trouble

[Seth]

Sad, so very sad.

You certainly are. You cannot argue your way out of a wet paper sack, so all you can do is fling poo and run away.

You lose. Again.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Sad, so very sad.

You certainly are. You cannot argue your way out of a wet paper sack, so all you can do is fling poo and run away.

You lose. Again.

You make an argument worth addressing then.

[Seth]

Sad, so very sad.

You certainly are. You cannot argue your way out of a wet paper sack, so all you can do is fling poo and run away.

You lose. Again.

You make an argument worth addressing then.

Evasion and pettifoggery. You lose, again.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Sad, so very sad.

You certainly are. You cannot argue your way out of a wet paper sack, so all you can do is fling poo and run away.

You lose. Again.

You make an argument worth addressing then.

Evasion and pettifoggery. You lose, again.

[apophenia]

Actually, I was drunk that day.

Heeheehee.

[apophenia]

Okay. I confess. I moved the sun around that day at Fatima. And I prevented the rest of the world from seeing it as it was that day. And as I'm an eyewitness to the event, with a much better view than those religious morons on the ground, my version constitutes the definitive eyewitness account. Now please tell those fools with their prayers and whatnot to shut up. It makes my head hurt.

You'll have to shop around for another miracle, Seth. This one has been explained. Case closed.

No, it hasn't. In the intervening 95 years there has been much speculation and hypothesis on what caused people to report what they reported, and there is evidence pointing towards mass visual hallucination, but nobody has provided a shred of evidence that God did NOT actually cause the events which were observed....

[snipped]

You need to try reading what you are responding to instead of providing knee jerk responses to stereotyped phrases.

None of this has anything to do with what I said. Care to actually respond to what I did write?

Failing any actual relevant argument on your part, what I said stands undisputed.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Seth was hell to potty train, and hasn't changed his mind about anything since.

[apophenia]

Furthermore, did the people see God?

If they saw the sun acting unusual, their reports are of astronomical importance, not theological. A bunch of people (claim to have) witnessed a wide variety of solar irregularities, then they interpreted them as having a divine cause. They need to justify that interpretation, just as scientists need to justify their interpretations of data they collect.

They didn't even claim to experience God, therefore their experiences are not evidence of a God. They theorized a god-cause, and it's up to them to give justification for their theory.

Evasion. Speculation and supposition. Provide your critically robust proofs that the events did not occur as reported or that they were not caused by God.

Put up or shut up.

I've given plenty of reason to doubt their version of events. I'm not interested in trying to disprove them, only show that their claims do not constitute proof. They have proved nothing, neither have you.

You play a good game of devil's advocate. But I have minimal interest in playing this game yet again. Cheers.

Your speculation and skepticism does not amount to scientific proofs, so just admit that you cannot provide scientific proofs that God did not produce the events at Fatima.

It's okay, you don't have to be afraid, all I'm doing is holding you to your own standards and ethical structure. Admitting that you can neither prove that the events did not occur nor that God did not produce them is not an admission that God did produce them, it's merely admitting the limitations of science.

Which limitations of course leave open the possibility that God did produce the events at Fatima... But that's science for you, it doesn't and indeed cannot explain everything...at the moment.

You move from asserting that there are things that science cannot prove, to saying there are things that science cannot explain. This is equivocation. Yay, readily, there are many things science cannot prove, perhaps all things. But that is not the same thing as saying that there are things that science cannot explain, though there are many things that it currently doesn't explain. This is trivially false, as science can provide all sorts of unconvincing explanations; but even granting what you likely meant, that science cannot provide convincing explanations for all things, I don't see how you can demonstrate this. At minimum, you haven't demonstrated this, as others have provided scientific explanations they find convincing, you simply deny them their persuasiveness; but that's in you, not the quality of the explanation. (And, more, you're not correct even given your proviso of "at the moment," as that is defining science as those explanations we currently have — but that is not what science is, at least not according to the bulk of its practitioner's. Science is an open-ended enterprise so asserting that Science with a capital 'S' cannot explain it, either requires you to provide an idiosyncratic definition of science, or commit to proving a negative; in either case, you're likely to come up short. [ETA: Wikipedia acknowledges both definitions, science as an enterprise and as a body of knowledge; it's not clear this gets you free, but in the space of a last minute edit, I have no time to explore the question.])

[Animavore]

No rebuttal to the fact that if the sun did any of the things (I didn't realise how many different claims there were!) we'd all be dead now?

Prove that if God caused the sun to do the things observed at Fatima that "we'd all be dead now" please. Standard scientific critically-robust proofs required.

Simple physics. Whether the Sun moved widly around or the Earth, either way anything that isn't tied down would be thrown around.

Prove that God moved the sun or the earth in order to create the observed phenomena.

You're the one that's supposed to be providing proofs for God. Not me. Do your own work.

[Seth]

No rebuttal to the fact that if the sun did any of the things (I didn't realise how many different claims there were!) we'd all be dead now?

Prove that if God caused the sun to do the things observed at Fatima that "we'd all be dead now" please. Standard scientific critically-robust proofs required.

Simple physics. Whether the Sun moved widly around or the Earth, either way anything that isn't tied down would be thrown around.

Prove that God moved the sun or the earth in order to create the observed phenomena.

You're the one that's supposed to be providing proofs for God. Not me. Do your own work.

Evasion. You made the claim that if God did the things claimed "we'd all be dead now." Now, according to your own ethos, you are required to provide the evidence of the truth of this claim.

So, get to work or admit defeat.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Good luck with that, Ani.

[Xamonas Chegwé]

The old "I am in charge of the rules of argument; so you lose!" fallacy. A classic!

[Seth]

Okay. I confess. I moved the sun around that day at Fatima. And I prevented the rest of the world from seeing it as it was that day. And as I'm an eyewitness to the event, with a much better view than those religious morons on the ground, my version constitutes the definitive eyewitness account. Now please tell those fools with their prayers and whatnot to shut up. It makes my head hurt.

You'll have to shop around for another miracle, Seth. This one has been explained. Case closed.

No, it hasn't. In the intervening 95 years there has been much speculation and hypothesis on what caused people to report what they reported, and there is evidence pointing towards mass visual hallucination, but nobody has provided a shred of evidence that God did NOT actually cause the events which were observed....

[snipped]

You need to try reading what you are responding to instead of providing knee jerk responses to stereotyped phrases.

None of this has anything to do with what I said. Care to actually respond to what I did write?

Failing any actual relevant argument on your part, what I said stands undisputed.

You made a claim that you produced the miracle and that therefore it is explained. According to your own ethos, you are required to provide the critically robust scientific proofs of this claim.

Get with it.

[Seth]

The old "I am in charge of the rules of argument; so you lose!" fallacy. A classic!

No, it's the old "you are evading the argument, so you lose" truth.

[Xamonas Chegwé]

The old "I am in charge of the rules of argument; so you lose!" fallacy. A classic!

No, it's the old "you are evading the argument, so you lose" truth.

Sure it's not the "Predictable response is predictable" fallacy?