Mass delusion or genuine miracle?

[joe370]

No, not at all. You see deception is not “doing something that defies all logic and explanation”, or “an action that breaks the laws of physics”. If that were required for deception then people would be incapable of it.*

Deception is "deliberately leading someone to believe something is true when it is not ".

So there is nothing deceptive about walking on water. Very impressive sure, but not deceptive. On the other hand leading people to believe you are walking on water when you are not IS deception. It is of course still very impressive, but no less deception for that fact.*

If God is infinitely all powerful, all knowing, all-omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent etc. etc., and can do anything even if we cannot possibly grasp the means by which God achieves the miracle, then God could do something that defies all logic and explanation; perform an action that breaks the laws of physics; after all it’s all God’s creation. In a nutshell, Gos has no limitations in terms of power. Heck, God created everything within the universe from nothing.

 

[zro_x]

Exactly. Hence the theological problem for Christianity.*

And yet Christians DO use that defence for why there is no evidence of God. For example when scientific studies into the power of prayer are carried out the results have shown no evidence of an effect.*

Yes, I’m sure it would be life changing, but nonetheless deception for that fact.*

I know you believe that. Of course if that is correct then it was also a deception. We’ve already gone over this. I’m not sure why you’re covering the same ground again?*

Yup

It provides no theological problem if you look at it the way I described.

God did decieve the people who did not see the sun dance, but this can hardly be called deception as it is strictly God’s buisiness who sees the miracles. consider the following analogy:

Suppose steve not only has the power to make people see whatever he wants them to, but he also has the power to actually pull objects out of thin air. He meets his friend at a crowded public corner and shows his friend his ability. However, Steve wants to hide this ability from everyone else on the corner, so makes them see that nothing unusual is going on. Is this deception? only in the strictest sense of the word.

There is another thing I’d like to bring up. I don’t know what Catholicism teaches on this subject, but I don’t see God as a moral objectivist. Rather, I see him as a pure utilitarian. God commands us to live a morally objective life because that is the best way we can bring about the greatest good with our limited knowledge. God however, being omniscient, knows exactly what will occur from any given scenario, and so he can opperate on pure utilitarianism. As C.S. Lewis says, God will do whatever it takes to save our soul, at whatever the cost to ourselves, at whatever the cost to him, and whatever the cost to others (except possibly for sacrificing the souls of two others to save yours). If that means deception or even physical death, so be it. You have to remember that our God has commanded us to commit genocide in the past. What’s an action that can hardly be described as deception in comparison?

 

[Candide_West]

Do you actually believe in a creator aka God? Just curious…Or do you believe that the material universe (time and space) is the product of nothing?*

Neither. Again I thought we’d covered this? I don’t believe in the existence of any deities. And I don’t know how the universe started. I don’t see any more reason to guess that it is the product of “nothing” than any other possibility.

I.e., putting limitations on God’s omnipotent power. Since you don’t understand how God did it, it must have been an act of deception; I understand…

Evidently you do not understand. This is surprising to me since (again) we’ve been over this already. The possibilities are either.

1). It was not a miracle
2). It was a miracle, God made the sun look like it was dancing to the people at Fatima when it was really behaving normally (deception)
3).*It was a miracle, God made the sun look like it was behaving normally to the people everywhere except Fatima when it was really dancing (deception)
4). It was a miracle, the sun was both dancing and not dancing simultaneously (no deception but the law of non-contradiction fails).

I’ve assumed for the sake of discussion that 1). is incorrect. Options 2). and 3). are both forms of deception and if 4). is true then we must accept that nothing is knowable and all logic and reason worthless (because even if we managed to establish that something is TRUE, we would not be able to establish that it was not also FALSE). In other words if 4). is correct then it is also incorrect.

And proof of God…?

Proof is for alcohol and mathematics. If we want to know things about the real world we need evidence.*

 

[Candide_West]

It provides no theological problem if you look at it the way I described.

God did decieve the people who did not see the sun dance, but this can hardly be called deception as it is strictly God’s buisiness who sees the miracles. consider the following analogy:

Sure, I’ve not got an issue with that approach. I’ve not claimed that deception is necessarily immoral (in fact I specifically argued that under certain specific circumstances it is morally required earlier in this thread).

As I said it only creates a theological problem if a religion claims that "the deity is morally perfect and deception is immoral". Drop either and there’s no problem.

There is another thing I’d like to bring up. I don’t know what Catholicism teaches on this subject, but I don’t see God as a moral objectivist. Rather, I see him as a pure utilitarian. God commands us to live a morally objective life because that is the best way we can bring about the greatest good with our limited knowledge. God however, being omniscient, knows exactly what will occur from any given scenario, and so he can opperate on pure utilitarianism. As C.S. Lewis says, God will do whatever it takes to save our soul, at whatever the cost to ourselves, at whatever the cost to him, and whatever the cost to others (except possibly for sacrificing the souls of two others to save yours). If that means deception or even physical death, so be it. You have to remember that our God has commanded us to commit genocide in the past. What’s an action that can hardly be described as deception in comparison?

Interesting, a bit off topic for this thread though and not something I’ve thought about enough to comment upon. I think I’ll leave that one to others more well versed in moral theology.*

 

[zro_x]

Sure, I’ve not got an issue with that approach. I’ve not claimed that deception is necessarily immoral (in fact I specifically argued that under certain specific circumstances it is morally required earlier in this thread).

As I said it only creates a theological problem if a religion claims that "the deity is morally perfect and deception is immoral". Drop either and there’s no problem.

ahh. well, in that case, I agree.

 

[joe370]

Ok…

Evidently you do not understand. This is surprising to me since (again) we’ve been over this already. The possibilities are either.

1). It was not a miracle
2). It was a miracle, God made the sun look like it was dancing to the people at Fatima when it was really behaving normally (deception)
3).*It was a miracle, God made the sun look like it was behaving normally to the people everywhere except Fatima when it was really dancing (deception)
4). It was a miracle, the sun was both dancing and not dancing simultaneously (no deception but the law of non-contradiction fails).

We covered this…It was a miracle and miracles are beyond our comprehension.

I’ve assumed for the sake of discussion that 1). is incorrect. Options 2). and 3). are both forms of deception and if 4). is true then we must accept that nothing is knowable and all logic and reason worthless (because even if we managed to establish that something is TRUE, we would not be able to establish that it was not also FALSE). In other words if 4). is correct then it is also incorrect.

Option one (minus the word not) is correct in my opinion. To me it seems as though you are over-complicating things, but that’s cool. I believe in God, and I believe that nothing is impossible for God, even if we remain clueless.

Proof is for alcohol and mathematics. If we want to know things about the real world we need evidence.*

Exactly, which is why Christians live by faith not evidence or proof.

 

[Candide_West]

Ok…

We covered this…It was a miracle and miracles are beyond our comprehension.

Option one (minus the word not) is correct in my opinion. To me it seems as though you are over-complicating things, but that’s cool. I believe in God, and I believe that nothing is impossible for God, even if we remain clueless.

Sure, if you don’t want to think any more deeply into the subject then that’s not a problem, there’s nothing saying you MUST follow logic to all to the conclusions and accept them. Simply ignore the implications if you please but equally please don’t argue that others don’t have the right to think more deeply into it (“over-complicate things”) if we wish to and challenge the results of our thinking on the basis that you simply choose not to engage in it yourself.

Exactly, which is why Christians live by faith not evidence or proof.

Sure, and I’ve got no issue with people choosing to do that.

 

[itullian]

excuse me my friends.

has any mention been made about the prediction of the two childrens early deaths given Lucia by Mary?

isnt that pretty incredible?
how was that explained?

thanks

 

[Candide_West]

excuse me my friends.

has any mention been made about the prediction of the two childrens early deaths given Lucia by Mary?

isnt that pretty incredible?
how was that explained?

thanks

Because Lucia only made the prediction in 1927. Years after their deaths.

As with “predicting” the great aurora and the start of the second world war in 1941, by that time it wasn’t much of a prediction any more.

 

[itullian]

Because Lucia only made the prediction in 1927. Years after their deaths.

As with “predicting” the great aurora and the start of the second world war in 1941, by that time it wasn’t much of a prediction any more.

is that true?

she told the prediction AFTER they had already died?

 

[Candide_West]

is that true?

she told the prediction AFTER they had already died?

Yup. From memory the other two died in 1919 and 1920 respectively.

 

[joe370]

Sure, if you don’t want to think any more deeply into the subject then that’s not a problem, there’s nothing saying you MUST follow logic to all to the conclusions and accept them. Simply ignore the implications if you please but equally please don’t argue that others don’t have the right to think more deeply into it (“over-complicate things”) if we wish to and challenge the results of our thinking on the basis that you simply choose not to engage in it yourself.

Sure, and I’ve got no issue with people choosing to do that.

Miracles cannot be discerned or understood via logic, I am afraid. I am humble enough to admit that.

I absolutely believe that anyone has the right to think more deeply into the matter, if he/she wishes…You should always challenge the results of your thinking. I just don’t know what else to say when you keep calling God a deceiver etc. etc…

 

[Candide_West]

Miracles cannot be discerned or understood via logic, I am afraid. I am humble enough to admit that.*

Sure, but we don’t need to understand a miracle to be able to determine if one is a deception or not. So this creates no problem.*

I absolutely believe that anyone has the right to think more deeply into the matter, if he/she wishes…You should always challenge the results of your thinking.*

No worries, I do, hence the logic and conclusion demonstrated on this thread.

*I just don’t know what else to say when you keep calling God a deceiver etc. etc…

Once again, I’m not calling anyone anything. Especially not the God you believe in since I don’t believe he exists. All I’ve done is demonstrated that IF Fatima was a genuine miracle THEN God deceived people. Nothing more, nothing less.*

Fair enough if you don’t want to follow the logic and accept the conclusion, there’s nothing saying you must.*

 

[joe370]

=Candide West

Candide, since you do not believe in God, as you have already stated, (“I don’t believe in the existence of any deities” - it must be safe to conclude that you do not believe that a deceptive act on the part of any deity, occurred in Fatima in 1917- correct?

 

[Dolezal]

No worries, I do, hence the logic and conclusion demonstrated on this thread.

I have no opinion on the miracle of the sun. But, do you agree that it is not logically impossible for something naturally impossible to occur?

 

[joe370]

I have no opinion on the miracle of the sun. But, do you agree that it is not logically impossible for something naturally impossible to occur?

In terms of the children’s spot-on prediction followed by the dancing of the sun in a way described by believers and non-believers? I am a man of average intelligence, and therefore cannot envisage any natural cause. You got any ideas…?

 

[joe370]

I have no opinion on the miracle of the sun. But, do you agree that it is not logically impossible for something naturally impossible to occur?

I had to read that one twice. LOL…Agreed…

 

[Candide_West]

Candide, since you do not believe in God, as you have already stated, (“I don’t believe in the existence of any deities” - it must be safe to conclude that you do not believe that a deceptive act on the part of any deity, occurred in Fatima in 1917- correct?

Quite correct. Hence why I am always careful to stress the “IF” - “IF it was a miracle, then it was a deception”.

 

[Candide_West]

I have no opinion on the miracle of the sun. But, do you agree that it is not logically impossible for something naturally impossible to occur?

Definately. Logically impossible and naturally impossible are quite different things (assuming “naturally” here means impossible given the laws of physics etc, please correct me if this is not what you mean)

 

[dskysmine]

Actually there’s no difference between the two there. You have inferred what Steve wanted the women to think from their perceptions, just like we can infer what God wanted people to think from witnesses perceptions. But there’s no information in the scenario about Steve’s intentions.*

Although you did not explicitly cited “Steve had intention X”, unless you can re-frame his creation of the Illusion, he is a human being and requires volition for his actions to exist.
Right?
In God’s case we don’t consider God to go through a process of volition.

Well from the witness testimony where people repeatedly and specifically state that it was the sun that was performing the actions it seems that they were entirely clear on what they saw. Just as Sarah and her sister were clear on what they saw. In fact every witness statement I’ve read (quite a few) refers to the behaviour of “the sun”.*

And as I said earlier, witness testimony is not necessarily “bullet-proof”.
I agree they saw something, and they described it as the sun dancing.
But the reality is that we cannot explain it as the sun dancing because only some people saw it.

In both cases what the witnesses were clear about what they, but what they saw was not an accurate representation of what was really happening. So again we seem to have no difference here.*

Not at all, people in general do not know the processes by which the Sun “moves” or the Earth “moves”. If you would ask an aborigine to describe a scene where a Taser is functioning he would probably say that the person using it has magical powers, and that doesn’t mean that the Taser is really magic.

Actually we have no information about how Steve performed his actions beyond him having “magical” powers. There is no information in the scenario about how Steves powers actually work. So again the two scenarios match here too.*

Just because you did not explain how Steve “created” his illusion it still has to obey common logic or else our conversation about God is illogical.

Kind regards,
D.