@Neithan asked: Do you accept that the supernatural is metaphysically possible?

[Techno2000]

Whoever set up the piccies of Mary at Zeitoun assumed that that was what she was supposed to look like so put one around her head. Or maybe Mary thought she ought to wear one as it was expected of her.

LAME…

 

[Wozza]

Wozza:

Whoever set up the piccies of Mary at Zeitoun assumed that that was what she was supposed to look like so put one around her head. Or maybe Mary thought she ought to wear one as it was expected of her.

LAME…

This is a forum for adult discussion. Not a schoolyard.

Why do you think she is shown with a halo? Make an argument.

 

[Neithan]

Isn’t it interesting that even a skeptic saw “intermittent flashes of light”? That’s something. Our Lady of Zeitoun - Wikipedia

As for why she has a halo, it could be the “crown of 12 stars” shining above her head. If you look closely below her feet, you can see what looks like an upside down crescent.

I realize you think this is all imaginary and a hoax at best. The skeptics explanation for Zeitoun is mass hysteria, and the photos must be doctored. Bias on either side, really.

 

[Techno2000]

Techno2000:

Wozza:

Whoever set up the piccies of Mary at Zeitoun assumed that that was what she was supposed to look like so put one around her head. Or maybe Mary thought she ought to wear one as it was expected of her.

LAME…

This is a forum for adult discussion. Not a schoolyard.

Why do you think she is shown with a halo? Make an argument.

I don’t have to make any arguments there are 16 Church approved Marian apparitions throughout history…nuff said.
The Miracle Hunter : Approved Apparition Claims

 

[Wozza]

Wozza:

Techno2000:

Wozza:

Whoever set up the piccies of Mary at Zeitoun assumed that that was what she was supposed to look like so put one around her head. Or maybe Mary thought she ought to wear one as it was expected of her.

LAME…

This is a forum for adult discussion. Not a schoolyard.

Why do you think she is shown with a halo? Make an argument.

I don’t have to make any arguments there are 16 Church approved Marian apparitions throughout history…nuff said.
The Miracle Hunter : Approved Apparition Claims

Zeitoun’s Mary has what medieval artists used to show she was divine in their paintings. They copied the idea from the Romans. Who copied it from the Greeks.

We aren’t discussing other apparitions. We are discussing the one at Zeitoun. Why has Mary got at halo in those pictures?

And while you are responding, you can tell us if this apparition is one of the sixteen approved by the church. It isn’t. But I just want you to tell us.

 

[Wozza]

Isn’t it interesting that even a skeptic saw “intermittent flashes of light”? That’s something. Our Lady of Zeitoun - Wikipedia

As for why she has a halo, it could be the “crown of 12 stars” shining above her head. If you look closely below her feet, you can see what looks like an upside down crescent.

I realize you think this is all imaginary and a hoax at best.

We’re running 2-2 at the moment. You and Techno think it’s real. Me and the Catholic church don’t. They don’t recognise it at all.

 

[Neithan]

I actually am not sure. But I respect the Coptic Orthodox Church and they approved it.

Is there something official from a Roman Catholic bishop about it? I honestly don’t know. The Vatican prudently left it up to the Copts and Egyptian authorities, it seems.

 

[Wozza]

I actually am not sure. But I respect the Coptic Orthodox Church and they approved it.

Is there something official from a Roman Catholic bishop about it? I honestly don’t know. The Vatican prudently left it up to the Copts and Egyptian authorities, it seems.

It seems, yes. Good luck trying to find anything about it from the Catholic church. They had no interest.

And in passing, this was not a quick apparition of an angel in a field somewhere that 2 or 3 people saw. This was the mother of Jesus herself and the people who were reported to have seen it run into the hundreds of thousands and some of the sightings last for hours. Quite often two or three times a week. For a couple of years.

It’s not like there was a lack of evidence to make a decision on the matter. Don’t you think? Cameras were quite common. TV crews turned up. People had video cameras. If this had been shown to be true, then it would have been the most documented event ever seen and the biggest single event in the history of the planet. And what does Tecno bring as evidence? Three or four fuzzy bright lights. See if you can find some more. You won’t…but give it a go anyway.

And from your own church? Deathly silence.

Draw your own conclusions.

 

[Neithan]

Draw your own conclusions.

I’m open to something miraculous having occurred; but for the Vatican to step in and make pronouncements about it when the Coptic Pope already approved it would be imprudent and even offensive to the Orthodox.

 

[Wozza]

Wozza:

Draw your own conclusions.

I’m open to something miraculous having occurred; but for the Vatican to step in and make pronouncements about it when the Coptic Pope already approved it would be imprudent and even offensive to the Orthodox.

Indeed. Best to say nothing at all and hope no Catholics bring it up as a genuine apparation. Too easy to dismiss.

Let me know if you find any more pictures.

 

[Neithan]

Why is it so easy to dismiss? There were unexplained physical phenomena for years! Geophysicists describe it as “earthquake lights.”

Dismissing this as not possibly having any supernatural cause is either an arbitrary commitment to materialism or radical skepticism.

 

[Wozza]

Why is it so easy to dismiss? There were unexplained physical phenomena for years! Geophysicists describe it as “earthquake lights.”

Dismissing this as not possibly having any supernatural cause is either an arbitrary commitment to materialism or radical skepticism.

Show me some more pictures, Neithan. With hundreds of thousands of people (some reports say millions) watching 2 or three times a week for an hour or more each time for over three years? Gimme a break…

 

[Neithan]

Pictures of lights? That’s mostly what they were. Luminous phenomena. I don’t have any photos to show. But why would you not dismiss those as doctored? Most probably just show amorphous light.

 

[Techno2000]

Why has Mary got at halo in those pictures?

Because, she glowing with light, and that’s the way that camera captured that image with that type of film.

 

[Techno2000]

I wonder why nobody went up onto the roof to get a better picture.

Why, this is a great photo of something supernatural rarely ever captured on film. Remember people saw it first , the photos only confirm what they were seeing.There may be dozens of other photos out there, but this is the one that went into circulation to the public.

 

[Neithan]

Your assertion was that the non-physical realm is totally unpredictable, that anything can happen at any time; that we are unable to make any valid predictions about the non-physical realm. This seems to be (actually it IS) in total contradiction to the Catholic stance that God is ALWAYS good, the devil is ALWAYS evil.

Firstly, you need to clarify what good and evil are. Secondly, without an ability to empirically observe all of time (eternalism, as a hypothetical non-physical perspective) and all of the antecedent temporal effects, as well as all of the subsequent temporal causes, of any particular event in time, you need to explain how you can make valid predictions about what is good or evil at any particular point in time.

 

[Economist]

Firstly, you need to clarify what good and evil are.

Nice to see you again.

Here are the definitions. “Good” and “bad” are descriptions concerning living entities - described by biology. Good is something that promotes “life” or increases its “pleasantness”. “Bad” is the opposite. In a universe without any living entities these concepts are undefined and undefinable. Unfortunately in the English language there is no special word to describe an intentional act that results in a “biologically good” outcome. However, the word “evil” describes an intentional activity, which results in a “biologically bad” outcome.

It is not necessary to investigate some “eternal” sequence of events. It is sufficient to investigate whatever we can foresee and evaluate. The “duck principle” is sufficient. If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, quacks like a duck and tastes like a duck, it is very probably a duck, and certainly not an elephant.

As for the hypothesized “non-physical” realm, if it does not interact with the physical realm, it is irrelevant. On the other hand, if it does interact with the physical realm, it is measurable and testable. As such we can evaluate it. In the physical realm we do not have “absolute” knowledge. All our knowledge is provisional, subject to review if new evidence is presented.

If some proponent asserts that non-physical realm can be influenced by some physical activity, and the result of this activity has a measurable effect on the physical reality, then we can make predictions about the non-physical realm, and if the predictions are borne out by the experiment, then we can raise our assurance that the prediction was accurate.

 

[Neithan]

Nice to see you again.

Likewise Did you miss my last reply?

The “duck principle” is sufficient. If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, quacks like a duck and tastes like a duck, it is very probably a duck, and certainly not an elephant.

This emphasizes the issue: How do we know what is good or bad at any particular point in time? You used the word ‘God’ (which I’ll borrow) and stated that ‘God is ALWAYS good,’ but that statement is defined absolutely, as in, the greatest absolute good, not some relative good observed in some arbitrarily selected set in a particular sequence of events.

If some proponent asserts that non-physical realm can be influenced by some physical activity, and the result of this activity has a measurable effect on the physical reality

What if we are dealing with personal non-physical subjects that operate with free-will? Is it possible to predict their behaviour?

 

[Economist]

Likewise Did you miss my last reply?

No, I did not. But your post was not helpful. To say that there “needs” to be something, but we have no idea, what it might be, and we cannot fathom how it might operate is an empty proposition. There is nothing to talk about.

This emphasizes the issue: How do we know what is good or bad at any particular point in time? You used the word ‘God’ (which I’ll borrow) and stated that ‘God is ALWAYS good,’ but that statement is defined absolutely, as in, the greatest absolute good, not some relative good observed in some arbitrarily selected set in a particular sequence of events.

In that case the word “good” became undefined. If something is not “good” in the regular, secular, human sense, then the proposition “X is good” is meaningless.

What if we are dealing with personal non-physical subjects that operate with free-will? Is it possible to predict their behaviour?

Now that is interesting. Effectively you postulate some mischievous “someone” who gets his kicks from confusing us. Someone who creates “false clues” and grins at our efforts when we try to make sense of them. Someone who places false physical information (dinosaur bones) into incorrect geographical layers. You cannot have it both ways. Either the laws of physics, chemistry, biology, etc… are valid and reliable, or they are not. If they are valid, then we can make valid predictions about some “non-physical” phenomenon. If they are not, then all bets are off.

Instead of talking about this largely undefined “God”, let’s pick something simpler. There are arguments about the curative and miraculous powers at Lourdes. The word miraculous is (of course) a synonym for non-physical. It is very simple to set up some experiment which will validate or falsify this claim. The claim will be falsified. There are some believers of “paranormal” forces. It is easy to falsify them. There are the claims about the curative powers of prayers. Every experiment falsifies them.

And then there are claims about demonic possessions. The Vatican maintains exorcists, who are claimed to be able to detect these non-physical demons, and are also enable to exorcise them. Also there are some assumed practices to “nudge” demons to manifest themselves. So, according to the CC, we can influence the non-physical realm. The demons have no “choice”, they cannot resist the exorcism. This is another ripe example to “grab” the non-physical by the scruff of their neck.

As a summary, until someone can talk intelligently about this physically active and non-physical “stuff”, there is nothing to talk about. Magic is not a valid foundation.

 

[Gorgias]

So, according to the CC, we can influence the non-physical realm.

Hmm… I’d disagree.

One cannot 'exorcise" a demon in thin air. So, what’s being done is prayers for the person who is possessed, so that the possession ends.

And, if we want to be honest about it, we don’t claim that the priest exorcises, per se, so much as Jesus does. The priest is praying to God that the possession ceases.

It’s a critical distinction, especially since it defeats the proposition of people influencing spirits.

The demons have no “choice”, they cannot resist the exorcism. This is another ripe example to “grab” the non-physical by the scruff of their neck.

Actually, it’s no such thing. Demons do resist the exorcism, and often, it takes multiple attempts at exorcism before any sort of results are achieved.

So… no. Not an attempt to “grab a spirt by the scruff of the neck (that they don’t possess)”…!