The "Problem Of Evil" does not exist

[Shike]

The problem of evil only exists if one believes in a god who intervenes in human lives and decisions - otherwise, what we think of as evil just happens as a result of the complexity of human cognitive processes.

Tell that to those who have had experience of evil regimes like that of the Nazis. I mean, I guess you can deny the reality of evil… but maybe you’re right, maybe it’s all an elaborate hoax that deals with synapses firing. And maybe you’re nothing more than a certain arrangement of atoms. You can think like that, but it won’t help you very much in navigating every day life and reality.

By the way, did you read my last post?

peace,
Michael

 

[Prodigal_Son]

Are you serious? I am more than assuming. That is why it is called the law of gravity, because it is a law of nature. Can you point to an experience of yours where the law of gravity was not the case? No. And even if you could, that would show an exception, a miraculous exception at that.

According to modern scientific methodology, any exception *disproves *a law of nature. If there is a single exception, it is not a law.

From srikant.org/core/phy11sep.html, on physical laws:

**The laws of nature are taken to be exact, universal, immutable, unconditional and eternal. **The human understanding of these natural laws, however, is partial, limited and contingent. Consequently, truths in the empirical sciences are conditional and contingent: they are valid only in certain well-defined domains and in circumstances that are limited. Any and every scientific law is open to being challenged, and is sometimes completely replaced by laws that have a greater domain of validity.

Thus, according to the scientific method, a single instance of levitation – if it could be scientifically authenticated as not an illusion – would *completely disprove *the entire theory of gravity. Exceptions are not allowed.

Well if it’s only a matter how we define things, then perhaps you should listen to scientists when they call gravity a law. You can’t have it both ways, ignore scientists when they call gravity a law and then accept their definition of what a law of nature is.

I am accepting their definition. By their definition, a single exception spells the end of a law.

Are you willing to say that God couldn’t suspend a law of nature even if he wanted to (and note when I say law of nature, I mean something like gravity, the way it is normally understood)? If God created the universe, then all He would have to do is destroy it to bring up a ton of exceptions to the laws of nature. Are you saying that God couldn’t destroy the universe that He made?

Of course He could destroy the universe, and do anything else He wanted. He just cannot do the logically impossible. Here’s my argument, in (roughly) logical form:

1. Assume that a law of nature is an exceptionless regularity.
2. Assume that gravity is a law of nature.
3. Therefore, gravity is an exceptionless regularity.
4. Assume that God can suspend gravity.
5. Therefore, God can create an exception to gravity.
6. Therefore, gravity is not an exceptionless regularity.
7. Therefore, gravity is both an exceptionless regularity and not an exceptionless regularity.

Since the conclusion is a contradiction, we know that the three premises are incompatible. If you agree to 1 & 2, you must discard 4. In other words, whatever exceptionless rule God chooses to orchestrate the universe are really exceptionless.

So what of someone who wants to preserve miracles? Well, the key is to realize that the observable universe is composed largely of regularities with exceptions. But perhaps, underlying these “qualified regularities”, there are deeper laws that have no exceptions. I would highly recommend looking at C.S. Lewis’s book Miracles, which has a detailed analysis of this idea.

And how could it possibly be that the Virgin Birth, walking on water, and bread and wine turning into the body and blood of Jesus… how could it possibly be that those events are laws of nature?

I wouldn’t call them laws of themselves, but rather expressions of deeper regularities. The regularities they express are not overtly physical regularities, but rather regularities of person. They are expressions of the character of God, which is the deepest regularity underlying all the seeming regularities of our cosmos.

Sorry for the sarcasm, but I am using it to illustrate the backwardness of your claim. I wonder what spurred you to try to do mental gymnastics with regards to what a law of nature really is. Was it because you heard that faith and science are compatible and you wanted to make room for the possibility of miracles?

I wrote a paper on Hume’s criticism of miracles. I began to understand the real claims of science, which are always falsifiable by a single exception. I pondered the question: why would God create a system of laws that He would violate?

There is no contradiction in maintaining the definition of a law of nature and God’s providence provided that you realize the scope in which science operates. Science is concerned about nature. Realize that for the most part God is outside of nature and the realm of science. If He created it, He can pretty much do what He wants with it.

I agree that God can do whatever He wants with nature. And I agree that God is beyond nature (unless you define nature as “all that exists”). But God is not beyond the realm of science. Rather, every scientific explanation that does not include God is incomplete, insofar as it has not reached the level of ultimate causality.

And I hope my attitude doesn’t get in the way of reevaluating your stance.

I don’t mind your attitude at all, and I like impassioned stances. I do hope that you consider some of the things I’m saying, however, because I’m not sure your position is logically consistent. In the end, though, we agree about a whole heck of a lot, I hope you’ll notice.

 

[Sair]

Tell that to those who have had experience of evil regimes like that of the Nazis. I mean, I guess you can deny the reality of evil… but maybe you’re right, maybe it’s all an elaborate hoax that deals with synapses firing. And maybe you’re nothing more than a certain arrangement of atoms. You can think like that, but it won’t help you very much in navigating every day life and reality.

By the way, did you read my last post?

peace,
Michael

It might be more satisfactory than that a supposedly benevolent god permitted (and thus perhaps approved) such destructive behaviour. I have never denied the reality of evil - from that response, I might question whether you have read my last response to your previous post.

Understanding human behaviour in the light of evolutionary biology and psychology makes more sense to me than understanding it as a result of special creation by a benevolent power - the latter only creates contradictions.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Why does a benevolent god create animals capable of evil, if not for egotistical reasons?

how can an animal commit evil? its deterministically driven. an animal is no more capable of committing evil than a vacuum cleaner.

It seems to me that free will serves no purpose other than to validate reverence for a creator god - if a person freely chooses to worship, that’s far more valuable to the object of said worship than enforced or necessary reverence.

Really, the value of free will (even the existence of free will) is vastly open to debate - you can believe in a god who created beings with free will, or you can suppose that what we think of as free will is a conglomerate of physical processes happening in our brains. Either way, the results are the same. The problem of evil only exists if one believes in a god who intervenes in human lives and decisions - otherwise, what we think of as evil just happens as a result of the complexity of human cognitive processes.

you could not exist without free will any more than you can without air. otherwise you are simply a robot. there would be no “you”. you wouldnt be any more self aware than a robot
as every thought you had would be preprogrammed. you would essentially be a robot programmed to say “i”. thats a pretty good purpose to serve aside from the ability to freely love G-d.

now the interesting thing about a universe where there is no free will. it would prove the universe is designed. after all what are the odds that for no particular reason all the particles in the universe lined up in just such a way as to falsify the trillions of free will decisions people make every day, for thousands of years? that would be obvious proof of design.

 

[MindOverMatter]

Limitation ain’t a value judgement - it’s a practical consideration, in this case. And the question was fairly simple - only here you’re tying yourself in knots trying to make it complicated, and explain why limitations on god aren’t really limitations…or something.

I think Sidbrown put it quite succinctly, actually. If god is constrained by logic and consistency, he’s not omnipotent. If he isn’t constrained by these rules, we’re back to the problem of evil.

This is just an assertion on your part in order to avoid facing the factual truth of my argument. I don’t care what sid brown said. You can either accept my argument, or agree to disagree. If you have an argument that refutes my argument, then it would be wise of you to use it. The fact of reality is you don’t have an argument. My argument still stands.

 

[MindOverMatter]

But then why would an omnipotent Being allow it , that is then the problem of evil that people are speaking of.

The answer has been given. But do you understand it? Do you really want to?

 

[tonyrey]

Why does a benevolent god create animals capable of evil, if not for egotistical reasons? It seems to me that free will serves no purpose other than to validate reverence for a creator god - if a person freely chooses to worship, that’s far more valuable to the object of said worship than enforced or necessary reverence.

Are you referring to persons as animals? If so it reveals to what extent your materialism has devalued the life you claim to cherish… Your concept of free will is utterly at odds with the truth. You take it for granted that you are free to choose what to think and how to live yet you regard this gift as being solely for “egotistical reasons?” In point of fact the exact opposite is the case. Power-sharing entails sacrifice and the possibility of rejection by those you love - as we see only too well in our society in which parents are often ignored and discarded by their children. Filial ingratitude!

Really, the value of free will (even the existence of free will) is vastly open to debate - you can believe in a god who created beings with free will, or you can suppose that what we think of as free will is a conglomerate of physical processes happening in our brains. Either way, the results are the same.

It is absurd to associate a “conglomerate of physical processes” with free will.

The problem of evil only exists if one believes in a god who intervenes in human lives and decisions - otherwise, what we think of as evil just happens as a result of the complexity of human cognitive processes.

In other words you regard evil as no more than an illusion! It follows that goodness is also an illusion. You are well on the road to nihilism… Amusingly enough, my remark that nihilism is the logical outcome of materialism was recently greeted with indignation!

 

[MindOverMatter]

So we come back to my original contention, in response to the OP’s contention, that it actually makes no difference to the nature of the world as we know it, whether a personal, omnipotent, omnibenevolent god exists or not -

God does make a difference. In the world that you want to live in there is no objective moral truth, value, or purpose. We are left to deal with the unflinching and sometimes terrible infliction of suffering and the inevitable and degrading factor of ceasing to exist. Its a world in which we have to place our hopes and desires in the hands of beings that can be unpredictable and malicious. However, you can relatively be your own God, and you don’t have to take responsibility for your moral actions in the presence of God. That’s the world you want to believe in.

In the world that God creating there is still suffering and pain, both of which can be taken to a high degree of terror and despair. We may not yet have understood all of Gods reason, but we can understand how some of the things that we see can be explained by the necessity and value of freewill, and how the experience of pain can guide us and sometimes compels us to the knowledge and value of good. This does not change the fact that suffering is horrible. However, faith in God fulfilled us in the fact that we have a moral value and purpose, and it has been said to have been revealed that God promises to us that if we choose to love perfectly we will be fulfilled in heaven. This is the reality i have placed my hope in.

 

[Shike]

According to modern scientific methodology, any exception *disproves *a law of nature. If there is a single exception, it is not a law.

But a suspension of a law given by the Law-giver is not an exception in the sense as a scientist would understand it. Therefore it is permissible to accept the scientist’s definition of a law, and accept what the scientist observes as laws, and accept the possibility of miracles.

You have brought to light that I shouldn’t use the word exception with regards to God and the laws of nature because of the precise definition already in place for a law of nature, and therefore it is confusing. I will use the word suspend instead. I am trying to come up with an analogy…

This is not the best, but hopefully you get the point. I can judge that what I see is a cat, or I can judge what I see is not a cat. But I can also suspend judgment altogether. An exception (in the scientific sense) to a law of nature would fall under judging that what I see is not a cat, it is in conflict with the judgment that what I do see is a cat.

I am arguing that suspending a law of nature is categorically outside of what falls under it.

Thus, according to the scientific method, a single instance of levitation – if it could be scientifically authenticated as not an illusion – would *completely disprove *the entire theory of gravity. Exceptions are not allowed.

Keep in mind the distinction I want to make with regards to exceptions and suspensions. Now I agree, if I saw a man all of a sudden fly… I might reevaluate my conception of the law of gravity to include flying men, OR, more likely, I might wonder what’s the deal here and see God’s special providence at work. A scientific documentation of a miracle would just come to the conclusion that there is no known cause that they could point to. Scientists would be unable to amend their conception of the law of nature unless they knew what kind of scientific cause they could include inside the amendment.

In absence of such a known cause they would most likely not amend their conception but attribute the anomaly to illusion (which you can always give excuses to the cows come home, aka it could all have been a dream or we’re in the matrix).

I agree that you might be able to get away with defining things the way you do if you are looking at things from God’s perspective. But even though your definition would seem at the surface level to match that of the scientist’s definition, it would not match (as evidenced by the extremely different conclusions and conflicts that would ensue with every scientist you met).

Here’s my argument, in (roughly) logical form:

1. Assume that a law of nature is an exceptionless regularity.
2. Assume that gravity is a law of nature.
3. Therefore, gravity is an exceptionless regularity.
4. Assume that God can suspend gravity.
5. Therefore, God can create an exception to gravity.

I would have to say here is where I would insert the distinction between a suspension by God and a normal exception. In the case of God things are not quite the same as a normal exception, there is something different going on… something that giving the same word to both God’s providence and our discovery of counter evidence to a theory, something that just doesn’t do justice to the state of affairs.

I would highly recommend looking at C.S. Lewis’s book Miracles, which has a detailed analysis of this idea.

Thanks for the recommendation.

I wrote a paper on Hume’s criticism of miracles. I began to understand the real claims of science, which are always falsifiable by a single exception. I pondered the question: why would God create a system of laws that He would violate?

Again, I think we somewhat disagree because I think you are missing a category; I wouldn’t say God violates the laws of nature.

Side note: I think it’s important to see that there are different kinds of laws that come from God. There are the laws of nature, the laws of logic, the moral laws. I believe that the last two are more intimately connected with His nature so you won’t be seeing “exceptions” as in the case of the laws of nature.

I agree that God can do whatever He wants with nature. And I agree that God is beyond nature (unless you define nature as “all that exists”). But God is not beyond the realm of science. Rather, every scientific explanation that does not include God is incomplete, insofar as it has not reached the level of ultimate causality.

I agree. And if you look back at what I said I was careful to include the words, “for the most part”.

I don’t mind your attitude at all, and I like impassioned stances. I do hope that you consider some of the things I’m saying, however, because I’m not sure your position is logically consistent. In the end, though, we agree about a whole heck of a lot, I hope you’ll notice.

Thanks for the convo; I’ve learned something important already about my position.

peace,
Michael

 

[sidbrown]

But a suspension of a law given by the Law-giver is not an exception in the sense as a scientist would understand it. Therefore it is permissible to accept the scientist’s definition of a law, and accept what the scientist observes as laws, and accept the possibility of miracles.

You have brought to light that I shouldn’t use the word exception with regards to God and the laws of nature because of the precise definition already in place for a law of nature, and therefore it is confusing. I will use the word suspend instead. I am trying to come up with an analogy…

This is not the best, but hopefully you get the point. I can judge that what I see is a cat, or I can judge what I see is not a cat. But I can also suspend judgment altogether. An exception (in the scientific sense) to a law of nature would fall under judging that what I see is not a cat, it is in conflict with the judgment that what I do see is a cat.

I am arguing that suspending a law of nature is categorically outside of what falls under it.

Keep in mind the distinction I want to make with regards to exceptions and suspensions. Now I agree, if I saw a man all of a sudden fly… I might reevaluate my conception of the law of gravity to include flying men, OR, more likely, I might wonder what’s the deal here and see God’s special providence at work. A scientific documentation of a miracle would just come to the conclusion that there is no known cause that they could point to. Scientists would be unable to amend their conception of the law of nature unless they knew what kind of scientific cause they could include inside the amendment.

In absence of such a known cause they would most likely not amend their conception but attribute the anomaly to illusion (which you can always give excuses to the cows come home, aka it could all have been a dream or we’re in the matrix).

I agree that you might be able to get away with defining things the way you do if you are looking at things from God’s perspective. But even though your definition would seem at the surface level to match that of the scientist’s definition, it would not match (as evidenced by the extremely different conclusions and conflicts that would ensue with every scientist you met).

I would have to say here is where I would insert the distinction between a suspension by God and a normal exception. In the case of God things are not quite the same as a normal exception, there is something different going on… something that giving the same word to both God’s providence and our discovery of counter evidence to a theory, something that just doesn’t do justice to the state of affairs.

Thanks for the recommendation.

Again, I think we somewhat disagree because I think you are missing a category; I wouldn’t say God violates the laws of nature.

Side note: I think it’s important to see that there are different kinds of laws that come from God. There are the laws of nature, the laws of logic, the moral laws. I believe that the last two are more intimately connected with His nature so you won’t be seeing “exceptions” as in the case of the laws of nature.

I agree. And if you look back at what I said I was careful to include the words, “for the most part”.

Thanks for the convo; I’ve learned something important already about my position.

peace,
Michael

What about the miracle of the Sun where the sun spins near earth and then goes back to where it was before the miracle?

 

[Shike]

What about the miracle of the Sun where the sun spins near earth and then goes back to where it was before the miracle?

What about it?

 

[sidbrown]

What about it?

What happened to the other planets? What force held them in place?

 

[Shike]

What happened to the other planets? What force held them in place?

Are you trying to make fun of me or being serious, I can’t tell. I’ll assume the latter.

There are many possibilities, I don’t know for sure what the deal was with Fatima (it was Fatima, right?). If it was a suspension, who says that the suspension has to be a universal suspension throughout all space and/or time? And who’s to say if it was a “divine vision” or not. People outside of Fatima did not report such strange occurrences, so maybe other laws of nature were being suspended that pertain to human sense. In my opinion there are too many possibilities to speculate. The point of my tirade was to show that miracles are compatible with current scientific understanding of laws of nature.

But what is important to what you’re trying to get at (I think) is that it’s not a counter example to what I said.

peace,
Michael

 

[Prodigal_Son]

But a suspension of a law given by the Law-giver is not an exception in the sense as a scientist would understand it. Therefore it is permissible to accept the scientist’s definition of a law, and accept what the scientist observes as laws, and accept the possibility of miracles.

You have brought to light that I shouldn’t use the word exception with regards to God and the laws of nature because of the precise definition already in place for a law of nature, and therefore it is confusing. I will use the word suspend instead.

I like that better. Some atheists want to say that miracles are *by definition *absurd; my defense is to concede this point, if “law of nature” is taken in its scientific form, but argue that miracles are (among other things) extraordinarily improbable events, from the standpoint of our inductive practices. I agree that many of the most significant miracles are events that are not only best explained by the “intervention” of God, but indeed no other sensible explanation can be found.

(I put “intervention” in quotes, by the way, because I think it is quite possible that God need never intervene, but can prearrange things a certain way. The key exception here is the Incarnation, which is in every sense an intervention. Indeed, that is the splendor and the scandal of the Incarnation!)

In regard to suspending a law of nature, perhaps we might compare this to computer programming. There is a base program, with certain parameters (perceived laws of nature). These parameters seem so central that we – from within the program – take them to be the governing apparatus of the program itself. But, written in the code, there is an override for specific scenarios which the programmer has anticipated; in such and such a case, the original set of parameters will be bypassed.

The true “law of nature” here is the code itself, not any of the internal parameters. Indeed, this is the contrast between the materialist and the Christian: the materialist does not expect purpose in the cosmos, so instead he looks for arrangement – those things that “happen to be” regular. The Christian knows that there is a “cosmic programmer”, and thus expects everything to work teleologically, toward certain goals. The person who simply looks for regularities in a computer program is awfully unlikely to find out what that program does, what its purpose is. Indeed, even the best computer programs might look somewhat *ad hoc *internally, but they might function beautifully.

Side note: I think it’s important to see that there are different kinds of laws that come from God. There are the laws of nature, the laws of logic, the moral laws. I believe that the last two are more intimately connected with His nature so you won’t be seeing “exceptions” as in the case of the laws of nature.

Interesting. It’s like the laws of logic are the *language *of the programmer (hence the idea that humans are in the image of God), while the moral laws are the *goals *of the programmer, which are hardly subject to change. The regularities of nature, in contrast, would be a “means to an end”, and thus would not need to be fixed, at least not for the sake of consistency.

Thanks for the convo; I’ve learned something important already about my position.

Thank you. You’ve brought out the idea of *levels of discourse *(or levels of nature?) here, which I think improves our understanding a great deal.

 

[Shike]

I like that better. Some atheists want to say that miracles are *by definition *absurd; my defense is to concede this point, if “law of nature” is taken in its scientific form, but argue that miracles are (among other things) extraordinarily improbable events, from the standpoint of our inductive practices. I agree that many of the most significant miracles are events that are not only best explained by the “intervention” of God, but indeed no other sensible explanation can be found.

(I put “intervention” in quotes, by the way, because I think it is quite possible that God need never intervene, but can prearrange things a certain way. The key exception here is the Incarnation, which is in every sense an intervention. Indeed, that is the splendor and the scandal of the Incarnation!)

In regard to suspending a law of nature, perhaps we might compare this to computer programming. There is a base program, with certain parameters (perceived laws of nature). These parameters seem so central that we – from within the program – take them to be the governing apparatus of the program itself. But, written in the code, there is an override for specific scenarios which the programmer has anticipated; in such and such a case, the original set of parameters will be bypassed.

The true “law of nature” here is the code itself, not any of the internal parameters. Indeed, this is the contrast between the materialist and the Christian: the materialist does not expect purpose in the cosmos, so instead he looks for arrangement – those things that “happen to be” regular. The Christian knows that there is a “cosmic programmer”, and thus expects everything to work teleologically, toward certain goals. The person who simply looks for regularities in a computer program is awfully unlikely to find out what that program does, what its purpose is. Indeed, even the best computer programs might look somewhat *ad hoc *internally, but they might function beautifully.

Interesting. It’s like the laws of logic are the *language *of the programmer (hence the idea that humans are in the image of God), while the moral laws are the *goals *of the programmer, which are hardly subject to change. The regularities of nature, in contrast, would be a “means to an end”, and thus would not need to be fixed, at least not for the sake of consistency.

Thank you. You’ve brought out the idea of *levels of discourse *(or levels of nature?) here, which I think improves our understanding a great deal.

All I can say is wow, thanks.

I can understand where you were coming from a lot better now.

Computer program analogy = brilliant (especially as to discovering purpose and design from within).
Synthesis of the types of “laws” by analogy (especially the connection with means-to-an-end) = beyond brilliant.

Side note: ever read Chance or Purpose or Creation and Evolution by Cardinal Schoenborn? The latter is a conference held by Pope Benedict XVI and includes papers from experts in diverse fields all talking about creation and evolution. It gave me a better understanding of what evolution shows and a better idea of where strict science ends and philosophy (or more accurately ideology) begins. And it’s not all up in your face with obtuse language, something that is approachable by almost anyone.

peace,
Michael

 

[sidbrown]

Are you trying to make fun of me or being serious, I can’t tell. I’ll assume the latter.

There are many possibilities, I don’t know for sure what the deal was with Fatima (it was Fatima, right?). If it was a suspension, who says that the suspension has to be a universal suspension throughout all space and/or time? And who’s to say if it was a “divine vision” or not. People outside of Fatima did not report such strange occurrences, so maybe other laws of nature were being suspended that pertain to human sense. In my opinion there are too many possibilities to speculate. The point of my tirade was to show that miracles are compatible with current scientific understanding of laws of nature.

But what is important to what you’re trying to get at (I think) is that it’s not a counter example to what I said.

peace,
Michael

there is nothing personal or ad hominem in what I was asking. It is only a question of if in fact the sun did come down to the earth, as some have claimed it did, then what was the force that held the other planets in orbit? Would it be more reasonable to assume an optical illusion of some sort related to a reflection in the sky after a storm?

 

[Prodigal_Son]

I can understand where you were coming from a lot better now.

Thanks for the kind words.

Side note: ever read Chance or Purpose or Creation and Evolution by Cardinal Schoenborn? The latter is a conference held by Pope Benedict XVI and includes papers from experts in diverse fields all talking about creation and evolution. It gave me a better understanding of what evolution shows and a better idea of where strict science ends and philosophy (or more accurately ideology) begins. And it’s not all up in your face with obtuse language, something that is approachable by almost anyone.

I will definitely look into those. I’ve been quite pleased with everything I’ve seen coming from Rome on this and related topics. If only the rest of Christianity (other Catholics included) could present such a united witness!

 

[Shike]

there is nothing personal or ad hominem in what I was asking. It is only a question of if in fact the sun did come down to the earth, as some have claimed it did, then what was the force that held the other planets in orbit? Would it be more reasonable to assume an optical illusion of some sort related to a reflection in the sky after a storm?

My initial response is sufficient to answer your objection. A suspension of a law doesn’t have to be universal. Moreover, the suspension of different laws than we would normally expect (ie gravity) could be at play. For instance, those that relate with our senses.

But to answer your last question. Though I’m not sure how it happened, I wouldn’t think so. What kind of optical illusion dries your clothes from the rain? Such an explanation doesn’t fit the data that we have.

peace,
Michael

 

[sidbrown]

My initial response is sufficient to answer your objection. A suspension of a law doesn’t have to be universal. Moreover, the suspension of different laws than we would normally expect (ie gravity) could be at play. For instance, those that relate with our senses.

But to answer your last question. Though I’m not sure how it happened, I wouldn’t think so. What kind of optical illusion dries your clothes from the rain? Such an explanation doesn’t fit the data that we have.

peace,
Michael

No. there are too many questions concerning what would happen if the sun did indeed come spinning down to the earth. For one thing, it would be noticed at other places on the earth, unless it were an optical illusion, similar to the optical illusions we are hearing about recently with Mary appearing as a shadow on a building, etc.

 

[Shike]

No. there are too many questions concerning what would happen if the sun did indeed come spinning down to the earth. For one thing, it would be noticed at other places on the earth, unless it were an optical illusion, similar to the optical illusions we are hearing about recently with Mary appearing as a shadow on a building, etc.

Do you realize that a suspension of a law of nature could include what you’re saying with regards to optical illusions (that is if you mean it in the sense that it physically didn’t happen but people just saw it happen–better word would be vision, I guess)?