trouble

[Robert_S]

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.

It's the old "I'm not taking this troll thread seriously argument" I win!

[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.

It's the old "I'm not taking this troll thread seriously argument" I win!

No! I'm taking it far less seriously than you - I win!

[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.

You move from asserting that there are things that science cannot prove, to saying there are things that science cannot explain. This is equivocation.

Sorry, didn't mean to equivocate, what I mean was that there are things that science cannot prove OR explain right now. It does not follow that science will NEVER be able to prove or explain the events at Fatima or the truth of the existence of God, merely that at this time, with our present scientific knowledge, it is not possible to do either.

Therefore, the only rational scientific conclusion one can draw from the evidence in the record (such as it is) is that science cannot draw a rational conclusion about the existence of God at this time. In other words, "I don't know."

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.

Exactly my point! I present a proof that God exists and you (and everyone else) simply denies the persuasiveness of the proof, which is on you (and them), and not on the quality of the proof. No one has shown any scientific evidence that God did not, or could not produce the phenomena, the best anyone's even attempted is to say that there are potential alternative "naturalistic" explanations like induced mass hallucination. And yet no one can conclusively prove that this is what happened, any more than the theists can conclusively prove that God did it.

We have a phenomenon witnessed by tens of thousands of people and recorded contemporaneously by hundreds of them and extensively researched over the years by yet others. If ten thousand people witnessed you assassinating the President at the Super Bowl, that would be proof beyond a reasonable doubt in court. And yet simply because it involves phenomena that science cannot (or rather does not wish to) explain, it's deemed to be a "hoax" and "mass delusion" and all manner of other simplistic dismissals absent any valid scientific investigation whatsoever.

Atheists reject the "miracle" simply because it does not conform to their small understanding of the physics and properties of the universe, and they universally refuse to consider the self-admittedly non-zero possibility that God actually exists, or that something that one might think of as God actually exists and is capable of manipulating time, space, matter, physics or merely human perception in order to create the illusion that the events reported happened. Since any sufficiently advanced technology will appear to be magic, or miraculous in nature, to paraphrase somebody famous, it is simply unscientific to blithely dismiss the events at Fatima without considering naturalistic alternatives, which happen to include God, since nothing in physics or science prevents God from being entirely natural (and some would say quintessentially natural as the source of all natural things) and operating through natural physics that we humans do not at this time know of or understand.

(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.])

Wrong. Science can indeed be both, but even as an open-ended enterprise science only knows so much at any given time in history, and as it advances in an open-ended fashion, it learns more and new things about the nature of the universe(s), which may eventually include knowing God and whether he exists, and what his nature is.

It is my belief that science WILL know whether or not God exists when, as an open-ended enterprise it's knowledge of the universe(s) is fulfilled and becomes perfect and complete. I don't expect anyone alive today to live to witness that event, but I'm certain that it will happen eventually, at which time this question will be answered...if not before.

But all we have right now is the science of right now, and the science of the past, which is (or may be) clearly inadequate to investigating, detecting, quantifying and explaining God.

This does not mean, however, that God does not exist, it merely means that our understandings are faulty or incomplete.

And that's why the only rational answer to the question "Does God exist?" is "I don't know."

[Gawdzilla Sama]

You don't know. And you can't prove any god or gods exists. So the only rational position is atheism.

[Seth]

You don't know. And you can't prove any god or gods exists. So the only rational position is atheism.

Evasion. I didn't say I could, I merely responded to your demand "what proof do you have that God exists" with a proof that you are utterly unable to refute and indeed won't even try to refute lest you embarrass yourself even further than you have by running away and throwing poo.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

You don't know. And you can't prove any god or gods exists. So the only rational position is atheism.

Evasion. I didn't say I could, I merely responded to your demand "what proof do you have that God exists" with a proof that you are utterly unable to refute and indeed won't even try to refute lest you embarrass yourself even further than you have by running away and throwing poo.

Fail, fail, fail. If you were a horse I'd be kind and put you down, you're so lame.

[Animavore]

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.

Meh. I don't care enough about Fatima to bother.

Enjoy your victory. I'm about to watch Indiana Jones.


Diddle-di-diii. Diddle-diii. Diddle-di-di. Diddle-DI-DI-DI!

[Svartalf]

Invisible magic.

Come and worship my invisible purple Dragon, and his wife the invisible pink Unicorn.

[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.

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.

Please cite my posting of said ethos. Now you're transitioning to the role of liar. I have never posted such a thing, to the best of my memory. Prove my memory a liar.

[klr]

apophenia v. Seth

Tin hats on, people.

Note: That should not be taken as a prediction of an internet free-for-all ...

[amused]

The score is still Q to 12.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

The score is still Q to 12.

I'll never understand cricket.

[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.

Please cite my posting of said ethos. Now you're transitioning to the role of liar. I have never posted such a thing, to the best of my memory. Prove my memory a liar.

Ah, well, please excuse me for making an assumption that your ethos included dedication to reason, logic and the scientific method. I see that perhaps I have overreached in that assumption. My apology.

[Seth]

You don't know. And you can't prove any god or gods exists. So the only rational position is atheism.

Evasion. I didn't say I could, I merely responded to your demand "what proof do you have that God exists" with a proof that you are utterly unable to refute and indeed won't even try to refute lest you embarrass yourself even further than you have by running away and throwing poo.

Fail, fail, fail. If you were a horse I'd be kind and put you down, you're so lame.

Methinks he doth protest too much.

Having no rational argument to present, he flings poo through the bars and chatters madly, supposing perhaps that all the sound and fury signifies more than nothing.

Poor thing.

[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.

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.

Please cite my posting of said ethos. Now you're transitioning to the role of liar. I have never posted such a thing, to the best of my memory. Prove my memory a liar.

Ah, well, please excuse me for making an assumption that your ethos included dedication to reason, logic and the scientific method. I see that perhaps I have overreached in that assumption. My apology.

You are forgiven. That being said, my original statement remains undisputed.