Proof that Christianity is False

[StrawberryJam]

I am interested why you think God punishes people who don’t believe in him? The Catholic church teaches that everyone can be saved…even someone who has never been exposed to any form of Christiantity.

I think evilathiest has already been exposed to Christianity. It could even be this very forum that will be the exposure that will be used as evidence against him on judgment day and send him to an eternity of torment. I’m learning things here also.

 

[elzoog]

So you believe what´s in the history books relating to the American Civil War because there are letters by people who lived through it?

Therefore I assume you believe in the miracle of the sun at Fatima, that occured in 1917. There were approximately 80.000 witnesses, including hundreds of atheists who had come to scoff. It was acurately reported in the anti-catholic national newspaper of Portugal, “O Seculo”. All the witnesses coincide in their account of the sun “dancing” and seeming to fall from the sky.

Ok, let’s compare the American Civil War to the miracle at Fatima.

1. Nobody during the years 1861 to 1865 living in America claim that the Civil War did not happen. Although, there are contradictory opinions as to why it happened.
2. There are some people living in the year 1917, in Portugul who did not see the miracle of the sun and claim that it did not happen. There are contradictory accounts as to what exact miracle took place.
3. There are natural explanations for both the “miracle” at Fatima and the American Civil War.

There are plenty of written testimonies of this. As you said, I could point you to places where you can read their actual letters.

There are also witnesses that said that no miracles took place there.

So, tell you what. You give me a witness that lived in America during 1861 to 1865 that says that the Civil War is not taking place and I will give you a witness that said that the “miracle” of Fatima didn’t happen. Let’s see if you really are ready to compare two historical events in an unbiased fashion, or if you simply believe whatever you want and you simply look for evidence that confirms your bias.

 

[elzoog]

Let’s see.
~80,000 people in a small area see the sun “dancing” and seeming to fall from the sky.

Now, IF there actually was a dramatic physical change in the relationship of the sun & earth of this magnitude, it would more than just be visible to every single human on the planet.

To be fair, people living on the other side of the planet would not be able to see it because it would be night time there. However, it’s reasonable to suppose that everybody in that region of the world would see it. But as it turns out, everybody in that region didn’t see it.

 

[anon5216]

To be fair, people living on the other side of the planet would not be able to see it because it would be night time there. However, it’s reasonable to suppose that everybody in that region of the world would see it. But as it turns out, everybody in that region didn’t see it.

Well, think about it. If the sun’s relative position to the earth actually physically changed so dramatically that it gave the appearance of ‘falling out of the sky’, that would mean the earth’s orbit and rotation had completely destabilized.

It would be much more than just a visual phenomenon.
The relatively consistent and benign air flow would be destabilized all around the planet.
Not to mention all the water, which will tend to continue in the momentum established prior to the destabilization of the earth’s rotation and orbit.
This would be catastrophic everywhere on the planet, not just a vision in one town.

That said, I do believe the people at Fatima did experience something out of the ordinary.
The problems come in when they and others attempt to interpret that experience and ascribe meaning to it.

This interpreting phase can be entirely wrong without negating the experience itself.

 

[anEvilAtheist]

Well, think about it. If the sun’s relative position to the earth actually physically changed so dramatically that it gave the appearance of ‘falling out of the sky’, that would mean the earth’s orbit and rotation had completely destabilized.

It would be much more than just a visual phenomenon.
The relatively consistent and benign air flow would be destabilized all around the planet.
Not to mention all the water, which will tend to continue in the momentum established prior to the destabilization of the earth’s rotation and orbit.
This would be catastrophic everywhere on the planet, not just a vision in one town.

Why do you think that God’s supernatural miracles have to be constrained by the laws of nature?

 

[elzoog]

Well, think about it. If the sun’s relative position to the earth actually physically changed so dramatically that it gave the appearance of ‘falling out of the sky’, that would mean the earth’s orbit and rotation had completely destabilized.

It would be much more than just a visual phenomenon.
The relatively consistent and benign air flow would be destabilized all around the planet.
Not to mention all the water, which will tend to continue in the momentum established prior to the destabilization of the earth’s rotation and orbit.
This would be catastrophic everywhere on the planet, not just a vision in one town.

Good point. It is impossible that the sun actually danced in the sky, therefore it was by definition a visual hallucination or optical illusion (i.e. you are visually seeing something that is not happening in the same way as you are seeing it).

This is quite different from the American Civil War since in that case, what people were seeing pretty much was corresponding to what was happening. Soldiers dying in Antietam were really dying there, for example.

So I would like Santo to compare the two

1. People in Fatima see the sun dancing in the sky, but the sun is not literally dancing in the sky.
2. People see soldiers dying in Antietam, and soldiers really are literally dying in Antietam.

And tell me what his reasoning is for saying that Fatima is in any way comparable to the American Civil War as far as veracity.

 

[elzoog]

Why do you think that God’s supernatural miracles have to be constrained by the laws of nature?

If they are not constrained by the laws of nature, or at least by logic, then how can they be verified?

 

[cranster]

Good point. It is impossible that the sun actually danced in the sky, therefore it was by definition a visual hallucination or optical illusion (i.e. you are visually seeing something that is not happening in the same way as you are seeing it).

This is quite different from the American Civil War since in that case, what people were seeing pretty much was corresponding to what was happening. Soldiers dying in Antietam were really dying there, for example.

So I would like Santo to compare the two

1. People in Fatima see the sun dancing in the sky, but the sun is not literally dancing in the sky.
2. People see soldiers dying in Antietam, and soldiers really are literally dying in Antietam.

And tell me what his reasoning is for saying that Fatima is in any way comparable to the American Civil War as far as veracity.

A mass hallucination is simply not a logical possibility because a hallucination is an individual response based on individual brain chemistry to internal stimuli. The probability that 80,000 brains internally fired the same stimulus has got to be infinitesimally small.

As far as veracity goes, if 80,000 people all witnessing the same event whatever it was is not credible, then nothing is.

 

[elzoog]

A mass hallucination is simply not a logical possibility because a hallucination is an individual response based on individual brain chemistry to internal stimuli.

The sun literally dancing in the sky is even less of a logical possibility because that would entail many consequences such as the destabilization of the Earth’s orbit, large ocean tides etc. Therefore, what the people were seeing was not what was really going on.

The probability that 80,000 brains internally fired the same stimulus has got to be infinitesimally small.

The thing is, these 80,000 people did not all see the same thing. There are different reports of what happened there.

The other thing is, it is not unusual for a group of people to get together thinking a miracle is going to occur and then seeing something that seems to conform to what they want to see. If for example I say, “I see Mary in the clouds.” then another person there is going to try to imagine Mary in the clouds. If the cloud even remotely resembles a woman they are going to see Mary too. If on the other hand, I say “I see Paris Hilton in the clouds.” people are going to see Paris Hilton, in the exact same cloud.

This phenomenon is called pareidolia. You see what you are predisposed to want to see. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pareidolia

As far as veracity goes, if 80,000 people all witnessing the same event whatever it was is not credible, then nothing is.

They did not all witness the same thing. Some people claimed that nothing happened, some claimed that they only saw different colors, some said that the sun danced, etc.

Compare that to Antietam. You do not have conflicting reports where some people say that no soldiers are getting shot at all, some people saying that soldiers are getting shot and losing blood but not dying, and some people saying that soldiers are dying. This is because at Antietam, soldiers really were dying. Whereas at Fatima, the sun was not really dancing in the sky. If the sun really was dancing in the sky, it would have been seen by everybody in that hemisphere. Pretty much everybody in Europe and Africa would have seen the sun dance in the sky.

Let me put it this way, if you see something that is not in reality, what would you call it?

 

[cazayoux]

…The probability that 80,000 brains internally fired the same stimulus has got to be infinitesimally small…

even miraculous!

michel

 

[elzoog]

even miraculous!

michel

I would agree that 80,000 people firing the same stimulus would be incredible. As soon as you find an event like that, let me know.

 

[wxboss]

So, tell you what. You give me a witness that lived in America during 1861 to 1865 that says that the Civil War is not taking place and I will give you a witness that said that the “miracle” of Fatima didn’t happen. Let’s see if you really are ready to compare two historical events in an unbiased fashion, or if you simply believe whatever you want and you simply look for evidence that confirms your bias.

It appears from your challenge that no one can completely validate their argument unless the dead are raised - that’s a pretty good tactic.

However, I do find it a bit humorous that you imply on the part of your opponent a bias without conceding one for yourself.

Never the less, comparing the validity of the Civil War to the validity of the miracle at Fatima is an interesting argument. Taking an event that occurred over many years and cost the lives of tens of thousands of Americans over a great deal of territory and comparing it to a fleeting event observed by a number relatively smaller in size. Maybe I could toss out a similar challenge based upon accepted evidence and fleeting experiences: Give me a witness that proves there is nothing beyond death and the grave, and I will prove to you that the ghost I once saw was not real.

 

[elzoog]

It appears from your challenge that no one can completely validate their argument unless the dead are raised - that’s a pretty good tactic.

Read what I said carefully. I didn’t ask you for evidence for people rising from the dead. I asked you specifically, for people who lived during 1861 and 1865 in the US who said that the Civil War was not happening.

The reason I asked you for that evidence is that there are people who were at Fatima, who said that the “dancing of the sun” did not happen.

I am merely seeing if you really do apply a consistent standard of evidence.

However, I do find it a bit humorous that you imply on the part of your opponent a bias without conceding one for yourself.

You will convince me that you do not have a bias as soon as you give me an example of someone, who could be a witness to it, who said that the Civil War wasn’t happening.

Never the less, comparing the validity of the Civil War to the validity of the miracle at Fatima is an interesting argument. Taking an event that occurred over many years and cost the lives of tens of thousands of Americans over a great deal of territory and comparing it to a fleeting event observed by a number relatively smaller in size.

Not only that, but as far as I know, there are no people who lived during that time period in the US who said that the Civil War wasn’t happening.

We do have people who were at Fatima who said that the “sun dancing” event didn’t happen.

Maybe I could toss out a similar challenge based upon accepted evidence and fleeting experiences: Give me a witness that proves there is nothing beyond death and the grave, and I will prove to you that the ghost I once saw was not real.

I once saw a ghost too. However, I eventually came to the conclusion that there is a perfectly natural explanation for what I saw.

As far as there being something beyond death, what exactly survives death? If you can be specific about what survives death I would appreciate it.

 

[wxboss]

Read what I said carefully. I didn’t ask you for evidence for people rising from the dead. I asked you specifically, for people who lived during 1861 and 1865 in the US who said that the Civil War was not happening.

The reason I asked you for that evidence is that there are people who were at Fatima, who said that the “dancing of the sun” did not happen.

I am merely seeing if you really do apply a consistent standard of evidence.

You will convince me that you do not have a bias as soon as you give me an example of someone, who could be a witness to it, who said that the Civil War wasn’t happening.

Not only that, but as far as I know, there are no people who lived during that time period in the US who said that the Civil War wasn’t happening.

We do have people who were at Fatima who said that the “sun dancing” event didn’t happen.

I once saw a ghost too. However, I eventually came to the conclusion that there is a perfectly natural explanation for what I saw.

As far as there being something beyond death, what exactly survives death? If you can be specific about what survives death I would appreciate it.

My previous post was meant to make a point. There are facts (those pieces of evidence which can be verified), and there are claims (information which has not been verified or validated). Having filed a few car insurance claims, I’ve always felt it a bit odd that a third party (insurance company) who wasn’t present at the time of an accident has the final say over whether the incident happened the way it did and whether or not I should be reimbursed since they had been completely absent from the whole affair. However, they claim they can reasonably (and legally) do so after reviewing the police report and eye-witness accounts.

Decisions like this will more than likely be based on selective evidence. What evidence the defendant wants in the prosecutor will most likely try to preclude. And here we sit as the judges. Did the accident happen the way it was portrayed? Are the witnesses trustworthy? Is there any corroborating evidence?

Unfortunately, in this case, the witnesses are all dead and we have only what has been passed down to us to look through. I can’t help but think that through your responses to such questions you have assummed to have obtained the ultimate truth in this matter - truth that is based not just upon the trustworthiness of certain people, but upon the untrustworthiness of certain other people. How do you determine who is trustworthy and who is untrustworthy without having a particular bias in this matter? Or maybe your deductive process is just as selective as the very ones you claim to be too selective.

 

[elzoog]

My previous post was meant to make a point. There are facts (those pieces of evidence which can be verified), and there are claims (information which has not been verified or validated).

The “dancing of the sun” at Fatima can not be verified. Heck, you can’t even tell me really what happened there. However, I can tell you what happened at Antietam. What happened at Antietam was that more than 20,000 soldiers died.

Having filed a few car insurance claims, I’ve always felt it a bit odd that a third party (insurance company) who wasn’t present at the time of an accident has the final say over whether the incident happened the way it did

Car insurance companies go by physical evidence. If the physical evidence is that your car has a dent, that looks recent, on the back and the other car has a dent, which also looks recent on the front, then the conclusion from the physical evidence is that the other guy hit you in the back of your car.

For Antietam, we have physical evidence such as dead bodies (which I bet if you carbon dated them, you would find that they died right about the time of that battle) bullets found on the ground, etc.

So, your physical evidence for Fatima was what again?

and whether or not I should be reimbursed since they had been completely absent from the whole affair. However, they claim they can reasonably (and legally) do so after reviewing the police report and eye-witness accounts.

There is also physical evidence which is why the car company usually wants to look at the damaged car.

In fact, non-witnesses can even prove someone innocent of murder by doing what is called a DNA test.

Also, eyewitness testimony is considered one of the least trustworthy form of evidence in science.

For Antietam, we don’t just have eyewitness accounts. We have physical evidence that corroborates the eyewitness accounts.

So, your physical evidence for Fatima is what again?

Decisions like this will more than likely be based on selective evidence. What evidence the defendant wants in the prosecutor will most likely try to preclude. And here we sit as the judges. Did the accident happen the way it was portrayed? Are the witnesses trustworthy? Is there any corroborating evidence?

Usually if witnesses give contradictory accounts, that is used to damage their credibility in a court of law. Just wanted to make you aware of that.

Unfortunately, in this case, the witnesses are all dead and we have only what has been passed down to us to look through. I can’t help but think that through your responses to such questions you have assummed to have obtained the ultimate truth in this matter -

What makes you think I have the ultimate truth in this matter? I am merely telling you that on a SCIENTIFIC basis, you don’t have much reason to believe the accounts of Fatima are accurate.

truth that is based not just upon the trustworthiness of certain people, but upon the untrustworthiness of certain other people. How do you determine who is trustworthy and who is untrustworthy without having a particular bias in this matter?

How about physical evidence that either corroborates or contradicts someone’s testimony?

Or maybe your deductive process is just as selective as the very ones you claim to be too selective.

Well, if you have physical evidence for the “dancing of the sun” at Fatima then please provide it.

 

[santodomingo]

Let’s see.
~80,000 people in a small area see the sun “dancing” and seeming to fall from the sky.

Now, IF there actually was a dramatic physical change in the relationship of the sun & earth of this magnitude, it would more than just be visible to every single human on the planet.

In this case we have only the mass altering of a group of localized person’s consciousness.
While I certainly agree that is a significant event, that doesn’t mean all our mythologizing about its meaning is remotely accurate.

Hey, You “seem” to exist, but you could be the product of a computer-generated program. Even if I saw you face to face I could argue that you didn´t really exist. All I have to go on, according to the materialistic vision of life, are my 5 senses. Therefore, the fact that I could see you and hear you would mean nothing.

Once you get to that level of paranoia there´s no point debating. Anything goes. You think that your explanation of mass alteration of consciousness is convincing, despite not a thread of evidence to back it up. Have you ever heard of such a thing happening? How would convinced atheists, who had come to laugh at the catholics fall under the influence of this “alteration of consciousness”? It´s a purely arbitrary theory, based 100% on your prejudice against miraculous phenomena. There´s no point arguing with people who think they have all the answers before they even bother to examine the facts.

 

[elzoog]

Hey, You “seem” to exist, but you could be the product of a computer-generated program. Even if I saw you face to face I could argue that you didn´t really exist. All I have to go on, according to the materialistic vision of life, are my 5 senses. Therefore, the fact that I could see you and hear you would mean nothing.

You seem to be forgetting repeatability and verifiability.

In other words, I know that a ball falls to the ground when I drop it not merely because my 5 senses tell me it does, but because if I repeat that experiment I find that the ball falls to the ground. Also, the experience of a ball falling pretty much corresponds with other people’s experiences.

Also, there is no evidence that a computer program can produce sophisticated responses in English to posts such as this.

So basically, if you told me that there are Martians sitting on your shoulder controlling your thoughts, I would consider you insane even IF you were able to see them. This is because there is no verifiability and there are no other people who see these Martians. In order to prove there really are Martians on your shoulder, you would need more evidence than that “you see them” to prove they are there.

Yet, this is precisely the ONLY evidence you have for this miracle at Fatima. You have a FEW people (NOT 80,000!) who think they saw the sun dance in the sky. However, there were also OTHERS who were there who saw NOTHING out of the ordinary.

I find it interesting that you believe something that only a few people saw, which is not repeatable, but I bet you don’t believe in evolution. Even though evolution IS repeatable and has been verified by many scientific experiments.

 

[wxboss]

Car insurance companies go by physical evidence. If the physical evidence is that your car has a dent, that looks recent, on the back and the other car has a dent, which also looks recent on the front, then the conclusion from the physical evidence is that the other guy hit you in the back of your car.

Insurance companies may look at the car, but the fact is that a police report must be filed for a claim to be valid, and when an officer files a report, he looks at the evidence, takes down information from the complainants and any eye-witnesses. The insurance company goes by information and judgments made by a third party who more than likely was not present at the time of the actual incident.

For Antietam, we have physical evidence such as dead bodies (which I bet if you carbon dated them, you would find that they died right about the time of that battle) bullets found on the ground, etc.

So, your physical evidence for Fatima was what again?

Carbon dating and physical evidence only goes so far. Can it explain such details as to who fired the first shot at Lexington, Mass? Another famous battle. What is interesting here is that people who were witnesses (not just regulars and militia men) can not even agree as to who fired first even though all parties were witnessing the same event.

There is also physical evidence which is why the car company usually wants to look at the damaged car.

In fact, non-witnesses can even prove someone innocent of murder by doing what is called a DNA test.

Also, eyewitness testimony is considered one of the least trustworthy form of evidence in science.

For Antietam, we don’t just have eyewitness accounts. We have physical evidence that corroborates the eyewitness accounts.

So, your physical evidence for Fatima is what again?

I’m having a hard time following you here. You go from car accidents, to DNA testing to eyewitness testimonies as they relate to science. It would be much easier for the purposes of debate if a topic could remain consistent throughout the debate.

Just touching on the subject of eye-witness accounts, it is obvious that they are not as ‘concrete’ as physical evidence, but then if the physical evidence was so compelling, eye-witnesses would not be needed. Physical evidence only goes so far, but even when enough physical evidence is present to accurately portray a certain incident, it still needs a context, a context that is formed only by those who were present or close to the ones involved in the incident. A context that explains what factors lead up to the incident and puts them into perspective instead of isolating a specific slice of time and claiming that there is nothing else to know than what happened within that brief period. Suppose one of the complainants got a bit belligerent with the other while waiting for the police to arrive. I don’t see how DNA, physical evidence or anything short of an eye-witness would be able to capture this information. Information, by the way, which would help to ascertain other factors that might have contributed to the incident.

Usually if witnesses give contradictory accounts, that is used to damage their credibility in a court of law. Just wanted to make you aware of that.

What makes you think I have the ultimate truth in this matter? I am merely telling you that on a SCIENTIFIC basis, you don’t have much reason to believe the accounts of Fatima are accurate.

How about physical evidence that either corroborates or contradicts someone’s testimony?

Well, if you have physical evidence for the “dancing of the sun” at Fatima then please provide it.

If 70 or 80 thousand people witnessed a certain event while others did not, from a scientific standpoint, would you be more apt to believe a large group of people that could agree on specifics as it related to a certain event or would you be more likely to believe a group of people who could not offer any information at all other than they didn’t see something?

Science wants to at least duplicate something before it can believe it, but if a unique event is not able to be duplicated yet was witnessed by a very large group, could science say with absolute certainty that it did not happen?

 

[elzoog]

Insurance companies may look at the car, but the fact is that a police report must be filed for a claim to be valid, and when an officer files a report, he looks at the evidence, takes down information from the complainants and any eye-witnesses. The insurance company goes by information and judgments made by a third party who more than likely was not present at the time of the actual incident.

It’s not just eyewitness testimony. They also consider physical evidence which is why they usually take pictures.

In fact, if a company wants you to pay for the damages which one of these two are they more likely to send to your address to prove that the damage was there?

1. Pictures of the damage.
2. Testimony of a witness describing the damage.

Carbon dating and physical evidence only goes so far. Can it explain such details as to who fired the first shot at Lexington, Mass? Another famous battle.

Carbon dating would only prove that the bullet came from that time period. It wouldn’t be accurate enough to prove which bullet was fired first. However, there is other physical evidence that CAN be used to prove or disprove who fired first.

I guess CSI is totally fiction and that in reality, crime scene investigators simply sit down and read various written testimonies to determine guilt or innocence.

What is interesting here is that people who were witnesses (not just regulars and militia men) can not even agree as to who fired first even though all parties were witnessing the same event.

So, why do you consider eyewitness testimony to be more reliable than physical evidence?

I’m having a hard time following you here. You go from car accidents, to DNA testing to eyewitness testimonies as they relate to science. It would be much easier for the purposes of debate if a topic could remain consistent throughout the debate.

The topic is, how do you prove or disprove a historical event? A car accident is an example of a historical event.

I am sure you are aware that DNA evidence has later on been used to prove people innocent who were previously found to be guilty. What do you suppose happens? Some guy looks with his eyes really hard and then testifies that the DNA he sees is different?

Just touching on the subject of eye-witness accounts, it is obvious that they are not as ‘concrete’ as physical evidence, but then if the physical evidence was so compelling, eye-witnesses would not be needed.

If the physical evidence contradicts the eyewitness, then the physical evidence is considered to be the most reliable of the two.

Physical evidence only goes so far, but even when enough physical evidence is present to accurately portray a certain incident, it still needs a context, a context that is formed only by those who were present or close to the ones involved in the incident. A context that explains what factors lead up to the incident and puts them into perspective instead of isolating a specific slice of time and claiming that there is nothing else to know than what happened within that brief period. Suppose one of the complainants got a bit belligerent with the other while waiting for the police to arrive. I don’t see how DNA, physical evidence or anything short of an eye-witness would be able to capture this information.

There could be physical evidence such as a video captured by someone who is there.

For example, a video of police brutality goes MUCH FARTHER than just someone saying he saw it.

If 70 or 80 thousand people witnessed a certain event while others did not, from a scientific standpoint, would you be more apt to believe a large group of people that could agree on specifics as it related to a certain event or would you be more likely to believe a group of people who could not offer any information at all other than they didn’t see something?

Maybe. As soon as you give me an example of 80 thousand witnesses who agree on the specifics of what they saw let me know and I will look into it.

I’ll give you a hint, Fatima is NOT an example of that.

Science wants to at least duplicate something before it can believe it, but if a unique event is not able to be duplicated yet was witnessed by a very large group, could science say with absolute certainty that it did not happen?

Such an event is not very useful to science because science concerns itself with laws that are applicable everywhere.

Besides, you have yet to give me an example of an event witnessed by a large group of people where all the people agree on the specifics of what they saw.

 

[anon5216]

Hey, You “seem” to exist, but you could be the product of a computer-generated program. Even if I saw you face to face I could argue that you didn´t really exist. All I have to go on, according to the materialistic vision of life, are my 5 senses. Therefore, the fact that I could see you and hear you would mean nothing.

Once you get to that level of paranoia there´s no point debating. Anything goes. You think that your explanation of mass alteration of consciousness is convincing, despite not a thread of evidence to back it up. Have you ever heard of such a thing happening? How would convinced atheists, who had come to laugh at the catholics fall under the influence of this “alteration of consciousness”? It´s a purely arbitrary theory, based 100% on your prejudice against miraculous phenomena. There´s no point arguing with people who think they have all the answers before they even bother to examine the facts.

In case you forgot, you are the one I was quoting who actually used the words “seeming to fall from the sky”. I merely bolded the word “seeming” in my response.
You aren’t paranoid of your world view being contradicted, are you?

An altered state of consciousness is any condition which is significantly different from a normal waking beta wave state.
Why is this concept so threatening to you?
(While it certainly was common in the 60’s for people to use chemical means to achieve this, I was by no means implying the 80,000 people at Fatima were all smoking or drinking something).
Why do you assume this concept is contrary to miraculous phenomena?
Why do you assume I am prejudiced against the possibility of miraculous phenomena?

Not all 80,000 people saw the identical thing. That is factual.
Some of them saw nothing out of the ordinary at all. That is factual.
No one else on the planet - in the daylight area - saw anything unusual about the sun/sky. That is factual.

That naturally implies (some of) the 80,000 were perceiving something that others in the normal waking beta wave state were not seeing.
If their perception was enhanced in some way, how does that not fit the definition of an altered state of consciousness?
And then, why would that negate the miraculous nature of the experience?

Saints in a state of spiritual ecstasy are certainly not in the ordinary waking beta wave state of consciousness - it is altered in some way.

Regarding Fatima, there are a few aspects to think about:
The actual experience
The description of the experience
The interpretation of the meaning and implications of the experience.
The description of the experience is not necessarily accurate. People are going to use the closest approximation to describe it as their ordinary life experience enables.
Discussing the meaning and implications of the experience is where it gets into purely arbitrary theories, based on one’s religious beliefs perhaps, but arbitrary nonetheless.