In what way did you misunderstand?
I thought Steve was a normal human being and I thought all the information in the scenario was knowable and not hearsay.
Well there are many ways he could. That doesn’t take much imagination now does it, just a little showmanship would do the job i suspect.
Humour me…
Great, glad we’ve covered that one then. So when someone misleads someone accidentally it ISN’T deception, but when they do it deliberately it IS deception. Steve incidentally created the illusion deliberately.
Well, yes. He created an illusion of Dave kissing another woman. If you read the scenario I started out with it’s right there. Remember this part? “What they don’t know is that in reality Dave is back at home tucked up in bed and what they have seen is an illusion created by Steve.”
We can’t know if Steve did it… you say he did but you show no way of us knowing Steve created the illusion. You say he has the power to create illusions, nothing else. You also show no way of knowing what exactly Steve did since Dave kissing the other woman is hearsay, or the impression that the two women had. If we are to analyse the morality of Steve’s actions we must know what actions he did and the purpose of them.
Right, and we can infer motivations on different agents, but without an explicit statement (and sometimes even then) we can’t actually be 100% sure what their motivation really was.
Exactly, but that’s the whole point of the argument…
Without knowing the motivation we cannot make a conclusion.
You’re ok up to here. And of course we’re on the same page up to here with the events at Fatima as well.
…
We do, we know he created the illusion of Dave kissing another woman.
No… we don’t know…
We heard from the girls that they saw “Dave kissing another woman”, that is not the same thing as knowing that “Steve created an illusion of Dave kissing another woman”.
If the latest one was true because of the former one then it wouldn’t make sense to make the analogy. (I am pretty sure there’s a name for this kind of fallacy).
Nope, again we know that what they saw wasn’t accurate, since Dave was tucked up in bed at home.
Yet again you are assuming that the illusion describes reality. That is not what an illusion is…
look at this illusion:
web.mit.edu/persci/people/adelson/checkershadow_illusion.html
Your brain tells you that B is lighter than A, but that’s not accurate.
Your brain simply falls to the normal everyday life assumptions of shadow and light and assumes B is lighter than A. It doesn’t mean that is right, as the proof shows.
Well you seemed to be able to reach the conclusion that Steve had performed a deception before (which surprised me) why the sudden confusion now?
Because I assumed from your original scenario:
A: We knew that Steve created the illusion (The originator of the action to be evaluated)
B: We knew that Steve wanted to create the illusion (The motivation behind the action and that it was “willed”)
C: We knew how Steve created the illusion (with some particular unnamed method like hologram, or cartboards, or whatever)
D: We knew that Steve wanted the two women to see Dave kissing another woman (goes to motivation)
E: We knew that the two women saw something that was not real (because we knew the methodology didn’t use time travel of Dave for example)
F: We knew what the illusion was (the action itself… a cartboard drawing of Dave and the other woman/ a hologram that Steve placed, etc…)
G: We knew what the motivation behind Steve’s action was (for Anna to see Dave kissing another woman)
If all these factors are unnacounted for then I don’t know if Steve deceived or not.
There is still a chance for Steve to have deceived, but I cannot say for sure.
The same I can say for the Fatima case:
A: I assume that God created the illusion.
B: I assume that God wanted to create the illusion.
C: I do not know how God created the illusion (I assumed previously that there could have been a contact between the Natural Realm and the Supernatural Realm but I do not know for sure)
D: I do not know that God wanted the people to see the sun dancing (I already said that although God is omnipotent He does not force people to believe something)
E: I know that the sun was not moving from its axis from analysis in other areas of the globe.
F: I don’t know what the illusion was.
G: I assume that God’s motivation for the miracle was to render credibility to the 3 little shepards.
What I can infer from your understanding is that:
A: You assume that God created the illusion.
B: You assume that God wanted to create the illusion.
C: You assume God planted the illusion in people’s minds or made a hologram of the sun.
D: You assume God wanted the people to see the sun dancing
E: You know that the sun was not moving from its axis from analysis in other areas of the globe.
F: You assume the illusion was “the sun dancing”.
G: You assume that God’s motivation was either to render credibility to the 3 little shepards or to show off?
As we do not agree in premises C, D and F we cannot reach the same conclusion.
For premise C, you have showed no argument other than people’s testimony, and those do not prove it because they only impressions not how those impressions were obtained.
For premise D you showed no proof.
For premise F you have showed no argument other than people’s testimony, and as I showed you in the link I provided, impressions of the brain of an illusion do not necessarily mean they are accurate.
I rest my case.
Kind regards,
D.
LOL…