Mass delusion or genuine miracle?

[dskysmine]

Incorrect, the clear difference here is that in one case people allegedly lacked all the information (about blood sacrifice being part of Gods plan) while in the other people saw something happening which was not happening.

And once again God cannot evade responsibility for people misinterpreting him. Because he must have known in advance that they would “misinterpret” him, thus it was not a misinterpretation.

It’s so funny when you talk about God’s responsibility.
It really sounds like you have a beef with God, more than not believing Him.
I would argue that in both cases People do not understand the connection between the Natural and the Supernatural.

Which part do you find difficult to understand?*

The part where you say they are nothing like each other.

What question? I’ve followed the trail back through trying to locate a question I haven’t answered but failed.

The care to explain the difference between my definition of Illusion and what Merriam Webster’s 2.b(1) is.

Not as far as I can tell. Looking back the exchange seems to have been your mysterious statement in post 192, my query what you meant, your accusation of conflating, my clarification and repeat of query, your statement that you’ve already explained.*

If it’s not important then please don’t worry about it.

I explained it in post 200.You misinterpreted it in post 202 by changing what I said in what you interpreted it to be. Similar to what we are discussing now.

Actually there’s no problem with considering an image to be an object in terms of usage in English. Incidentally you’ll note that both 1b(1) and 1b(2) also refer to deception and neither of those are obsolete or referring to objects.

There is a problem in applying it to this situation… because God didn’t show them the “old woman, young woman” optical illusion.
I don’t care what 1b(1) or 1b(2) refer to. I told you what my use of the word Illusion was in this case. If we were talking in my native language maybe I would use another word. How is it my fault that Merriam Webster or the English language don’t have more words to deal with Natural and Supernatural relation?

Great, so we’ve got as far as agreeing (for the sake of discussion):

1. The sun didn’t dance.
2. People perceived that the sun danced.
3. God created a supernatural influence that caused 2. even though 1. was true.

Now all that remains (as far as I can tell) is to determine if God did so deliberately and knowingly (deception) or not (error).*

We don’t agree on point 3 as you are writing it at least. Especially because perception is a subjective experience and causation for me has an objective connotation.
Your understanding of God’s influence is not the same as mine.
God caused the Supernatural to influence the Natural world. The perception part was completely subjective on the part of the people there. God cannot “cause” people’s subjective experiences, or that would nullify Free Will. I used “cause” because people’s subjective experiences are only possible in a Caused Universe created by God, but it is not the same thing.

Ok, well as I said the relevant bits of what I read about what the catholic church says about God are that 1. He is omnipotent and 2. He is omniscient.

As I’ve said repeatedly, if you disagree with one of these then let me know and I’ll happily adjust accordingly.*

God actually can be said to have more attributes, but for the purpose of this discussion it doesn’t help us to go into it very deeply as we cannot agree on His existence.

Well I was a Christian for decades, so it’s not so much “putting myself in the shoes of” but rather “remember being”.

Memories of your Christian experience cannot be compared to what Christian Faith is.
Maybe I can use the old cliche: People don’t believe the Catholic Church because of misunderstandings regarding what it is She actually says.

Well not quite, I don’t believe that any gods exist, so I don’t see any need to conjecture upon their potential motives. But if one does exist and is perfect / omniscient / omnipotent etc then clearly such a being clearly cannot do something accidentally.

Well, but you did. And you are clearly still doing it.
If God really “wanted them to see the sun dancing” then why did some people there not see it?
Hard to explain that huh?

Thanks, kind of you to say.

Well, Grace saves us. And I do hope for your salvation, as for the salvation of many.
Take care.
I’m getting married on Monday so I might not come before that.
D.

 

[Candide_West]

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.

Well as yet neither you or I, or as far as I know anyone else has been able to identify a logical option beyond those 3.

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…

Well, yes in this case “the miracle” is the name we use to refer to “God causing people to believe the sun was dancing when it was not” which is deceiving them (by definition). Thus in this case “the miracle” certainly is synonymous with “deception”.

Of course in other cases where God has allegedly healed people “the miracle” there would not be synonymous with deception (unless he didn’t actually heal anyone but just made some people think he had healed them).

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…

No problem, our lack of knowledge of Gods methodology doesn’t affect our ability to identify suitable labels in the English language for his actions. For example if he made something we can correctly call it “creation”, if he changed something we can correctly call it an “action” if he made people believe something which is not true we can correctly call it “deception”.

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.

Well we don’t know why I’m afraid. Just like we don’t know why those people in Essex reported having seen and positively identified a lion when there was none. But it happened. Just like we don’t know why Frédéric Bourdin (a 23 year old French man) was accepted as being a 16 year old American boy by government officials and the boys family in 1997. But it happened.

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…

No, the hoax here would be to actually fake something, not just get people to lie. It would have been difficult to achieve all the affects reported, but of course it wouldn’t be necessary to achieve all of them, people naturally embellish when reporting as groups.

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.

Would need a common factor for them to see the same thing, perhaps someone yelling for them to look at the sun?

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…

Well, thats the point isn’t it, if it was a deliberate lie then nothing need have happened at all on that day. We have photos of a few dozen people and as far as i have seen a similar number of personal accounts of the event. If we actually had 70,000 consistent, authenticated accounts then we’d have a lot better evidence than a few dozen accounts saying that there were 70,000 people saw it (for that matter it would help if the accounts we have were actually consistent).

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.

As I said that seems unlikely to me, but still a possibility, there are a number of known affects which produce odd affects in the eye when looking at the sun. So with a little embellishment it could indeed have been natural. What makes it unlikely is the prediction.

Of couse the prediction is also a problem if it was a miracle as well, because it’s an example of God letting humans put him to the test. Which as far as I can tell we are usually told he doesn’t do.

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…

True, because I cannot prove that it was a miracle. What I have demonstrated is that IF it was a miracle THEN God deceived people.

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.

No, not necessarily. It is just a question of being clear that a consequence of believing that it was a miracle is believing that God deceived people.

 

[Candide_West]

I did…

Er, sorry I must have missed that post. Could you repeat for me by any chance? Which of the 8 points do you disagree with?

Logically then, you believe that the universe, perhaps, was caused by something, as opposed to nothing,

Not quite, I think it is likely that the universe was caused by something. I wouldn’t say I have a particular “belief” either way.

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.

That’s about the size of it, IF the universe was caused by something, then at present I have no means to determine what that something was. So am not in a position to speculate about it.

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

True.

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…

Interesting, I find that a surprising position personally, but each to their own i guess.

 

[Candide_West]

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?

Well no, because I’d know I was looking through a kaleidoscope. If on the other hand someone convinced me something was true when it was not, then I discovered it… Then yes, certainly I would feel that I’d been deceived.*

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?

No, the deception is that he caused people to believe the sun was dancing when it was not. If he had wanted to impress people without deceiving them he could have produced a huge glowing ball and did whatever he wanted with it, but without making it look like it was the sun.

 

[Candide_West]

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?

Ah, perhaps you’ve forgotten what i was writing about? It was about the fact that people couldn’t explain what they saw. My point was that it doesn’t matter that they couldn’t explain what they saw, the key factor is the difference between what they perceived and what was happening in reality. THAT is how we know that if there was a miracle then it means God deceived people.

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.

Again, that isn’t a problem, people didn’t perceive some supernatural thing dancing. They perceived the sun dancing. Since the sun isn’t from some supernatural reality we don’t need to worry about peoples perceptions of a supernatural reality, if such a thing exists.

Your phrase assumed that you knew God’s intentions… that was what I was disputing…It is merely a construct of what you think His intentions should be in case you were in His place… (Hubris much?)

No, I’m afraid you’ve misunderstood. You see IF what the church says about God is correct (ie that he is omnipotent, omniscient and perfect) then he logically CANNOT make a mistake (otherwise he isn’t omnipotent, omniscient and perfect). So I have assume that he DIDN’T make a mistake at Fatima. If he DIDN’T make a mistake, then what happened must have been what he intended to happen. That is all.

Once again if you disagree with the church position on Gods attributes (for example you believe he does sometimes make mistakes) then please tell me so. Otherwise we have no choice but to assume that Gods actions always successfully achieve his intentions.

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.

Not sure where you are getting this from, I have said nothing about God “showing off” or anything remotely like it.

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

Afraid not, because he gave the impression that the sun WAS dancing. If he’d shown up in person and said “I will make the sun dance” then this argument would apply just fine.

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

Nope, afraid you’ve missed the point a bit there, you see the key thing is the difference between perception and reality. That is the whole point of my posts, that is why we must conclude that if it was a miracle then God deceived people. I am absolutely not conflating the two.

It’s so funny when you talk about God’s responsibility.
It really sounds like you have a beef with God, more than not believing Him.

Afraid not, I don’t believe in any Gods or other supernatural entities. However, for the sake of brevity and avoiding repetition I am assuming the existence of God in these posts. My (name removed by moderator)ut on this thread throughout has been in this vein.

There is a problem in applying it to this situation… because God didn’t show them the “old woman, young woman” optical illusion.

Indeed not, the illusion in this case was much more sophisticated (assuming for the moment that God used an illusion and not a hallucination or delusion to achieve the result).

I don’t care what 1b(1) or 1b(2) refer to. I told you what my use of the word Illusion was in this case. If we were talking in my native language maybe I would use another word. How is it my fault that Merriam Webster or the English language don’t have more words to deal with Natural and Supernatural relation?

Er it isn’t, but neither is it my fault that deception is part of the definition of illusion.

I hadn’t realised that English wasn’t your first language (I’m very impressed by the quality of your English writing by the way). How about to avoid the whole issue with the meaning of the term “illusion” we just use the logic I presented in post 291??? that doesn’t make use of the term illusion at all and demonstrates quite effectively why the miracle should be considered to be a deception. If you disagree with any of the steps in the logic then please let me know.

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 (giving people the impression the sun was dancing when it was not).
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 intentionally caused people to believe the sun was dancing when it was not).

 

[Candide_West]

God actually can be said to have more attributes, but for the purpose of this discussion it doesn’t help us to go into it very deeply as we cannot agree on His existence.

Indeed, but those attributes alone are sufficient to show that if there was a miracle then it was a deception. So there’s no need to go into his other attributes.

Memories of your Christian experience cannot be compared to what Christian Faith is.
Maybe I can use the old cliche: People don’t believe the Catholic Church because of misunderstandings regarding what it is She actually says.

Yes, I’ve heard that one plenty of times, although if so they church really doesn’t help itself. As i found when i was Christian myself, the more questions you ask and the further you look the more vague and mysterious the answers become.

Well, but you did. And you are clearly still doing it.
If God really “wanted them to see the sun dancing” then why did some people there not see it?
Hard to explain that huh?

Nope, piece of cake. As I said, it’s just down to Gods attributes. If he is as described, then clearly he cannot do something accidentally. Therefore if he does something it must have been deliberate (by definition). So if he caused people to believe that the sun was dancing when it was not, then he MUST have intended to do so. That’s not conjecturing upon motives, that’s straightforward logic.

As always, if you can spot a flaw (ie you can see some way that God can do something accidentally without it being an accident) then please let me know.

Well, Grace saves us. And I do hope for your salvation, as for the salvation of many.
Take care.
I’m getting married on Monday so I might not come before that.
D.

Congratulations on your wedding. Have a great day and all the very best for your future lives together.

 

[Marc_Anthony]

Well no, because I’d know I was looking through a kaleidoscope. If on the other hand someone convinced me something was true when it was not, then I discovered it… Then yes, certainly I would feel that I’d been deceived.*

What was he trying to convince them of, though? That there was a miracle. And there was.

I mean, it was pretty clear immediately afterward this this didn’t occur the world over. He didn’t deceive them, because nobody, obviously, Has been deceived-they all knew it occurred directly over Fatima.

 

[dskysmine]

Ah, perhaps you’ve forgotten what i was writing about? It was about the fact that people couldn’t explain what they saw. My point was that it doesn’t matter that they couldn’t explain what they saw, the key factor is the difference between what they perceived and what was happening in reality. THAT is how we know that if there was a miracle then it means God deceived people.

No you didn’t…
You said that they explained it as the sun dancing and stopped at that.
MY point was that that explanation (because it used Natural elements) wasn’t appropriate to describe Supernatural events.
And as far as I know you don’t say anything about what happened “in reality” so you can’t really say that it was God deceiving people.

Again, that isn’t a problem, people didn’t perceive some supernatural thing dancing. They perceived the sun dancing. Since the sun isn’t from some supernatural reality we don’t need to worry about peoples perceptions of a supernatural reality, if such a thing exists.

I didn’t say that “the sun dancing” is the Supernatural “thing”. I said that the “sun dancing” because is not a Natural phenomenon, is the perception that people had of the Supernatural Event (the miracle), the Supernatural Event I cannot explain…

No, I’m afraid you’ve misunderstood. You see IF what the church says about God is correct (ie that he is omnipotent, omniscient and perfect) then he logically CANNOT make a mistake (otherwise he isn’t omnipotent, omniscient and perfect). So I have assume that he DIDN’T make a mistake at Fatima. If he DIDN’T make a mistake, then what happened must have been what he intended to happen. That is all.

Once again if you disagree with the church position on Gods attributes (for example you believe he does sometimes make mistakes) then please tell me so. Otherwise we have no choice but to assume that Gods actions always successfully achieve his intentions.

My friend, you continue to insist that God “wants” people to think that “the sun dances”. That doesn’t make sense. You are trying to debunk a position that nobody in the Catholic side has. I’m getting seriously tired of attacking an imaginary position. Either you stand by your atheistic side and explain what your position is regarding the miracle or, if you want to take a theistic position, become a theist. Your whole construct of what God did and intended to do presupposes that you believe in God, but you do not, and that’s why your arguments are completely nonsensical to both sides.

Not sure where you are getting this from, I have said nothing about God “showing off” or anything remotely like it.

It was your position that God intended people to know He could make the sun dance. Was it not?

Afraid not, because he gave the impression that the sun WAS dancing. If he’d shown up in person and said “I will make the sun dance” then this argument would apply just fine.

When He died in the cross He didn’t say that He was saving us. Why does it not apply?

Nope, afraid you’ve missed the point a bit there, you see the key thing is the difference between perception and reality. That is the whole point of my posts, that is why we must conclude that if it was a miracle then God deceived people. I am absolutely not conflating the two.

It’s not the whole point of your argument at all. Before I said anything about perception you never mentioned it. Your argument is that “if God exists He is Evil” (not paraphrasing, but concisely it is). That’s because you are already presupposing the conclusion.

Afraid not, I don’t believe in any Gods or other supernatural entities. However, for the sake of brevity and avoiding repetition I am assuming the existence of God in these posts. My (name removed by moderator)ut on this thread throughout has been in this vein.

Of course it has, that’s because you believe that the Judeo-Christian God is Evil. I’m pretty sure that must have been your main argument to become an atheist.

Indeed not, the illusion in this case was much more sophisticated (assuming for the moment that God used an illusion and not a hallucination or delusion to achieve the result).

What was more sophisticated? You don’t argue for any"thing". Your argument is based on intentions… not on the situation.

Er it isn’t, but neither is it my fault that deception is part of the definition of illusion.

Not of THE definition, part of one of the definitions.
(cont. next post)

 

[dskysmine]

I hadn’t realised that English wasn’t your first language (I’m very impressed by the quality of your English writing by the way). How about to avoid the whole issue with the meaning of the term “illusion” we just use the logic I presented in post 291??? that doesn’t make use of the term illusion at all and demonstrates quite effectively why the miracle should be considered to be a deception. If you disagree with any of the steps in the logic then please let me know.

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 (giving people the impression the sun was dancing when it was not).
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 intentionally caused people to believe the sun was dancing when it was not).

I accept premise 1.
I don’t accept premise 2, at least not universally for all the people there (but for the sake of discussion I will accept for the ones that did).
I accept premise 3.
I accept premise 4.
I accept premise 5.
I don’t accept premise 6 or 7.
Have you read the Bible? Almost all of the Old Testament is a “game” of God wanting people to follow the law and worshiping Him and the people failing miserably and God having to remember them that if they follow Him they will be happy. Rinse and repeat… ad infinitum.
Conclusion 8 doesn’t follow.
As I said… if you don’t believe in God you don’t know what God’s attributes mean. You are looking at them from a materialistic perspective. You still show the same kind of logical conscience of atheists that say that God is not omnipotent if He cannot make a hotdog so hot that He cannot eat it.

Indeed, but those attributes alone are sufficient to show that if there was a miracle then it was a deception. So there’s no need to go into his other attributes.

Yes, I’ve heard that one plenty of times, although if so they church really doesn’t help itself. As i found when i was Christian myself, the more questions you ask and the further you look the more vague and mysterious the answers become.

Just like Science… the more you think you know… the more you realize there is to know.

Nope, piece of cake. As I said, it’s just down to Gods attributes. If he is as described, then clearly he cannot do something accidentally. Therefore if he does something it must have been deliberate (by definition). So if he caused people to believe that the sun was dancing when it was not, then he MUST have intended to do so. That’s not conjecturing upon motives, that’s straightforward logic.

As always, if you can spot a flaw (ie you can see some way that God can do something accidentally without it being an accident) then please let me know.

Funny how you didn’t even answer the question.
I was asking regarding the people there in Fatima that were among the ones that saw the miracle but did not see it themselves.

Congratulations on your wedding. Have a great day and all the very best for your future lives together.

Thank you very much for the wishes, but it is hard to know if that is a good wish or not given that your definition of good is so different than mine.
God bless,
D.

 

[buffalo]

Virgin Mary appears to +500,000 people in Egypt!!

Virgin Mary appears on top of a Coptic Orthodox Church in Egypt for a period of two years.

 

[atheistgirl]

Virgin Mary appears to +500,000 people in Egypt!!

Virgin Mary appears on top of a Coptic Orthodox Church in Egypt for a period of two years.

I think it was more to do with lighting than anything else

youtube.com/watch?v=rFZfWWeAGiM

Sarah x

 

[koolpc]

As far as i am concerned it was a miracle.

If God can make that happen to the sun, then god can also make sure that no harm comes to the earth as a whole. Also, i am sure god in his infinite wisdom could let the rest of the word see what they normally see while others see a different sight.

 

[Candide_West]

No you didn’t…*
You said that they explained it as the sun dancing and stopped at that.*

I said nothing of the sort. I said (accurately) that the witness testimony states that they saw the sun dancing.*

And as far as I know you don’t say anything about what happened “in reality” so you can’t really say that it was God deceiving people.

Once again, that doesn’t matter. There are two possibilities. Either the sun was not dancing and God caused people to believe it was. Or the sun was dancing and God caused people to believe it was not. (Assuming it was a miracle of course).

My friend, you continue to insist that God “wants” people to think that “the sun dances”. That doesn’t make sense.*

If God caused people to see the sun dancing, then he did so intentionally, unless of course he made a mistake, in which case he’s not perfect. I’m not sure why you’re struggling with this so much.

You are trying to debunk a position that nobody in the Catholic side has. I’m getting seriously tired of attacking an imaginary position.*

Then by all means cease doing so. I must admit I’m getting a bit tired of repeatedly redirecting you to what I’ve actually written.

Either you stand by your atheistic side and explain what your position is regarding the miracle or, if you want to take a theistic position, become a theist.*

I already have explained my position and I have no desire to become a theist thankyou. The whole point of my (name removed by moderator)ut on this thread is to explore hypothetically the logical results if we assume for the sake of discussion that the events at Fatima represent a genuine miracle.*

Thus far I’ve had some people accepting the logic and a number of people rejecting my conclusion. But as yet no errors or omissions in my logic have been identified.*

Your whole construct of what God did and intended to do presupposes that you believe in God, but you do not, and that’s why your arguments are completely nonsensical to both sides.

Incorrect, again we’ve covered this. The only thing my argument presupposes is that Fatima was a genuine miracle and the catholic church correctly describes Gods attributes.*

It was your position that God intended people to know He could make the sun dance. Was it not?

Nope, my position is that IF God caused people to believe the sun was dancing then he must have intended to cause people to believe the sun was dancing.*

When He died in the cross He didn’t say that He was saving us. Why does it not apply?

Because we are told that he actually DID die on the cross. If on the other hand he’d made it look like he had, but hadn’t really, then the situation would have been equivalent and in that case he would indeed have been deceiving people.

It’s not the whole point of your argument at all. Before I said anything about perception you never mentioned it. Your argument is that “if God exists He is Evil” (not paraphrasing, but concisely it is). That’s because you are already presupposing the conclusion.

Nope, not even remotely. If you genuinely think that then you have not understood a single one of my posts on this thread. Once again I am forced to wonder if you are being deliberately obtuse.

Of course it has, that’s because you believe that the Judeo-Christian God is Evil. I’m pretty sure that must have been your main argument to become an atheist.*

Again, not even close. If you really have misunderstood everything I’ve written so totally, please could I suggest you go back to the start and read my posts again.

What was more sophisticated? You don’t argue for any"thing". Your argument is based on intentions… not on the situation.

Nope, my argument is based on God causing people to believe something which was not true. The fact that he must have done so intentionally is just a consequence of Christian beliefs about Gods attributes. Again I feel I’ve been very clear about this point.

Not of THE definition, part of one of the definitions.

Or more accurately it’s in 4 / 7 of the parts of the definition. With the remaining parts being synonymous. Once again, how about we avoid the difficulty with use of the term “illusion” by simply not using it. It’s an efficient and practical use of the term the way I used it originally, but the point I’ve made still works fine without it.

 

[Candide_West]

I accept premise 1.
I don’t accept premise 2, at least not universally for all the people there (but for the sake of discussion I will accept for the ones that did).

Great, I’m happy with that.

I accept premise 3.
I accept premise 4.
I accept premise 5.
I don’t accept premise 6 or 7.*

Excellent, I think we’re finally getting some progress. Now could you try to identify what out of 6. and 7. you disagree with please, and preferably why as well.*

Conclusion 8 doesn’t follow.

Ok, again, please show this to be true then.*

As I said… if you don’t believe in God you don’t know what God’s attributes mean. You are looking at them from a materialistic perspective.*

Incorrect, I understand them just fine. And I have asked you repeatedly to correct me in Gods attributes if you disagree with them. Thus far you have not done so.*

You still show the same kind of logical conscience of atheists that say that God is not omnipotent if He cannot make a hotdog so hot that He cannot eat it.

Not at all, indeed amusingly, I have many times corrected theists in making that error (including on this thread).

Just like Science… the more you think you know… the more you realize there is to know.

Well actually it’s more like the opposite to science. The more you get to know the more you realise how little there is to know.*

Funny how you didn’t even answer the question.*
I was asking regarding the people there in Fatima that were among the ones that saw the miracle but did not see it themselves.

Ah, sorry thought you were still asking about why God couldn’t have done it accidentally.*

Don’t know why some people didn’t see anything. It’s difficult to know without first knowing why some people did see something. This of course makes no difference whatsoever to the point I’ve made on this thread.

Thank you very much for the wishes, but it is hard to know if that is a good wish or not given that your definition of good is so different than mine.
God bless,
D.

Interesting, do you have some odd definition of “good” then which is deviant to everyone else’s use of the term? (Once again I use the term as per standard dictionary definitions).

 

[Candide_West]

What was he trying to convince them of, though? That there was a miracle. And there was.

Well I’m only going on the witness testimonies, but they seem to have been pretty convinced the sun was dancing when it wasn’t. I’ve accepted for the sake of discussion that this deception represents a genuine miracle.*

I mean, it was pretty clear immediately afterward this this didn’t occur the world over. He didn’t deceive them, because nobody, obviously, Has been deceived-they all knew it occurred directly over Fatima.

So you’re saying that if I cause you to believe something which is not true and you find out from somewhere else that’s it’s not true quite quickly (within a few days - the kind of time it might have taken the people to discover the sun hasn’t really danced) then I haven’t deceived you?*

So for example if we were waiting to cross the road and you (for whatever reason) asked me “are there any cars coming” and I said “no” and you realised a couple seconds after you stepped off the curb that there was (as it hit you)… I haven’t deceived you right?

 

[Cinette]

I tend to agree… the catastrophic consequences of ACTUAL solar motion creating very lasting physical effects, combined with the fact that the majority of mankind never saw the sun move, makes it more or less clear that, while tens of thousands SAW the sun move, that it in fact remained in place.

But I always jump to point out what you touched on in your first sentence: that just because it was a mass delusion, it was no less miraculous. Tens of thousands of people seeing the same thing, including thousands of people who were NOT present with others (to be influenced into a delusion) and totally unaware of the predicted miracle to come… well, a “delusion” like that would, in and utterly of itself, be a miracle!

*I like to look at Fatima in its totality. How about the fact that within a short time the ground was dry after the rain?

We also see the children intimidated and threatened with death in boiling oil and they did not budge - they would not yield. These were illiterate young children. The predictions also were proved true. The little ones died as predicted and Lucia spent her entire life in religious life. Anyone with doubts should perhaps think again. *

 

[dskysmine]

I said nothing of the sort. I said (accurately) that the witness testimony states that they saw the sun dancing.*

Yes, but you stopped at that.

Once again, that doesn’t matter. There are two possibilities. Either the sun was not dancing and God caused people to believe it was. Or the sun was dancing and God caused people to believe it was not. (Assuming it was a miracle of course).

I disagree with these two possibilities. That is the falacy of False dillema. Those are not the only two choices.

If God caused people to see the sun dancing, then he did so intentionally, unless of course he made a mistake, in which case he’s not perfect. I’m not sure why you’re struggling with this so much.

The premise “God caused the people to see the sun dancing” is not true.

Then by all means cease doing so. I must admit I’m getting a bit tired of repeatedly redirecting you to what I’ve actually written.

That’s because you haven’t made a coherent argument.

I already have explained my position and I have no desire to become a theist thankyou. The whole point of my (name removed by moderator)ut on this thread is to explore hypothetically the logical results if we assume for the sake of discussion that the events at Fatima represent a genuine miracle.*

The problem with your hypothesis is that you are assuming way too many things. I can also assume A, B or C, and neither of them being true. If you want to assume that God exists for your hypothesis you have to assume that your conception of what God is might be wrong.

Thus far I’ve had some people accepting the logic and a number of people rejecting my conclusion. But as yet no errors or omissions in my logic have been identified.*

I have several times told you what premises are wrong in your logic. If the logic is wrong, then the conclusion cannot follow.

Incorrect, again we’ve covered this. The only thing my argument presupposes is that Fatima was a genuine miracle and the catholic church correctly describes Gods attributes.*

Seriously?
Then please tell me where are you fetching the description for “God’s attributes” from the Catholic Church. Provide quotations.

Nope, my position is that IF God caused people to believe the sun was dancing then he must have intended to cause people to believe the sun was dancing.*

As I said, the premise “Cause people to believe the sun was dancing” is incorrect.

Because we are told that he actually DID die on the cross. If on the other hand he’d made it look like he had, but hadn’t really, then the situation would have been equivalent and in that case he would indeed have been deceiving people.

You are comparing the wrong situations.
I compared “the Salvation in the cross” with “the miracle of Fatima”. Several men died in crosses, only One saved us.

Nope, not even remotely. If you genuinely think that then you have not understood a single one of my posts on this thread. Once again I am forced to wonder if you are being deliberately obtuse.

I am not being obtuse… I am following your twisted logic. Tell me how is it wrong?
(cont).

 

[dskysmine]

Again, not even close. If you really have misunderstood everything I’ve written so totally, please could I suggest you go back to the start and read my posts again.

Nope, my argument is based on God causing people to believe something which was not true. The fact that he must have done so intentionally is just a consequence of Christian beliefs about Gods attributes. Again I feel I’ve been very clear about this point.

Again… your argument is flawed. If your argument was true Free Will would not exist.

Or more accurately it’s in 4 / 7 of the parts of the definition. With the remaining parts being synonymous. Once again, how about we avoid the difficulty with use of the term “illusion” by simply not using it. It’s an efficient and practical use of the term the way I used it originally, but the point I’ve made still works fine without it.

You cannot honestly think that all definitions of one word are synonyms. Where did you study English?

Great, I’m happy with that.

Excellent, I think we’re finally getting some progress. Now could you try to identify what out of 6. and 7. you disagree with please, and preferably why as well.*

In premise 6 I don’t agree with the premise because it is deterministic. It is completely opposed to Free Will. If God causes people to believe people are not Free to believe in Him, it would make religion pointless as much as atheism.
Premise 7 I just don’t like the wording you used for the attributes of God. And I am not sure how you mean them because we already know that your definition of Omniscient is different than mine.

Ok, again, please show this to be true then.*

Incorrect, I understand them just fine. And I have asked you repeatedly to correct me in Gods attributes if you disagree with them. Thus far you have not done so.*

I have corrected you, I have said God does not “cause” beliefs as you attribute them. I have told you that God does not interfere the way you put it with our Free Will. You cannot see it.

Not at all, indeed amusingly, I have many times corrected theists in making that error (including on this thread).

Well actually it’s more like the opposite to science. The more you get to know the more you realise how little there is to know.*

Apparently you think that Church History is getting thinner…

Ah, sorry thought you were still asking about why God couldn’t have done it accidentally.*

Don’t know why some people didn’t see anything. It’s difficult to know without first knowing why some people did see something. This of course makes no difference whatsoever to the point I’ve made on this thread.

Well in your Hypothesis you have to include those people… or else it fails.

Interesting, do you have some odd definition of “good” then which is deviant to everyone else’s use of the term? (Once again I use the term as per standard dictionary definitions).

Well Merriam Webster’s definition of good is very subjective (not the definition per se, but what it characterizes - agreeable, favorable, etc…). I don’t consider “Good” to be subjective. So when I wish you a good life, I wish that you have a life that allows you to experience the Divine and reach Salvation. That may include a lot of pain and unagreeable experiences… I don’t know God’s plan for you. It can also be a life of fame and tenderness.
Good evening,
D.

 

[Marc_Anthony]

So for example if we were waiting to cross the road and you (for whatever reason) asked me “are there any cars coming” and I said “no” and you realised a couple seconds after you stepped off the curb that there was (as it hit you)… I haven’t deceived you right?

If you tell me, “Something is about to happen on the road” and I see a car, but then I look it up later and realize that people were projecting car holograms on the road I would not feel deceived, no. I’d think it was pretty cool, actually.

 

[Cinette]

This Doh :doh2: moment was brought to you courtesy of Atheistgirl and Revisionist History Incorporated. Please visit her website for details on how to build your very own 1920’s color digital tv, using soap and spiral pole barn nails :hypno:

Shuuuusssshhhhh!!!

Sarah x

*Hello little Atheistgirl! I do not condemn you for being atheist. My husband was an atheist for a long, long time and was the most moral person I know. He was both sexy and moral. He converted in 2004 and today is a daily communicant. Who says this won’t happen to you? You never know!

*