scientific experiment…*

And yet the way it occurred meant that people could and did use it as such. If God did the same thing now we’d have our first solid empirical evidence for his existence. God happily putting himself under the microscope.

Unless you see with your own eyes…I understand your incredulity…

I think perhaps you misunderstood my post. I’ve assumed it DID happen for the sake of discussion. So in fact I am being credulous here.*

If it had happened that way would you believe in God? Just curious…

You mean if there was solid evidence that it happened and how it happened etc? Well I guess it depends on specifics, but it would certainly meet my criteria for evidence, so quite possibly yes.*

 

[Candide_West]

It does not seem you have made the effort to read the older discussion that I linked to. Please do so.

Thanks, but no thanks.

Virtually every subject discussed on here has been raised before, and I suspect the thread you linked to wasn’t the first on this topic either. I’ve raised a few points which I think are noteworthy, if you wish to respond to those points please do so. If you do not wish to respond to them then that’s fine too.

Either way I’m not going to get into a discussion about a previous discussion about this topic, I’d rather just discuss the topic at hand.

 

[Holly3278]

I believe it really was a miracle. I don’t think the sun actually danced though. Maybe something miraculous happened to the atmosphere which made it appear to dance.

 

[Al_Moritz]

Thanks, but no thanks.

Virtually every subject discussed on here has been raised before, and I suspect the thread you linked to wasn’t the first on this topic either. I’ve raised a few points which I think are noteworthy, if you wish to respond to those points please do so. If you do not wish to respond to them then that’s fine too.

Either way I’m not going to get into a discussion about a previous discussion about this topic, I’d rather just discuss the topic at hand.

This is just plain silly.Why should I repeat explanations that I have given earlier? Or do you want me to copy and paste? Thanks, but no thanks.

I have responded to the points you raised already there, in discussion format. I don’t see why I should mindlessly repeat an earlier discussion.

 

[Poof]

And even that ignores some historical facts:
1)** Not everyone present “saw” the miracle. Many believers** reported that they hadn’t seen it, while many sceptics reported that they had. All told, only somewhere between half to two thirds of the people present saw anything (approx 35,000 to 45,000 people). If it were an “atmospheric event”, as you claim, not only would EVERYONE have seen it, but believers would not have been excluded.

Name three.

 

[Candide_West]

This is just plain silly.Why should I repeat explanations that I have given earlier? Or do you want me to copy and paste? Thanks, but no thanks.

I have responded to the points you raised already there, in discussion format. I don’t see why I should mindlessly repeat an earlier discussion.

Then don’t.*

It’s entirely your choice whether you wish to be part of this discussion or not. If you’ve previously discussed this topic to your satisfaction then I can well understand you not being interested in doing so again.*