Well, why?

[Luke_K]

Everyone who’s studied logic knows that you can construct a logically coherent argument that is false – logic needs to begin from true premises, premises that you must demonstrate with evidence.

This squarely contradicts what you admitted to earlier, that you yourself assume things without evidence. That statement is self-defeating anyways. Where is your evidence that true premises must have evidence?

And anyways, empirical evidence for God is strictly impossible. Any insane miracle I can come up with just becomes another batch of “unexplained natural phenomena” to a rigid empirical materialist. Say that every human being on the planet observes every star in the night sky actually move around to spell out “God exists you idiots!”, that would just mean we have a new observation to find a natural cause for.

 

[Luke_K]

So you’re saying that the universe, which, being finite, cannot possibly be self-existent or self-explanatory, is dependent on nothing for its coming to being? I think is YOU who will have to explain how the answer to this question could be anything but “NO. :ehh:”

I think you’ve just shown that you don’t know how to explain it, either. You just said “a finite being cannot possibly be self-existent or self-explanatory” without explaining why. If you can’t explain it to a believer, what hope is there for an atheist?

 

[Windfish]

I think you’ve just shown that you don’t know how to explain it, either. You just said “a finite being cannot possibly be self-existent or self-explanatory” without explaining why. If you can’t explain it to a believer, what hope is there for an atheist?

The alternative is absurd, don’t you think? I mean, if I read some philosophy or metaphysics, I’m sure I can find a haughty answer for you, but I would think it is a matter of common sense and logic. I think it falls on you to explain to me how this is possible.

 

[Luke_K]

The alternative is absurd, don’t you think? I mean, if I read some philosophy or metaphysics, I’m sure I can find a haughty answer for you, but I would think it is a matter of common sense and logic. I think it falls on you to explain to me how this is possible.

I sincerely don’t think the alternative is absurd, or at least I don’t see why. If it’s as obvious as you say, then I must be stupid.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

The alternative is absurd, don’t you think? I mean, if I read some philosophy or metaphysics, I’m sure I can find a haughty answer for you, but I would think it is a matter of common sense and logic. I think it falls on you to explain to me how this is possible.

The answers is obvious. When atheists go about there daily lives, they are quite happy to point out the contingency of things, the dependency of things the causality in things. But as soon as they find out that the contingency of physical reality implies God, they come up with all these elaborate compromises, such as “oh maybe a contingent being can bring itself out of nothing without a cuase!!”.

They make it hard for themselves to see because they don’t want to see; its not the theists fault.

 

[Windfish]

I sincerely don’t think the alternative is absurd, or at least I don’t see why. If it’s as obvious as you say, then I must be stupid.

I certainly do not think you are stupid, but it is obvious, at least to me, that finite limited things do not contain within themselves an explanation for themselves.

Anyway, we are getting away from Our Lady of Fatima. It is not a “ghost story.” It is a historical event for which we have vast data.

We can arrive at a miraculous explanation by first ruling it out and then testing all possible natural explanations. Incidentally, this is what the Catholic Church does in its investigations of miracles. of the evidence (e.g., an alien conspiracy), which we can then rule out using Occam’s Razor. outside If AntiTheist is to respect the evidence he says he is searching for, then he must admit that a miraculous explanation is inescapable given the evidence. Again, all of his natural explanations have been explicitly disproven. From here, we note that the three children claimed to see the Virgin Mary (per Catholic religion) during the previous months, and she had predicted to the day, to the hour, to the second, to the place that this miracle was going to happen. And all of this is WITHOUT going into the corroborating evidence during the five previous months that proves the veracity of the claims of the three children.

So, there it is, empirical evidence - non-philosophic, non-theoretical. And this is just ONE miracle among the hundreds of thousands that are similarly heavily-documented within the Church.

 

[Luke_K]

The answers is obvious. When atheists go about there daily lives, they are quite happy to point out the contingency of things, the dependency of things the causality in things. But as soon as they find out that the contingency of physical reality implies God, they come up with all these elaborate compromises, such as “oh maybe a contingent being can bring itself out of nothing without a cuase!!”.

They make it hard for themselves to see because they don’t want to see; its not the theists fault.

Except that I’m Catholic. I sincerely want to see. Explain to me why the matter-energy that comprises the universe, which at no point in time did not exist, is contingent. I’ll create a new thread to discuss it.

 

[CWBetts]

The answers is obvious. When atheists go about there daily lives, they are quite happy to point out the contingency of things, the dependency of things the causality in things. But as soon as they find out that the contingency of physical reality implies God, they come up with all these elaborate compromises, such as “oh maybe a contingent being can bring itself out of nothing without a cuase!!”.

They make it hard for themselves to see because they don’t want to see; its not the theists fault.

St. Thomas Aquinas called that idea “absurd”

 

[j1akey]

If that’s the case, then you’ve rejected even the possibility of evidence for God. Even if I predicted that next Tuesday, at 3:04 p.m. Pacific time, a wave of meteors would crash into Death Valley and spell out “God exists” in all the major world languages, and it happened, that would only be an unexplained natural phenomenon?

But you’re “predicting” something that we both know isn’t going to happen. I’ll play along anyway.

If it did happen then that would be evidence toward some sort of outside force controlling the meteors. If you want to call that force “God” then that’s fine but then at that point we’d have the beginnings of actual evidence for something else out there and then it wouldn’t be so supernatural anymore. Either that or space aliens playing a joke on us.

Either way, since meteors from the sky spelling out “God Exists” in all the major world languages hasn’t happened yet it’s a moot point anyway. If it did then I’d be the first person to say maybe I was wrong but since it hasn’t, nor has any event even remotely close to it, I won’t.

 

[Windfish]

But you’re “predicting” something that we both know isn’t going to happen. I’ll play along anyway.

If it did happen then that would be evidence toward some sort of outside force controlling the meteors. If you want to call that force “God” then that’s fine but then at that point we’d have the beginnings of actual evidence for something else out there and then it wouldn’t be so supernatural anymore. Either that or space aliens playing a joke on us.

Either way, since meteors from the sky spelling out “God Exists” in all the major world languages hasn’t happened yet it’s a moot point anyway. If it did then I’d be the first person to say maybe I was wrong but since it hasn’t, nor has any event even remotely close to it, I won’t.

Take a look at Fatima. I’ve done a very brief overview in the thread. The evidence leads to an inescapable miraculous explanation which points to the truth of Christianity.

 

[CWBetts]

But you’re “predicting” something that we both know isn’t going to happen. I’ll play along anyway.

If it did happen then that would be evidence toward some sort of outside force controlling the meteors. If you want to call that force “God” then that’s fine but then at that point we’d have the beginnings of actual evidence for something else out there and then it wouldn’t be so supernatural anymore. Either that or space aliens playing a joke on us.

Either way, since meteors from the sky spelling out “God Exists” in all the major world languages hasn’t happened yet it’s a moot point anyway. If it did then I’d be the first person to say maybe I was wrong but since it hasn’t, nor has any event even remotely close to it, I won’t.

According to strict adherence to statistical principles…it COULD happen, by sheer chance, given enough time. I would gather it is more likely for that to happen that for the earth to pop into existence by chance, especially considering that the likelihood for a planet capable of sustaining complex life is roughly one planet per 10,000 galaxies.

 

[AntiTheist]

I had written the following:

Everyone who’s studied logic knows that you can construct a logically coherent argument that is false – logic needs to begin from true premises, premises that you must demonstrate with evidence.

And Luke responds with the following gem:

This squarely contradicts what you admitted to earlier, that you yourself assume things without evidence.

No, it does not. You are making a category error by confusing rational assumptions with something entirely different: premises of logical arguments that we make within a system built on the foundation of the rational assumptions.

There are assumptions that we all make – assumptions like our senses revealing a universe in which other minds exist – and given those assumptions, we have constructed a system of reason and evidence whereby we evaluate claims made about the world. Within that system, you need premises that come from evidence.

Our discussion – like all discussions about any claims about the external world – takes the rational assumptions as given starting points. In order to evaluate claims about the external world (which we’re assuming is external and not the Matrix), we need to use the system of logic, reason, and evidence that we’ve come up with. Fundamental to that system is proceeding from true premises.

Maybe you’re confused by the fact that the word “assumptions” is sometimes used both for what I’m calling “rational assumptions” and “premises of logical arguments” above.

But it’s not in any sense a contradiction – you are comparing apples and oranges because you do not grasp the difference between a rational assumption and a premise in a logical argument (and between a claim made about the world that our senses reveal).

And anyways, empirical evidence for God is strictly impossible.

So is that the end of this thread? I could have told you that 14 pages ago, but Marc Anthony is going to be so disappointed now.

Any insane miracle I can come up with just becomes another batch of “unexplained natural phenomena” to a rigid empirical materialist. Say that every human being on the planet observes every star in the night sky actually move around to spell out “God exists you idiots!”, that would just mean we have a new observation to find a natural cause for.

I would call an event like that very strong evidence that there is an intelligent force capable of manipulating the physical universe (whether it really is a god would be a separate question, but it would be one heck of a start toward answering that question in the affirmative).

Which brings up an interesting point: if this god wants people to believe in him – and if he is in the business of giving miraculous experiences to some people (apparently only to isolated lunatics and crowds whipped up into an anticipatory fervor) – why on earth wouldn’t he perform a miracle like you indicate above?

Doing something like spelling out a message in the stars is completely within the power of the Christian god – and we could even measure the stars’ position and determine that they really are deviating from their courses in a way that gravity shouldn’t allow, letting us know that we really are witnessing a miracle: a violation of the natural laws that we can measure.

Don’t give me that “he wants to respect our free will” line – you are still free to choose to accept or reject god if you have evidence of him. Satan, from Christian mythology, has absolute proof that god is real, and yet he freely chose to reject him, so there goes that line of argument.

Seriously, why wouldn’t your god do this? Why does he provide – according to Luke’s own words here – no empirical evidence of his existence (when his existence is supposedly a fact about the world, claims about which require empirical evidence to support) and then expect people to believe in him? Why does the only evidence he supposedly provides – supposed miracle events – not leave any trace of their occurrence in the world?

Windfish:

They didn’t have a mistaken impression. They saw the sun spin on its axis, wrench itself from the sky, and come tumbling toward earth. I can pull out the evidence again, if you want, but that is what they saw, period.

When the observations of a group of people are in question, you can’t use their observations as evidence that their observations were accurate – especially when astronomical data tells us for a fact that their observations were in error: the sun did not do anything out of the ordinary that day.

A group of people saw a magician make the Statue of Liberty disappear – but you can’t use their observations as evidence that the statue really did disappear.

 

[Windfish]

When the observations of a group of people are in question, you can’t use their observations as evidence that their observations were accurate – especially when astronomical data tells us for a fact that their observations were in error: the sun did not do anything out of the ordinary that day.

A group of people saw a magician make the Statue of Liberty disappear – but you can’t use their observations as evidence that the statue really did disappear.

I have no problem with this as a starting point because the end point is the same. Let me explain.

We first say to ourselves, “Well, this is impossible. How can the Statue of Liberty just disappear?” From here, we set out to find all the possible explanations for what the people saw and test them against the evidence to find the most adequate one. For this event, we know that the explanation was a disappearing act by a magician.

Let us take the same approach with Fatima. First, let us start with what the people say they saw: they saw the sun spin on its axis, wrench itself from the sky with irregular movements before it tumbled toward earth. Now, like the disappearance of the Statue of Liberty, this is an impossible event. From here, we set out to find all possible explanations for what the people saw and test them against the evidence to find the most adequate one.

Before we set out, it is important to note the following: the one thing that is clear from all of the first-hand accounts is that they really believed they saw the sun. Editors and journalists of many of Portugal’s leading newspapers were on the scene, and, remember, they were reporting on the apparitions with derision, mockery, and incitements of violence up until that point, and they were all avowedly anti-theists, such as yourself, working for pro-government and anti-clerical newspapers. Despite every incentive not to, they reported that they saw the sun spin on its axis, etc. If it didn’t happen, or if it happened any other way, I think it is very sure that these avowedly anti-theists would not have reported on a “miracle” they did not witness.

So what are the possible explanations? I think I have done a good enough job citing and examining them here. If you read the post, you will see that mass collusion, mass delusion/hysteria, eye-strain from the sun, and a natural phenomenon all fail as explanations for this event.

Given this, the only possible explanation is a miraculous explanation. From here, we note that the three children claimed to see the Virgin Mary (per Catholic religion) during the previous months, and she had predicted to the day, to the hour, to the second, to the place that this miracle was going to happen. And all of this is WITHOUT going into the corroborating evidence during the five previous months that proves the veracity of the claims of the three children.

As you can see, the end point is the same.

 

[Windfish]

Seriously, why wouldn’t your god do this? Why does he provide – according to Luke’s own words here – no empirical evidence of his existence (when his existence is supposedly a fact about the world, claims about which require empirical evidence to support) and then expect people to believe in him? Why does the only evidence he supposedly provides – supposed miracle events – not leave any trace of their occurrence in the world.

As a side note, if you pray, and keep on praying to be shown, I guarantee that you will be shown.

 

[R_Daneel]

Let’s pour some oil unto the fire.

What is the evidence that the whole Fatima thing actually happened?

That it not just elaborate hoax, invented by some people, who passed it on as a joke, and it ran amok? Such instances are not unheard of. For example, April Fool’s jokes, which are taken seriously by some people. As a matter of fact, there was once a bogus news-story in The Onion and it was propagated as a serious story by a Chinese news agency? Remember the hype of the crop-circles, which were taken as serious evidence by some UFO-believers? It was, of course just a hoax. What about the Loch-Ness monster, or the yeti-sightings?

What is the evidence that the events described at the Fatima really happened? Where was it reported? How many people reported it as alleged first-hand witnesses? Was there an independent set of investigators, who are trained at separating urban legends from real events? Just curious.

 

[inocente]

I had a look at the Fatima event at fatima.org and elsewhere.

The effects of the sun were not reported beyond a radius of 50 km, and so could not have been extraterrestrial. I think most likely it was mass hysteria, as proposed by Meessen of the Catholic University of Leuven. People gathered there in the firm expectation that something miraculous would happen and the prediction was self-fulfilled. I’m not sure of the scientific evidence, but it seems that hysteria is easier to produce in a large crowd, hence the size of Nazi rallies.

I’ve witnessed mass hysteria in a smaller crowd (6,000?) at a summer festival. It was supposed to be due to the Holy Spirit and caused uncontrollable laughter. It was hard not to join in. The effect, known (I think) as the third wave, is quite scary and can be seen in these videos:
youtube.com/watch?v=DrwDFSqE41Q
youtube.com/watch?v=CVNLfHInqsU
youtube.com/watch?v=4Vo-qDEJo90

(You’ll see there are lots of others. Americans may note that Sarah Palin seems to go in for this stuff).

Another example. We live in an area with no light pollution, and when the moon is up (making most stars hard to see) you can look at a star and think that it is moving downwards. I’ve watched townies talk each other into thinking that Venus is a satellite in polar orbit until ten minutes later they realize it still hasn’t gone below the horizon. Many townies see UFOs because the night sky is a novelty, and the same goes for the unusual activity of looking at the sun for an extended period through cloud cover.

Of the 3 Secrets, the only one (I think) that makes verifiable predictions is the second, which was first written down by Lúcia in 1935. Its prediction of the end of WWI was already fulfilled and Pius XI was already Pope. The prediction of the possibility of WWII happening soon may have been obvious, as was the danger of Stalin’s Russia.

 

[Windfish]

Let’s pour some oil unto the fire.

What is the evidence that the whole Fatima thing actually happened?

That it not just elaborate hoax, invented by some people, who passed it on as a joke, and it ran amok? Such instances are not unheard of. For example, April Fool’s jokes, which are taken seriously by some people. As a matter of fact, there was once a bogus news-story in The Onion and it was propagated as a serious story by a Chinese news agency? Remember the hype of the crop-circles, which were taken as serious evidence by some UFO-believers? It was, of course just a hoax. What about the Loch-Ness monster, or the yeti-sightings?

What is the evidence that the events described at the Fatima really happened? Where was it reported? How many people reported it as alleged first-hand witnesses? Was there an independent set of investigators, who are trained at separating urban legends from real events? Just curious.

Wait, what? Well, for one, we have photographs of the crowd making their way and assembling at the Cova da Iria (a grazing field for cattle and the cite of the apparitions). From these several photographs, modern scholars have estimated the crowd to have been near 100,000 in size. A dozen or so journalists from Portugal’s largest newspapers were at the scene, and it was these same anti-theistic journalists (the most prominent was a Free Mason, a historical enemy of the Catholic Church ) who reported on the apparitions with derision, mockery, and incitement of violence up until that point. From the crowds themselves, we have hundreds and hundreds of letters they wrote to confidants and investigators at the time. We also have the books of a handful of investigators who spent years in Fatima interviewing the witnesses and the authorities.

We also have the newspaper articles leading up to the event which reported on the apparitions and the October 13 prediction by the Blessed Virgin via the children. The prediction, by the way, was made by as early as May 13, 1917.

What else can I tell you? On July 13, 1917, when the Blessed Virgin told two of the children that they were to die soon (and they did die soon, exactly a year from October 13, the last apparition, and the youngest is on record for predicting the exact date and time and nature of her death), the two children ecstatically talked about their impending deaths to baffled pilgrims and villagers. Mind you, the children were ages 9 and 7 at this time. I mean, so far, we’ve only been talking about the Miracle of the Sun, but I, personally, find the witness of the children to be far more compelling. For example, on the August 13, 1917 apparition, they were kidnapped by the administrator of the region, and we have records of their unjust arrest. They were placed in a cell with adult prisoners, male, and with no adult supervision or a lawyer present. They were threatened with gruesome death, but none of them recanted the apparitions. Again, these children ages 10, 9, and 7.

 

[Windfish]

I had a look at the Fatima event at fatima.org and elsewhere.

The effects of the sun were not reported beyond a radius of 50 km, and so could not have been extraterrestrial. I think most likely it was mass hysteria, as proposed by Meessen of the Catholic University of Leuven. People gathered there in the firm expectation that something miraculous would happen and the prediction was self-fulfilled. I’m not sure of the scientific evidence, but it seems that hysteria is easier to produce in a large crowd, hence the size of Nazi rallies.

That possibility has been examined and shown not to square with the evidence. Besides, if you search for mass hysteria on Google, the results do not show anywhere near the size gathered at Cova da Ira. If there was mass hysteria at play, since the crowd is too large, there would be pockets of it that would conflict with each other, and the whole thing would be easily dismissed. Not to mention, those avowedly anti-theistic journalists I keep mentioning would hardly have reported it but would have used that to continue to their anti-religious tirade (e.g., “Foolish Crowds Gather And Madness Ensues”), but they didn’t. They simply reported what they saw. Finally, the whole notion is disproven because you have witnesses outside the crowd but within that radius.

 

[Kaninchen]

Wait, what? Well, for one, we have photographs of the crowd making their way and assembling at the Cova da Iria (a grazing field for cattle and the cite of the apparitions). From these several photographs, modern scholars have estimated the crowd to have been near 100,000 in size. A dozen or so journalists from Portugal’s largest newspapers were at the scene, and it was these same anti-theistic journalists (the most prominent was a Free Mason, a historical enemy of the Catholic Church ) who reported on the apparitions with derision, mockery, and incitement of violence up until that point. From the crowds themselves, we have hundreds and hundreds of letters they wrote to confidants and investigators at the time. We also have the books of a handful of investigators who spent years in Fatima interviewing the witnesses and the authorities.

We also have the newspaper articles leading up to the event which reported on the apparitions and the October 13 prediction by the Blessed Virgin via the children. The prediction, by the way, was made by as early as May 13, 1917.

What else can I tell you? On July 13, 1917, when the Blessed Virgin told two of the children that they were to die soon (and they did die soon, exactly a year from October 13, the last apparition, and the youngest is on record for predicting the exact date and time and nature of her death), the two children ecstatically talked about their impending deaths to baffled pilgrims and villagers. Mind you, the children were ages 9 and 7 at this time. I mean, so far, we’ve only been talking about the Miracle of the Sun, but I, personally, find the witness of the children to be far more compelling. For example, on the August 13, 1917 apparition, they were kidnapped by the administrator of the region, and we have records of their unjust arrest. They were placed in a cell with adult prisoners, male, and with no adult supervision or a lawyer present. They were threatened with gruesome death, but none of them recanted the apparitions. Again, these children ages 10, 9, and 7.

For non-believers it wasn’t the Sun that did the spinning.

 

[Windfish]

For non-believers it wasn’t the Sun that did the spinning.

I don’t understand. That is exactly what all the “non-believers” reported.