Questions to Atheists about God-of-the-Gaps

[Aloysium]

BMJ? Sorry, what is that? If you are referring to the Garabandal episode, then I’m in good company in not believing it. Your own church hasn’t expressed any interest in verifying it either.

British Medical Journal which basically documents God speaking to researchers about conducting an experiment in which a group of believers prayed for the well being of hospitalized patients twenty years earlier and hearing their prayers, time included the healing of those individuals. Sounds pretty miraculous and revealing of God’s omnipotence and omniscience to me. You simply discarded it, no? I figure it’s makes no sense because reality is much more than it seems to you.

Oops: my bad, the article was mentioned in the skepticism thread.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Gosh, a Catholic example. I would have preferred something that was less associated with your particular religion if you were going to suggest the possibility of the supernatural. Otherwise…someone could suggest that you might be biiased towards your own beliefs. Heaven forbid!

The scientific response to this is…you are an exceptionally gullible person. And that’s not meant to be insulting.

If you want to convince someone that the supernatural might exist, then try an example that you personally feel isn’t true. Play the Devil’s Advocate. Otherwise, stop wasting my time…

I don’t divide tangible inexplicable phenomena into Catholic, Baptist, Atheist or whatever Bradski. It just is what it is … inexplicable phenomena that is quite well witnessed as far as such things go. As is the prophecy of the Fatima spectacle.

You seem to want it both ways in any case, one moment you say its Catholic, the next the Church shows no interest .
Can we perhaps drop the rhetoric and teen hubris and deal to the phenomena?

If you don’t even accept reasonable testimony and documentation on such things simply because many of the witnesses were nominal Catholics I reasonably conclude some prejudiced apriori thinking in your allegedly objective philosophic contributions on this point.
Such “inexplicable” phenomenon is regularly attested to by witnesses opposed to Christian belief.

But as I say, those who take an apriori position on the possibility of naturally “inexplicable” phenomena can never be given enough “proof” - not only of an occult explanation (which is prob fair enough) but more strangely of the very existence of the tangible phenomena that gives rise to “the gap” that needs explaining in the first place.

Re below, you may like to provide us the current natural explanation for human levitation and how well this explanation has been used to predict likely future occurrences?
Of course if they are unable to offer anything more than a totally unverified hypothesis you will no doubt deny the “gap” itself - ie there never has been a real case of human levitation…the witnesses are so gullible and stupid and easily duped by clever prestidigitators.

 

[Bradski]

I don’t divide tangible inexplicable phenomena into Catholic, Baptist, Atheist or whatever Bradski. It just is what it is … inexplicable phenomena that is quite well witnessed as far as such things go. As is the prophecy of the Fatima spectacle.

I think that you do divide them up. You automatically give more credence to religious miracles and more credence to Christian miracles and yet more to specifically Catholic miracles than you do to any other supernatural event. Inexplicable phenomena which are quite well witnessed include sightings of UFOs, alien abductions, bigfoot, faith healers (not Christian), swamis, mystics, spoon benders…the list goes on for ever.

You seem to want it both ways in any case, one moment you say its Catholic, the next the Church shows no interest.

I wasn’t aware that details of claimed miracles that ARE NOT Catholic are also sent to the Vatican for investigation. Do they deal with spoon bending, Elvis sightings and UFO abductions as well? I think that we can safely assume that any prospective supernatural event that is passed on to the Vatican could be described as a Catholic supernatural event. Whether the church accepts it or not is another matter.

If you don’t even accept reasonable testimony and documentation on such things simply because many of the witnesses were nominal Catholics I reasonably conclude some prejudiced apriori thinking in your allegedly objective philosophic contributions on this point.

If you could perhaps point out where I’ve made such a statement it will go some way to confirming that your conclusion was indeed reasonable. If you can’t, then we can safely assume that your conclusion is unreasonable.

But as I say, those who take an apriori position on the possibility of naturally “inexplicable” phenomena can never be given enough “proof” - not only of an occult explanation but also of the tangible phenomena that gives rise to “the gap” that needs explaining in the first place.

I say the opposite is true. You will only lay claim to miracles where there is a lack of evidence. Because you can claim it’s true and no-one can prove it’s not. But if there is the potential for hard evidence…no thanks, pass on that, we’ll talk about something else, thanks for asking.

Your scepticism only applies to areas outside your faith and only inside when it suits. That’s not scepticism. That’s borderline hypocrisy.

Re below, you may like to provide us the current natural explanation for human levitation and how well this explanation has been used to predict likely future occurrences?

What? There IS no current explanation for human levitation. It doesn’t exist so there can’t be an explanation. It’s akin to asking for the best explanation as to how Santa can deliver so many toys all in one night. It’s an absurd question.

That said, if you believe it happens (surely not…), it is incumbent on you to give an explanation. Is it magic? God? Invisible fairies? Give me an example of what you believe to be a genuine example and we can all have a look.

In the meantime, do you believe in Zeitoun? All those millions of people seeing the miracle so many times?

 

[ynotzap]

If we’re talking about science then all you need is evidence to convince anyone.

Iran’s leader denied the Jewish Holocoust, the systematic extermination of 6 million Jews, yet the whole world knew it for the most part. How do you explain that? Plenty of evidence

Bradski:

Just try to bear in mind that if you yourself believe the evidence, it doesn’t make it good evidence. A lot of people forget that.

If you believe the evidence and the evidence confirms your belief-it makes for the best evidence to you personally. If you pass the evidence on to another and the same thing happens, then that adds to the validity of the evidence because you have an objective witness and so on down the line. What do you mean “it doesn’t make good evidence”?

Bradski:

That’s a difficult sentence to parse. But, yes, I have made my mind up. Based on the evidence I find most compelling (note the reference to evidence again). I am not in a state of doubt.

What is that evidence that you find so compelling that you are not in a state of doubt?

Bradski:

If I were to play the Devil’s Advocate, that would mean my position would be to convince others of the existence of the supernatural, not to discredit God (not that that is even my position now). And please bear in mind that the supernatural does not necessarily include God.

The Devils Advocate is a title given to a very important officer of the Catholic Church to declare and point out all possible argument to prevent the beatification and canonization of a person to sainthood, one that practices heroic virtue, and holiness. One has to know what holiness is, and who God is to make that judgement. This is done in order to prevent one from receiving those honors whose death is not juridically proved to be “precious in the sight of God” It is not directly trying to prove to other of the supernatural, although the supernatural is involved, holiness is a supernatural reality, as God is, and holy.
How does the supernatural not necessarily include God?

Bradski:

And if I appear to be contradictory, then you might be able to point out where that happens. I do try to be consistent. Could you be specific?

We were discussing science, and you gave no credence to the supernatural, even after B.H gave a very logical explanation as to the definite possibility of the supernatural. You called him gullible, and spurned his use of his example, did you expect him to go out of his faith to answer you. Then after his efforts to show the possibility of the supernatural, you advise him to play the devil advocate. When you entertain in you own mind a supernatural truth, or belief, even though you do not accept it, that means you are not totally innocent with either yourself, or others, if you were true to the rejection of the supernatural as you seem to be, why would you refer to the Devil, as we all know that is a Christian belief. It would seem you would dismiss the thought entirely, or just said “I just don’t understand” to BH. Sometimes in denying something that exists, is actually giving some credence to what you deny, for if it didn’t exist, you couldn’t deny it.
Badski:

And lastly, what do I know about God? Ah, I see that because I now describe myself as an atheist, you have assumed that I know nothing about Him.

If you know about God, that means you accept His existence, but you don’t accept Him, you reject Him. the common dictionary defines an atheist as a person who believes there is no God, rejects all religious beliefs, denies His existence. Are you sincere with yourself, how can one know something about God and call himself an atheist, pleas explain. Do you have something against Him?

 

[Bradski]

Iran’s leader denied the Jewish Holocoust, the systematic extermination of 6 million Jews, yet the whole world knew it for the most part. How do you explain that?

He was an idiot and an anti semite.

If you believe the evidence and the evidence confirms your belief-it makes for the best evidence to you personally. If you pass the evidence on to another and the same thing happens, then that adds to the validity of the evidence.

No it doesn’t. It just means that the same evidence is available to more people. It doesn’t add validation in the slightest. Even if more people believe the same evidence does not add to its validity. Are you suggesting we have a vote on what is true or not? Because the majority of Catholics believe that there is nothing wrong with contraception. You should let the Vatican know.

What is that evidence that you find so compelling that you are not in a state of doubt?

Not relevant. I’m not sure to explain why I’m an atheist.

The Devils Advocate is a title given… How does the supernatural not necessarily include God?

I’m quite aware of the term Advocatus Diaboli. And I guess if you think God made fairies and Bigfoot and hobgoblins etc then the supernatural does include God.

If you know about God, that means you accept His existence…

I take it that you know about Vishnu and Bigfoot and Peter Pan and fairies. And from your statement that would mean…what, exactly?

 

[Blue_Horizon]

I think that you do divide them up. You automatically give more credence to religious miracles and more credence to Christian miracles and yet more to specifically Catholic miracles than you do to any other supernatural event. Inexplicable phenomena which are quite well witnessed include sightings of UFOs, alien abductions, bigfoot, faith healers (not Christian), swamis, mystics, spoon benders…the list goes on for ever.

I wasn’t aware that details of claimed miracles that ARE NOT Catholic are also sent to the Vatican for investigation. Do they deal with spoon bending, Elvis sightings and UFO abductions as well? I think that we can safely assume that any prospective supernatural event that is passed on to the Vatican could be described as a Catholic supernatural event. Whether the church accepts it or not is another matter.

If you could perhaps point out where I’ve made such a statement it will go some way to confirming that your conclusion was indeed reasonable. If you can’t, then we can safely assume that your conclusion is unreasonable.

I say the opposite is true. You will only lay claim to miracles where there is a lack of evidence. Because you can claim it’s true and no-one can prove it’s not. But if there is the potential for hard evidence…no thanks, pass on that, we’ll talk about something else, thanks for asking.

Your scepticism only applies to areas outside your faith and only inside when it suits. That’s not scepticism. That’s borderline hypocrisy.

What? There IS no current explanation for human levitation. It doesn’t exist so there can’t be an explanation. It’s akin to asking for the best explanation as to how Santa can deliver so many toys all in one night. It’s an absurd question.

That said, if you believe it happens (surely not…), it is incumbent on you to give an explanation. Is it magic? God? Invisible fairies? Give me an example of what you believe to be a genuine example and we can all have a look.

In the meantime, do you believe in Zeitoun? All those millions of people seeing the miracle so many times?

When you’ve finished fluffing around with your tangents and are ready to engage me in the actual example I have provided of an inexplicable phenomenon we can likely continue this discussion.

Of course if you don’t think Garabandal or Fatima is actually a valid example I would be interested in your scientific reasons for denying the existence of anything inexplicable in them.

What? There IS no current explanation for human levitation. It doesn’t exist so there can’t be an explanation.

Exactly my point, you apriori deny the possibility of “gaps” even existing - let alone there being a “god of the gaps.”
So your opinions are non-falsifiable - not very philosophic/scientific a position and consequently impossible to discuss with you methinks .

 

[Bradski]

Of course if you don’t think Garabandal or Fatima is actually a valid example I would be interested in your scientific reasons for denying the existence of anything inexplicable in them.

They are both examples which cannot be proved not to have taken place. All you have to do is say that someone saw something and you are home and free. I cannot prove that everyone concerned was misled, hallucinating, seeing things they wanted to see or didn’t see anything at all and were simply reported as having seen something.

Exactly my point, you apriori deny the possibility of “gaps” even existing - let alone there being a “god of the gaps.”
So your opinions are non-falsifiable - not very philosophic/scientific a position and consequently impossible to discuss with you methinks .

My ‘opinions’ are non-falsifiable? Well, I didn’t know that my opinions could be false in any case. They are always true for me as I stand on any given question at any given time. Your opinion regarding the existence of Santa or fairies at the bottom of your garden is similarly ‘non-falsifiable’ if it makes any sense to use that phrase in relation to opinions. That is irrespective of whether you are right or wrong, so we are both in exactly the same boat in this regard.

But likewise you do not believe in fairies or Santa (at least, I sincerely hope so), so using your logic (and I use that term extremely loosely), you are also rejecting the possibility of the supernatural existing. Or rather, rejecting out of hand the kinds of supernatural occurrences in which you don’t believe in and accepting the others. You pick and choose.

If you want to argue that one should keep an open mind about everything, then I assume that a discussion on the possibility of Santa actually existing is not a risible proposition to you. As it would be to any reasonably intelligent adult.

So to levitation…

If you ask me outright if I believe it’s possible, then my first answer will be: ‘No, I don’t believe it’s possible’. That is based on many years living on this planet, travelling a fair amount, reading voraciously and never ever having seen or heard of a convincing argument that anyone can actually do it. And let’s face it, we have to have opinions on some things. You cannot go through life muttering: ‘Well, I guess it could be true’.

But that is not rejecting ‘out of hand’ any possible explanation that may be offered. It means that all previous evidence has been rejected in the first instance. But that said, as any reasonable person should, if you have an explanation for a particular event where somebody actually floated around for a while, I will look at it and will be prepared to change my mind.

I’ve changed it before - it didn’t seem to do me any harm, so off you go and furnish me with some details.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

They are both examples which cannot be proved not to have taken place. All you have to do is say that someone saw something and you are home and free. I cannot prove that everyone concerned was misled, hallucinating, seeing things they wanted to see or didn’t see anything at all and were simply reported as having seen something.

My ‘opinions’ are non-falsifiable? Well, I didn’t know that my opinions could be false in any case. They are always true for me as I stand on any given question at any given time. Your opinion regarding the existence of Santa or fairies at the bottom of your garden is similarly ‘non-falsifiable’ if it makes any sense to use that phrase in relation to opinions. That is irrespective of whether you are right or wrong, so we are both in exactly the same boat in this regard.

But likewise you do not believe in fairies or Santa (at least, I sincerely hope so), so using your logic (and I use that term extremely loosely), you are also rejecting the possibility of the supernatural existing. Or rather, rejecting out of hand the kinds of supernatural occurrences in which you don’t believe in and accepting the others. You pick and choose.

If you want to argue that one should keep an open mind about everything, then I assume that a discussion on the possibility of Santa actually existing is not a risible proposition to you. As it would be to any reasonably intelligent adult.

So to levitation…

If you ask me outright if I believe it’s possible, then my first answer will be: ‘No, I don’t believe it’s possible’. That is based on many years living on this planet, travelling a fair amount, reading voraciously and never ever having seen or heard of a convincing argument that anyone can actually do it. And let’s face it, we have to have opinions on some things. You cannot go through life muttering: ‘Well, I guess it could be true’.

But that is not rejecting ‘out of hand’ any possible explanation that may be offered. It means that all previous evidence has been rejected in the first instance. But that said, as any reasonable person should, if you have an explanation for a particular event where somebody actually floated around for a while, I will look at it and will be prepared to change my mind.

I’ve changed it before - it didn’t seem to do me any harm, so off you go and furnish me with some details.

OK, I see now. Your alleged philosophy of life is Solipsism - you can never trust reports of anything inexplicable from others because you have to experience it directly yourself before you accept “the gap” even exists.

So we have no common ground for continuing sorry.
This thread assumes we can agree that gaps exist.
If we cannot even agree that gaps exists how can we even begin to discuss whether those gaps have natural or occult causes .

That also explains why you cannot understand religion - regardless of whether it be true or false. Religion (and even history for that matter) requires reasonable trusting of the testimony of others before us who had rare experiences we are unlikely to encounter in our own lifetimes.

 

[Bradski]

OK, I see now. Your alleged philosophy of life is Solipsism - you can never trust reports of anything inexplicable from others because you have to experience it directly yourself before you accept “the gap” even exists.

So we have no common ground for continuing sorry.
This thread assumes we can agree that gaps exist.
If we cannot even agree that gaps exists how can we even begin to discuss whether those gaps have natural or occult causes .

That also explains why you cannot understand religion - regardless of whether it be true or false. Religion (and even history for that matter) requires reasonable trusting of the testimony of others before us who had rare experiences we are unlikely to encounter in our own lifetimes.

One of my philosophical outlooks on life is generally not to accept anything without good evidence. The obverse of that is that I should accept anything on good evidence. I have not said or even suggested that I need to experience this myself. For ample, I accept the theory of evolution on what I consider to be good evidence even though I do not, and cannot, experience it directly. I hope that’s clear enough.

The gap that you mention is simply a gap in current knowledge that some people would like to fill with the supernatural. There are gaps in our knowledge and I obviously accept that. Not to do so would be perverse.

And who on earth said I do not understand religion? I understand it perfectly well. It’s simply that I don’t find the evidence for any given religion to be true to be convincing. In passing, it might be worth noting that we both agree on that in regard to almost all religions.

Do you consider your lack of belief in other religions to be close minded? Why would you consider mine to be such?

Now, where is that evidence for levitation? If you don’t give me an example with some reasonable evidence then my default position will remain and it would have been a waste of time you bringing it up.

 

[ynotzap]

He was an idiot and an anti semite.

If you reread my post, I proved you wrong, there are idiots that walk among us.

Bradski:

No it doesn’t. It just means that the same evidence is available to more people. It doesn’t add validation in the slightest. Even if more people believe the same evidence does not add to its validity. Are you suggesting we have a vote on what is true or not? Because the majority of Catholics believe that there is nothing wrong with contraception. You should let the Vatican know.

You do not take the testimony of other people, but you do of scientists, because they can provide empirical proof, this appears as a "prejudicial judgement " not an open mind.

Bradski:

Not relevant. I’m not sure to explain why I’m an atheist.

Very relevant, to substantiate your position and credibility.

Bradski:

I’m quite aware of the term Advocatus Diaboli. And I guess if you think God made fairies and Bigfoot and hobgoblins etc then the supernatural does include God.

There is a big difference between imagined entities and the supernatural.

Bradski:

I take it that you know about Vishnu and Bigfoot and Peter Pan and fairies. And from your statement that would mean…what, exactly?

Again I know the difference between imagined entities, and God. It is apparent you do not. But you say you know Him, how do you know Him? Just an imagined idea of a fairy? Your answers seem to just imagine problems of logical thinking away.

 

[francisca]

Before I ask, let me make the disclaimer that I do NOT intend to start a fight. I’m NOT here to try to prove anyone wrong. It’s just some honest questions.

Now, to the questions: Do you consider that it is at least possible that a gap of knowledge has only a supernatural explanation?

If not, why not, and how is that any less a leap of faith than theism?

If so, then when we see a gap of knowledge that science does not yet have a proven explanation, is there a point in inquiry in which a supernatural explanation would at least be worth considering? Or do you implicitly trust that scientific (or otherwise secular) explanations will eventually fill in the gap? If the latter, then how is that any less a leap of faith than believing that God fills in the gaps?

Thanks.

I am not an atheist, however here is my view:

Science is clusters of methodology with many questions and gaps in between.
If ever all gaps are closed, in my opinion, science will find God.
However, humanity need to live forever in order to close all gaps of science.
It takes “a God” for humanity to be able to live forever.
And since “forever” also means “with no time limit”, I assume we will close the gaps up to 99.9999999 (with 9 that doesn’t stop forever) percent, and never reach 100%.
So then we will realize the limit was “the forbidden will of the first man to become God”

 

[Blue_Horizon]

One of my philosophical outlooks on life is generally not to accept anything without good evidence. The obverse of that is that I should accept anything on good evidence. I have not said or even suggested that I need to experience this myself. For ample, I accept the theory of evolution on what I consider to be good evidence even though I do not, and cannot, experience it directly. I hope that’s clear enough.

The gap that you mention is simply a gap in current knowledge that some people would like to fill with the supernatural. There are gaps in our knowledge and I obviously accept that. Not to do so would be perverse.

And who on earth said I do not understand religion? I understand it perfectly well. It’s simply that I don’t find the evidence for any given religion to be true to be convincing. In passing, it might be worth noting that we both agree on that in regard to almost all religions.

Do you consider your lack of belief in other religions to be close minded? Why would you consider mine to be such?

Now, where is that evidence for levitation? If you don’t give me an example with some reasonable evidence then my default position will remain and it would have been a waste of time you bringing it up.

You only believe in gaps that science is able to explain - however inadequately - in preference to any occult attempts however successful. That’s subjective prejudice in my book.

Yes Garabandal had some relatively well attested incidences of partial levitation along with much more inexplicable phenomena.
You are a big boy, if you really are interested in the possibility of gaps where an occult explanation is the better explanation you would be keen to do a first pass search and examination of the evidence.
I don’t see that energy in you - yet you have plenty of energy to come on a Catholic forum and bait the simple with your absurd strawman parody of what you believe truly educated Catholics actually hold.

So you make the effort and come back to us. Then I will accept your bona fides and consider whether it’s worth my while progressing this discussion with you.

 

[Pallas_Athene]

You are a big boy, if you really are interested in the possibility of gaps where an occult explanation is the better explanation you would be keen to do a first pass search and examination of the evidence.

Go to the Randi Foundation and win a million dollars if you can demonstrate any paranormal (or occult) events, under properly controlled circumstances.

 

[rose_kelly]

Atheists think that science will eventually provide the answer that disproves the existence of God.

Theists know with ABSOLUTE CERTAINTY science won’t.

Thank God!

:

 

[Bradski]

You do not take the testimony of other people, but you do of scientists, because they can provide empirical proof, this appears as a "prejudicial judgement " not an open mind.

Who said anything about scientists? I don’t care who has the evidence. If they are credible and the evidence likewise, then it must be examined with an open mind. And I just love the way that ‘scientists’ are often all grouped together in some ephemeral cabal, obviously signifying an ‘agenda’ of some sort so that quoting a ‘scientist’ is an example of ‘prejudicial judgement’.

There is a big difference between imagined entities and the supernatural.

You might have lost track of the fact that that is what we are trying to determine.

I know the difference between imagined entities, and God. It is apparent you do not.

Aren’t you being prejudicial in suggesting that Bigfoot is an imagined entitiy? Have you examined the evidence with an open mind? Well, probably not, but anyway…

But you say you know Him, how do you know Him? Just an imagined idea of a fairy? Your answers seem to just imagine problems of logical thinking away.

I’m not sure how old you are but I could take a stab at this and say that there is a possibility that I was a Christian for longer than you have been. There may also be a chance that I have also spent more time studying Christianity than you have. I may be wrong on both counts, but each statement should give you a ball park idea of where I’m coming from.

 

[Bradski]

Yes Garabandal had some relatively well attested incidences of partial levitation along with much more inexplicable phenomena.

Well, again, let’s discuss them and we can see how strong the evidence is. Give it your best shot and we all join in the discussion and evaluate what you have to say and debate its credibility. So, the evidence if you will…

You are a big boy, if you really are interested in the possibility of gaps where an occult explanation is the better explanation you would be keen to do a first pass search and examination of the evidence.

So give me the evidence. I’m certainly not going to do your work for you. And in any case, anything I come up with myself is open to your suggestion that I’m not looking in the right place or that I’m being selective.

I don’t see that energy in you - yet you have plenty of energy to come on a Catholic forum and bait the simple with your absurd strawman parody of what you believe truly educated Catholics actually hold.

‘Bait the simple’? Well, they’re not my words. I never said that. Nothing to do with me, your honour.

So you make the effort and come back to us. Then I will accept your bona fides and consider whether it’s worth my while progressing this discussion with you.

Mmm. Accept my bona fides, eh? OK. I’ll do some book learnin’ and be back soon. In the meantime, could you make the effort to come up with that evidence we talked about earlier? Cheers.

Oh, and by the way, what exactly is ‘partial levitation’. I can do that by lifting one foot off the ground but I guess it means something else.

 

[Pallas_Athene]

Oh, and by the way, what exactly is ‘partial levitation’. I can do that by lifting one foot off the ground but I guess it means something else.

Haha! Levitation is easy… type in “levitation trick youtube” into Google, and you will see many levitating people. As Barnum and Bailey said: “there is a sucker born every minute”… which should say: “there is a sucker born (again) every minute”…

 

[Bradski]

Haha! Levitation is easy… type in “levitation trick youtube” into Google, and you will see many levitating people. As Barnum and Bailey said: “there is a sucker born every minute”… which should say: “there is a sucker born (again) every minute”…

If it’s the one I can do (I’ll check it lunchtime), then it does look impressive. Not exactly floating around the room, but I have had people think there was a hidden wire somewhere. As you said, it is ridiculously easy to fool people.

I sat at a table with a professional magician a few years back with a mate of mine. The two of us watched him like hawks. Never took our eyes off him. Not for a second. We had both his hands in full view at all times. There was no WAY he was going to fool us. And what he did we still talk about. It was actually quite a shock seeing something that every fibre of your body says is impossible. The hairs literally stood up on the back of my neck and I actually went a little cold. It was unnerving. We were in denial all afternoon (there was no WAY he did that!).

A simple conjuring trick. And two reasonably mature, reasonably intelligent men, expecting trickery, watching for sleight of hand and sitting literally in front of a young guy with a pack of cards and some glib patter were utterly fooled.

 

[ynotzap]

Bradski: When you stated that you are an atheist I took you at your word, but I find this is not what you mean.
Quote: post # 64 by Bradski: "and lastly, what do I know about God, Ah, I see because I now describe myself as an atheist, you have assumed that I knew nothing about him (God) "

What is one suppose to assume when you trust that the person is being truthful, who calls himself an atheist? You didn’t add any modifiers, or qualifiers to your description of yourself.

When you explain the convincing evidence you find so compelling that eliminates all doubt in maintaining your position- in calling yourself an atheist, and not even considering the possibility of the supernatural unless you see it for yourself . (not giving any credence to personal testimony, even with witnesses) And when you give the true reasons for calling yourself a (supposedly) atheist I’ll give you may compelling reason why I know “levitation” is a fact, even though I have witnesses ( of course you are not one of them so why accept the evidence from others) I am reminded of the saying "for nonbelievers, no argument or reason is adequate, for believers no argument is necessary

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Well, again, let’s discuss them and we can see how strong the evidence is. Give it your best shot and we all join in the discussion and evaluate what you have to say and debate its credibility. So, the evidence if you will…

So give me the evidence. I’m certainly not going to do your work for you. And in any case, anything I come up with myself is open to your suggestion that I’m not looking in the right place or that I’m being selective.

‘Bait the simple’? Well, they’re not my words. I never said that. Nothing to do with me, your honour.

Mmm. Accept my bona fides, eh? OK. I’ll do some book learnin’ and be back soon. In the meantime, could you make the effort to come up with that evidence we talked about earlier? Cheers.

Oh, and by the way, what exactly is ‘partial levitation’. I can do that by lifting one foot off the ground but I guess it means something else.

“She Went in Haste” is probably one of the more comprehensive and objective of the publically available entry points. It quotes a lot of primary documentation.

You will of course get a lot of additional theological inferences (ie “explaining of the gaps” in religious terms) which is not what I am putting up for discussion here. I just want to see if we can establish that we have a common ground recognition that there is in fact reasonably credible evidence of inexplicable “gaps” in the first place.

I foresee this will in the end amount to a dispute over what constitutes “reasonably credible human testimony”.

It is my limited observation that large numbers of over the top “atheists” (I hate putting people in boxes) are so because they either have an inordinate need for great amounts of “evidence” before they walk out on thin ice…or they have human trust issues.

I would explain to you what a partial levitation means were it not for your continued jejeune attitude above which doesn’t yet warrant my free generosity. So if you cannot work that out due to an intelligent yet less than sincere mind just read the material for yourself.

The prediction of the solar phenomenon at Fatima 11 Oct 1917 would be easier to discuss as a Secular newspaper of the area had a reporter like you there (who much to his amazement observed the phenomenon) and wrote it up in the paper. No levitation though sorry, does there have to be?

Nevertheless if you insist on Garabandal then download the pdf book here.