trouble

[Ra]

Actually, I was drunk that day.

[Seth]

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.

Perhaps someday it will though...

[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.

[Seth]

"I provided a proof in the form of an alleged miracle of God witnessed by tens of thousands of people and documented in detail."

That's not proof, that's a highly debatable event that could have more than one cause, including the highly likely mass hysteria. You have still not provide proof a god or gods exists, just claims that something that might or might have happened may or may not have been caused by a god or gods. You failed again, as always.

Evasion. Speculation and skeptical dismissal, not rigorous critically robust scientific that the proof provided is false. The burden of disproving the proof I provided is upon you and you are admitting you cannot meet that burden.

You lose, just like you lost the last time you tried this lame argument.

You provide some proof, we can talk. You keep dodging, you talk to yourself.

I did. You are evading your burden to disprove the evidence in the historical record, as I knew you would because you are unable to effectively refute the evidence in the historical record. You failed the last time we discussed this, and you failed again, so you're merely evading the debate. Predictable.

You lose.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

You have no evidence to rebut.

[FBM]

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.

Perhaps someday it will though...

Oh! Now I got you (maybe)! Sure, yes, of course, science has its limitations and cannot prove that Gwod didn't dick around with the sun that day. No sweat. Science can only give probabilistic inferences, not absolute proof. Hume's problem of induction and all that. About all science can do is say that it's much more likely that those people were prepped to see something "miraculous" related to the sun, so they stared at the sun, which fucks with the retinas, and reported a wide range of contradictory experiences, which they were conditioned to attribute to a divine source. Such experiences are mundane and can be reproduced by just about anybody who's willing to go outside and stare at the sun like a blooming idjit. Given the paucity of evidence for the deity explanation, it suffers a severly lower probabilistic evaluation. Like, there's a theoretical possibility that all the particles that make up a single Volkswagen could take advantage of quantum tunneling at the same instant and drive through a wall without damage. Sure, it's possible, theoretically, but the probability of that occurring in the projected lifetime of the universe is so small as to be negligible. Non-zero, nevertheless.

[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.

Because this was a one-off, one-time event that has not been repeated, and because there was not scientific equipment capable of observing the environment during the event at the event, there is exactly ZERO scientific evidence that the events did not occur as described.

There is speculation and hypothesis, but that's all.

That doesn't meet the necessary standard of critically robust scientific evidence of exactly what happened, why, and how.

If, in fact, God exists and is anything like what is described by theists, then God would be perfectly capable of producing a mass visual hallucination.

Moreover, it doesn't necessarily take a god to produce such a mass visual hallucination, now does it? Some people hypothesize that it can be caused by the brain's own misinterpretations of visual clues.

But there's yet another hypothesis that's just as scientifically valid, which is that the event actually did occur as described, it was not a mass visual hallucination, and it was produced by some highly-advanced yet unknown technology by some equally advanced intelligence of which we are unaware.

Or, God did it.

This whole exercise was about demonstrating the fallacious and irrational thinking of Atheists like Gawdzilla who violate their own principles of logic, reason and science to deny the existence of God without a shred of actual evidence that God does not, or cannot exist. It's one thing to say "I don't believe God exists" or "I don't know if God exists or not," but it's fallacious and irrational to say "what evidence do you have" and then run away from the evidence that exists by simply denying it and abandoning the investigation rather than holding onesself to a rigorous standard of scientific reason and logic.

But then again that's pretty typical intellectually inferior reasoning by Atheists, who aren't actually interested in science, but only like to use "science" as a blunt instrument in their religiously-based anti-theist zealotry, as if merely ritualistically invoking "science" like some sort of god is some sort of actual scientific refutation of the claims of theism, which it's not.

There are no firm answers to the Fatima event (or any of the many other so-called miracles that have been documented by the Vatican), so the best any atheist can rationally or logically say about Fatima or any other unexplained event not subject to scientific investigation is "I don't know."

What's truly amazing is how deep in delusion and denial religiously-zealous Atheists are that they are categorically unable to simply admit that the question of the existence of God is a completely scientific and yet entirely open one that has insufficient critically robust scientific data upon which to draw any sort of rational, logical and scientific conclusion.

Why they have so much difficulty with simply saying "I don't know" regarding the question of God's existence is one for a psychiatrist to answer I suppose, because it's certainly based in some sort of personality or mental disorder, because it's naught to do with reason, intellect, logic or science.

[Seth]

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.

Perhaps someday it will though...

Oh! Now I got you (maybe)! Sure, yes, of course, science has its limitations and cannot prove that Gwod didn't dick around with the sun that day. No sweat. Science can only give probabilistic inferences, not absolute proof. Hume's problem of induction and all that. About all science can do is say that it's much more likely that those people were prepped to see something "miraculous" related to the sun, so they stared at the sun, which fucks with the retinas, and reported a wide range of contradictory experiences, which they were conditioned to attribute to a divine source. Such experiences are mundane and can be reproduced by just about anybody who's willing to go outside and stare at the sun like a blooming idjit. Given the paucity of evidence for the deity explanation, it suffers a severly lower probabilistic evaluation. Like, there's a theoretical possibility that all the particles that make up a single Volkswagen could take advantage of quantum tunneling at the same instant and drive through a wall without damage. Sure, it's possible, theoretically, but the probability of that occurring in the projected lifetime of the universe is so small as to be negligible. Non-zero, nevertheless.

See? Was that really so hard?

[Robert_S]

Satan did that shit at Fatima it to get people to seek The Lord in gaudy miracles and signs rather than in their own hearts and daily lives.

You cannot disprove it.

[FBM]

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.

Perhaps someday it will though...

Oh! Now I got you (maybe)! Sure, yes, of course, science has its limitations and cannot prove that Gwod didn't dick around with the sun that day. No sweat. Science can only give probabilistic inferences, not absolute proof. Hume's problem of induction and all that. About all science can do is say that it's much more likely that those people were prepped to see something "miraculous" related to the sun, so they stared at the sun, which fucks with the retinas, and reported a wide range of contradictory experiences, which they were conditioned to attribute to a divine source. Such experiences are mundane and can be reproduced by just about anybody who's willing to go outside and stare at the sun like a blooming idjit. Given the paucity of evidence for the deity explanation, it suffers a severly lower probabilistic evaluation. Like, there's a theoretical possibility that all the particles that make up a single Volkswagen could take advantage of quantum tunneling at the same instant and drive through a wall without damage. Sure, it's possible, theoretically, but the probability of that occurring in the projected lifetime of the universe is so small as to be negligible. Non-zero, nevertheless.

See? Was that really so hard?

Damn straight, it was! If you'd just said what you meant up front, we could've saved several pages of posts. I don't know anybody who doesn't acknowledge Hume's problem of induction.

[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.

[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.

[Seth]

Satan did that shit at Fatima it to get people to seek The Lord in gaudy miracles and signs rather than in their own hearts and daily lives.

You cannot disprove it.

Indeed, and therefore, as a reasonable, rational, logical person I freely admit that you are correct without circumlocutions, evasions, pettifoggery and rude behavior, notwithstanding the fact that it's non responsive to the question under examination right now and constitutes a strawman and red herring argument.

I would also say, of the claim you make, "Gee, I really don't know if you're right or not" because that's the rational thing to say.

What's so difficult about that, pray tell?

[Seth]

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.

Perhaps someday it will though...

Oh! Now I got you (maybe)! Sure, yes, of course, science has its limitations and cannot prove that Gwod didn't dick around with the sun that day. No sweat. Science can only give probabilistic inferences, not absolute proof. Hume's problem of induction and all that. About all science can do is say that it's much more likely that those people were prepped to see something "miraculous" related to the sun, so they stared at the sun, which fucks with the retinas, and reported a wide range of contradictory experiences, which they were conditioned to attribute to a divine source. Such experiences are mundane and can be reproduced by just about anybody who's willing to go outside and stare at the sun like a blooming idjit. Given the paucity of evidence for the deity explanation, it suffers a severly lower probabilistic evaluation. Like, there's a theoretical possibility that all the particles that make up a single Volkswagen could take advantage of quantum tunneling at the same instant and drive through a wall without damage. Sure, it's possible, theoretically, but the probability of that occurring in the projected lifetime of the universe is so small as to be negligible. Non-zero, nevertheless.

See? Was that really so hard?

Damn straight, it was! If you'd just said what you meant up front, we could've saved several pages of posts. I don't know anybody who doesn't acknowledge Hume's problem of induction.

I know a lot of people who don't even know what that is who purport to be logic and reason experts when it comes to the scientific question of the existence of God.

And it is the pathway taken towards enlightenment that is of value, and therefore leading you down the primrose path to a valid conclusion is a valid and important method of imparting knowledge. I believe it's called "the Socratic Method." And it's something I enjoy a lot.

But thanks for acknowledging that there is a non-zero probability that God exists. That's an important step forward towards logic and reason on the part of any Atheist, and it constitutes a major victory on my part in bringing you towards the goal of rigorous logical reasoning and debate.

Now that you've acknowledged the fact that there is a non-zero probability that god exists, we can proceed to analysis of your religious belief that God does not exist.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Sad, so very sad.