Your religious beliefs are probably wrong

[Banjankri]

Reality needed to be real so that we could come into existence.

What does it mean, that something is real?

 

[serp777]

What does it mean, that something is real?

It means that it has effects, and or that it can be manipulated/influenced/changed

 

[Banjankri]

Now, do you know anything that ain't real?

Let's take God. Effect of this concept is huge, it can, was and will be manipulated/influenced/changed. According to your definition, God is real. Same goes for gnomes, fairies, sasquatches and anything you can think of. Why? Because untrue things do not exist. Taking a simplistic view won't solve anything.
Science is only interested in predictability, not truth.

 

[serp777]

Now, do you know anything that ain't real?

Let's take God. Effect of this concept is huge, it can, was and will be manipulated/influenced/changed. According to your definition, God is real. Same goes for gnomes, fairies, sasquatches and anything you can think of. Why? Because untrue things do not exist. Taking a simplistic view won't solve anything.
Science is only interested in predictability, not truth.

Ideas about things can be real without the things the idea is about being real. So the idea of God has an effect and it can be changed, which means the idea is real. We don't know whether God is actually real.

And you've failed to offer any definition in response. Its also not true that a definition needs to be excessively complicated. Just because it is relatively simple doesn't mean it isn't a valid definition.

Also you failed to address all of the other points i made previous to your single question.

Anas for something that isnt real, fairies are probably not real, but the idea of a fairy can be real.

 

[Banjankri]

Ideas about things can be real without the things the idea is about being real. So the idea of God has an effect and it can be changed, which means the idea is real. We don't know whether God is actually real.

Same goes for mathematics. You have problems defining reality.

And you've failed to offer any definition in response.

Because I see contriving such a definition as pointless.

Also you failed to address all of the other points i made previous to your single question.

Easy, so did you. Instead of answering them one by one, I move to a deeper meaning of reality, which debunks them all.

 

[serp777]

Same goes for mathematics. You have problems defining reality.

Because I see contriving such a definition as pointless.

Easy, so did you. Instead of answering them one by one, I move to a deeper meaning of reality, which debunks them all.

I don't have problems defining reality. I just gave you one and then rebutted your point about God and gave you an example of something that wasn't real. How does my definition fail? Mathematics is real because it can be manipulated and it has profound effects on the world.

"Because I see contriving such a definition as pointless."

Why are you using a word then that you see as having no meaningful definition? You later talk about a deeper meaning of reality which is totally a contradiction to the fact that you just said you see contriving such a definition as pointless. I don't see any reason why reality or real shouldn't have a definition , and that the definition is possible/contrivable in addition to being meaningful. This is why when you say deeper meaning for example, it isn't pointless to me.

"Easy, so did you. Instead of answering them one by one, I move to a deeper meaning of reality, which debunks them all."

So did I what? I've responded to all of yours. And positing a deeper meaning of reality doesn't nullify all of my points since my points didn't depend on a definition of reality or reality in general. If you think that moving to a deeper meaning, which you don't have considering you just said contriving a definition is pointless, then attempt to respond to the other points. Simply alleging that my other points have somehow been rebutted doesn't make it true one bit.

 

[Banjankri]

Mathematics is real because it can be manipulated and it has profound effects on the world.

How does it differ from the idea of God?

Why are you using a word then that you see as having no meaningful definition? You later talk about a deeper meaning of reality which is totally a contradiction to the fact that you just said you see contriving such a definition as pointless. I don't see any reason why reality or real shouldn't have a definition , and that the definition is possible/contrivable in addition to being meaningful. This is why when you say deeper meaning for example, it isn't pointless to me.

At deeper lever, it falls apart. That's why it's pointless.

It is you, who claim solid foundation for there being right and wrong. It is you who postulate the existence of truth. I ask for a definition that can work as a basis for your claims, and I receive inconsistent definition that you use as it fits you. Mathematics - yes, God - no/maybe. On one hand you need a proof for something to be true, but on the other, you don't. Why? Because you probably know that if we limit reality to that which can be sensed, we would have to exclude our consciousness of it, as unreal.
That is the whole point. All there is available, that we call reality, comes through consciousness, and consciousness itself is not available...

What if consciousness is an algorithm that is adding fractal/pattern functions to sensory data, so everywhere we look, we see patterns? Are they real or unreal?
Defining reality is pointless, because unreal things do not exist by definition. Everything is reality. Ofc you can divide it further, according to your point of view, but that doesn't make thing more or less real. You can divide your experiences into right and wrong, but it will always be culture based and relative. You can say that you can see the Sun, but you cannot see pink unicorns. Can you see mathematics? Can you see protons and electrons? You can say, that thanks to science we can build things that help us, but at the same time, you cannot negate that religion of philosophy also builds (inner well-being, self-confidence, art...). You can only argue which creation is better, and this is why I reduced it to benefits.

 

[serp777]

How does it differ from the idea of God?

At deeper lever, it falls apart. That's why it's pointless.

It is you, who claim solid foundation for there being right and wrong. It is you who postulate the existence of truth. I ask for a definition that can work as a basis for your claims, and I receive inconsistent definition that you use as it fits you. Mathematics - yes, God - no/maybe. On one hand you need a proof for something to be true, but on the other, you don't. Why? Because you probably know that if we limit reality to that which can be sensed, we would have to exclude our consciousness of it, as unreal.
That is the whole point. All there is available, that we call reality, comes through consciousness, and consciousness itself is not available...

What if consciousness is an algorithm that is adding fractal/pattern functions to sensory data, so everywhere we look, we see patterns? Are they real or unreal?
Defining reality is pointless, because unreal things do not exist by definition. Everything is reality. Ofc you can divide it further, according to your point of view, but that doesn't make thing more or less real. You can divide your experiences into right and wrong, but it will always be culture based and relative. You can say that you can see the Sun, but you cannot see pink unicorns. Can you see mathematics? Can you see protons and electrons? You can say, that thanks to science we can build things that help us, but at the same time, you cannot negate that religion of philosophy also builds (inner well-being, self-confidence, art...). You can only argue which creation is better, and this is why I reduced it to benefits.

It doesn't differ from the idea of God. the idea of God is real--it is expressed in neurons in people's brains. The subtley of my argument is that we don't know whether God is actually real because there are mutually inconsistent Gods that have scant evidence. We do know the idea of God is real since people believe it which has an effect on the world, and of course it can be manipulated. We don't know if God has effects or if he can be manioulated The idea of God and God himself are two different things, which is the key point. This isn't inconsistent by any stretch. Ideas are real because they are electrical impulses in the brain which therefore have effects and therefore can be manipulated. I used the fairy as an example to demonstrate this.I have not violated the definition and I have only operated within the parameters established by the definition.

"Because you probably know that if we limit reality to that which can be sensed, we would have to exclude our consciousness of it, as unreal."
This was never my argument and is a strawman. Although it cannot be sensed and it cannot be manipulated currently, dark matter has effects in the form of gravity which, under my definition, makes it real. Furthermore, my argument wasn't that sight makes something real--mathematics has clear and definable effects which makes it real and it can be manipulated by mathematicians and various organisms like trees in order to accomplish some task.
"What if consciousness is an algorithm that is adding fractal/pattern functions to sensory data, so everywhere we look, we see patterns? Are they real or unreal?"
Well if consciousness is an algorithm then it is real because it can be influenced and manipulated, and it can have various effects chemically and electrically in the brain. Patterns are real too since they have effects through ordering. PAtterns are also apart of mathematics. The key thing to note here is that even though patterns are real, humans may not recognize a pattern correctly. In a series of random numbers, sometimes paterns like 1,2,3,4 will pop up, but aren't real because they're apart of a completely random set of numbers. So the reality of a pattern depends on context.

And you say unreal things do not exist by definition, which would require you to assign a definition to unreal, and therefore real, which defeats your own argument basically.


"It is you, who claim solid foundation for there being right and wrong."
I didn't claim that, but some things are true and false, such as is there a God.
Some questions boolean questions like "is blue a good color" do not have a solid true or false answer.

"Everything is reality."
This would require us to know what everything is. For instance, a possible but unrealized universe is not reality, just like a possible but unrealized permutation of a google different cards. Unrealized is a good word for this because it means not yet real but it can be real--the potential to be real.

"You can only argue which creation is better, and this is why I reduced it to benefits."
You can't argue which is better that is purely a matter of opinion. "Better" is a man made concept actually, which I'm surprised you didn't mention. Better all depends on perspective and ideas of comparison--when something is greater or less than another. So I would think that you of all people would say that arguing which is better is meaningless because it is all man made.

 

[Banjankri]

So I would think that you of all people would say that arguing which is better is meaningless because it is all man made.

Why are you suggesting that man made inventions should be meaningless?

This would require us to know what everything is.

There is no thingness beyond what we know. Existence is an attribute that we apply to our experiences. We cover it with layers of concepts that we create. This is consciousness, and nothing more is available to us. Nothing else exists, in other words.
Somehow you assume, that within this realm of consciousness, it is possible to qualify something as truth. How, on what basis?

 

[Etritonakin]

The first quote from the bible you posted is extremely ironic considering it is from a man. I don't find quote from scriptures convincing regardless though--there are thousands of different scriptures you could quote from--from the quran to the scientology manifesto.

And i don't see why God makes it so challenging and difficult to believe, as demonstrated by the huge number of different religions that are mutually exclusive. All God would have to do is rearrange the stars to write "Yahweh is here" in aramiac. Boom, then everybody is a believer in the judeo christian faith. There's no need to go through these abritrary and unlikely methods of convincing people. God is all powerful so he should know what it would take to convince everyone, and he should do that if he cares about humans believing. Henceforth he probably doesn't care about the beliefs of humans and that means judeo christian faith is wrong and that prayers, etc don't matter.

Here you talk a lot about ignorance and I think that we are definitely ignorant about anything related to God and that probably nobody has ever had a hotline to God where he/she heard a magical message about truth and morality.

The bible quote about God being God and every man a liar is from a man, but it is an accurate observation of the relationship between man and God. Even if God did not exist, all men would be liars -because we begin essentially ignorant and believe things for which we have no proof. "God" is not of the same perspective. Even if you do not believe what is written in the bible, the statement is true given the description of God in the bible.

I'll talk more of ignorance.
I am aware of things you are not -and you are aware of things I am not.
You can assume the Israelites did not experience the plagues, the passover, the parting of the red sea, the destruction of the Egyptian pursuers, pillars of fire and smoke, etc., because you did not see them and doubt that they happened -but you do not know that they did not happen.

Assume for a moment -if you do not believe -that the Israelites did experience those things. There was no "Boom". Even then, there was a long process of instruction, real-life experience, etc. -which eventually failed for the most part (to immediately make anyone perfect -let alone bring an entire nation to universal obedience), which was inevitable because of the state of man at that time -but did lay the groundwork for the turning around of that failure in the future.

There is also a difference between believing God exists and believing what he says -because we may not yet have seen what he says is true -or experienced it. Then there is the matter of aligning one's actions with beliefs -which may conflict with our shortsighted and immediate desires.

God is challenging and difficult to believe by the very nature of things -because we are new -not because he has made it unnecessarily so.
Many signs and wonders were shown to many -some believed, some did not -some changed -some did not and none were made immediately perfect.
God reveled himself -and was mostly rejected -because other things needed to happen before he could be accepted, believed -and especially before all of mankind could possibly become Godlike in their ways. We have little over 100 years, then another new generation, etc. -so permanence of life and the perspective of all of our collective experience are necessary to enable mankind to make any permanent and positive changes -to accept and obey the government of God -not simply believe.

God does know what it will take to convince everyone -to bring them to eternal life in peace and without conflict -and it is a lengthy process from our perspective -which goes even beyond our human lifespan.
If we believe -then simply die, there is no point.We live long enough to get a general idea of the nature of things -then we die and make room for another generation -and will all be made alive again. God said he made the heavens and earth to be inhabited -so there will be plenty of room for all eventually.

What it takes includes experience. God is concerned with what we believe, but simply telling us what to believe doesn't work. Even those who believe can eventually doubt if they have not sought or experienced proof for themselves.

 

[serp777]

Why are you suggesting that man made inventions should be meaningless?

There is no thingness beyond what we know. Existence is an attribute that we apply to our experiences. We cover it with layers of concepts that we create. This is consciousness, and nothing more is available to us. Nothing else exists, in other words.
Somehow you assume, that within this realm of consciousness, it is possible to qualify something as truth. How, on what basis?

I mean I made quite a few points which you didn't really address so I guess you accept my definition of reality as consistent?

"There is no thingness beyond what we know."
How do you know what? Its called learning, which expands our knowledge of thingness beyond what we knew before.

"Existence is an attribute that we apply to our experiences."
Existence is an attribute that allows us to have experiences.

"This is consciousness, and nothing more is available to us. Nothing else exists, in other words."
This doesn't make sense because things existed before human consciousness did, for 13.6 billion years actually. If things did not exist before human consciousness then human consciousness could never have come into existence. We can infer things beyond our own experience, which is what science is all about--the process of discovering things previously hidden to humans.

"Somehow you assume, that within this realm of consciousness, it is possible to qualify something as truth. How, on what basis?"
Through mathematics and logic for example. The universe behaves logically and consistently--mathematical proofs lead to certain truths. Things like the theory of relativity also have mounds of empirical evidence supporting it. Even though it is only 99.999999% confirmed, I accept it as truth as much as I accept that I will die or be seriously injured by jumping off a tall cliff.

 

[thau]

Oh wait i think i can explain it! Its called lying and fervent beliefs leading to a mob mentality. Its just like the groups of alien abduction experts. Also where are the photographs? And charges the earth? Not likely--charging the earth would defy the laws of physics--it would require such a strong electric field to charge the earth that it would kill everyone on the planet and rip off the atmosphere.

Serp777 said: “ I am suggesting God hasn't spoken to mankind but you aren't comprehending. If God wanted to convince us it would be easy. Since he is perfect he should know what would convince all of us and do that, instead of making things am entrapment scenario, where we are expected to believe given scant evidence and frequent religious fraud. God could simply rearrange the stars in aramaic to write Yahweh is here, and suddenly everyone would be believers. I'd be very willing to convert if it were true, and God could make that happen easily.”

Then in a subsequent post when I spoke about the fantastic miracle of the sun at Fatima that defied cosmic laws;
Serp777 said: “Oh wait i think i can explain it! Its called lying and fervent beliefs leading to a mob mentality. Its just like the groups of alien abduction experts. Also where are the photographs? And charges the earth? Not likely--charging the earth would defy the laws of physics--it would require such a strong electric field to charge the earth that it would kill everyone on the planet and rip off the atmosphere.”

So to sum:
Serp777 will not believe in any of God’s signs and wonders short of God “rearranging the stars” into a message which would be an undeniable supernatural display. So then when God does that very thing in 1917, i.e. “rearranging the star sun into a display that defies cosmic laws” and is witnessed by 70,000 and attested in print by scientists, agnostics and even Marxist journalists --- now Serp777 says “mob mentality,” “pure lies because such a thing would defy the laws of physics.”

That’s funny Serp, that is exactly what you were demanding God do to make you a believer? How convenient of you to have it both ways when it suits you.

 

[serp777]

Serp777 said: “ I am suggesting God hasn't spoken to mankind but you aren't comprehending. If God wanted to convince us it would be easy. Since he is perfect he should know what would convince all of us and do that, instead of making things am entrapment scenario, where we are expected to believe given scant evidence and frequent religious fraud. God could simply rearrange the stars in aramaic to write Yahweh is here, and suddenly everyone would be believers. I'd be very willing to convert if it were true, and God could make that happen easily.”

Then in a subsequent post when I spoke about the fantastic miracle of the sun at Fatima that defied cosmic laws;
Serp777 said: “Oh wait i think i can explain it! Its called lying and fervent beliefs leading to a mob mentality. Its just like the groups of alien abduction experts. Also where are the photographs? And charges the earth? Not likely--charging the earth would defy the laws of physics--it would require such a strong electric field to charge the earth that it would kill everyone on the planet and rip off the atmosphere.”

So to sum:
Serp777 will not believe in any of God’s signs and wonders short of God “rearranging the stars” into a message which would be an undeniable supernatural display. So then when God does that very thing in 1917, i.e. “rearranging the star sun into a display that defies cosmic laws” and is witnessed by 70,000 and attested in print by scientists, agnostics and even Marxist journalists --- now Serp777 says “mob mentality,” “pure lies because such a thing would defy the laws of physics.”

That’s funny Serp, that is exactly what you were demanding God do to make you a believer? How convenient of you to have it both ways when it suits you.

This is an amusing. Lets begin with your strawman: I never claimed that rearranging the stars is the only thing that would convince me. It was that since God is perfect, he should know what should convince me and do that if he cares about belief. My point is that to convince me it would need to clearly be something that isn't a natural phenomena and that it would need to convey that it was accomplished by Yahweh as opposed to Zeus, or thor, or an evil alien overlord, oir a variety of other possible deities.

Also what are you quoting from? When you quote something you generally need to cite it and provide your source.

And just because its an unusual light phenomena doesn't mean it defies the laws of physics. And what does rearranging the star sun even mean for that matter? Not only is star sun redundant, but shifting magnetic fields from the earth
s interior combined with a solar flare can create very unusual optical phenomena. Unusual phenomena doesn't suddenly mean God; this is the same kind of logic ancient people used to argue that the solar eclipse was a result of an angry God , rather than just a celestial phenomena. In 1917 solar science and atmospheric optics was not well understood, making it very likely that people misinterpreted what they saw.

Finally how did these people know it was from God? Do they look at the aurora borealis and say that too must be from Allah or Zeus?Even if it is unexplained and it defied that laws of physics, which is not true at all, it still wouldn't mean that God did it. I mean thats a pretty weird way of convincing people anyways--instead of doing it over every major city in the world, and making it clear that it was accomplished by Yahweh, God instead decided to do it over one city and made it ambiguous as to whether or not he did it. You haven't shown whatsoever that a cosmic lightshow is evidence for God. The reason rearranging the stars would be a lot more effective and convincing is because it would clearly defy the laws of physics by making stars travel faster than the speed of light and defying conservation of momentum, and it would convey that God did it since there would be a clear message about who the agent was.

 

[serp777]

The bible quote about God being God and every man a liar is from a man, but it is an accurate observation of the relationship between man and God. Even if God did not exist, all men would be liars -because we begin essentially ignorant and believe things for which we have no proof. "God" is not of the same perspective. Even if you do not believe what is written in the bible, the statement is true given the description of God in the bible.

I'll talk more of ignorance.
I am aware of things you are not -and you are aware of things I am not.
You can assume the Israelites did not experience the plagues, the passover, the parting of the red sea, the destruction of the Egyptian pursuers, pillars of fire and smoke, etc., because you did not see them and doubt that they happened -but you do not know that they did not happen.

Assume for a moment -if you do not believe -that the Israelites did experience those things. There was no "Boom". Even then, there was a long process of instruction, real-life experience, etc. -which eventually failed for the most part (to immediately make anyone perfect -let alone bring an entire nation to universal obedience), which was inevitable because of the state of man at that time -but did lay the groundwork for the turning around of that failure in the future.

There is also a difference between believing God exists and believing what he says -because we may not yet have seen what he says is true -or experienced it. Then there is the matter of aligning one's actions with beliefs -which may conflict with our shortsighted and immediate desires.

God is challenging and difficult to believe by the very nature of things -because we are new -not because he has made it unnecessarily so.
Many signs and wonders were shown to many -some believed, some did not -some changed -some did not and none were made immediately perfect.
God reveled himself -and was mostly rejected -because other things needed to happen before he could be accepted, believed -and especially before all of mankind could possibly become Godlike in their ways. We have little over 100 years, then another new generation, etc. -so permanence of life and the perspective of all of our collective experience are necessary to enable mankind to make any permanent and positive changes -to accept and obey the government of God -not simply believe.

God does know what it will take to convince everyone -to bring them to eternal life in peace and without conflict -and it is a lengthy process from our perspective -which goes even beyond our human lifespan.
If we believe -then simply die, there is no point.We live long enough to get a general idea of the nature of things -then we die and make room for another generation -and will all be made alive again. God said he made the heavens and earth to be inhabited -so there will be plenty of room for all eventually.

What it takes includes experience. God is concerned with what we believe, but simply telling us what to believe doesn't work. Even those who believe can eventually doubt if they have not sought or experienced proof for themselves.

I don't find the adventures of the isrealites very convincing for several reasons--the Mayans and native Americans had equally grandiose tales about miracles of sacrificing people to keep the sun burning. Thousands of cultures have claimed miracles and other superstitious tales. It doesnn't make sense that all of these miracles only occurred during an age of superstition and mysticism and not in an age of video cameras and the scientific method. its fascinating that all of the miracles have simply disappeared and have stopped occurring. Cultures come up with superstitious myths to explain things they don't understand such as earthquakes, volcanoes, the solar eclipse, sinkholes causing water displacement, and a variety of other celestial phenomena that is now well understood.

And maybe the isrealites really did experience plagues--of course we know now that plagues are caused by viruses and bacteria, but in ancient times a priest would make a lucky guess, and because of selection bias it seems as if sickness has an agent behind it. Much of it is also hearsay that builds of over time like a game of telephone.

"God reveled himself -and was mostly rejected -because other things needed to happen before he could be accepted, believed -and especially before all of mankind could possibly become Godlike in their ways. "

See here is the problem I have--God is omnipotent sohe should know what should convince all of us and do so if he actually cares about our beliefs. Now with video cameras and the scientific method it would be very easy for us to not make it challenging and difficult to believe in him. And then he made us to be skeptical and curious. Its very unlikely that God would go through all of arbitrary and unconvincing ways of revealing himself when it would be so easy to for him to make all of us believe. its far more likely that human myth and superstition, combined with pattern seeking and selection bias, formed to create a perfect storm of stories not based on reality. Then combine religious leaders who control their people through religious beliefs for political reasons, and you get all the bizarre, strange, and ridiculous stories and myths that exist today and are alleged to be real.

 

[Etritonakin]

The truth is that some very freaky and "miraculous" (good and evil) things are happening all over the place right now -and will increase. The fact that you personally have not experienced them does not change anything -except perhaps how you act in response to what you believe or know.

You are just one person -either you experience something yourself, or learn about it from others.

Others may not be trustworthy -videos are faked, evidence is tainted -but assuming what you experienced, were told about or had evidence of was true, what would it take for you to believe in God -and what would that mean? How would it change anything? How would you change?

It is important that God exists, but more important that we do the right thing regardless. Even if we can't see God, much of the truth is self-evident. We are responsible and accountable for that which is obviously true.

Then there is the matter of secrets and deception. What if you saw something miraculous, but it was a hoax? What if aliens flew by and did some skywriting as a joke -claiming to be God? What if evil people did truly miraculous things but deceived you about the truth -about what God truly wanted you to do -which he had written? (The importance of the latter commandments should be self-evident, but if one does not believe in God the first few can seem unimportant.)

Many people lie -many make up stories -and that has no bearing on the truth.
The fact that many cultures made things up actually has nothing to do with people who have actually experienced things -even miraculous things.

Anything that happens in this world which is extraordinary and could give advantage or make vulnerable will be guarded -kept secret -hidden. It is not easy to know or tell the truth in these times -so anything that happens which is miraculous -and news thereof -is likely to be controlled as much as possible -even if some facts get out.

As things increase, many will see many signs and wonders -and be deceived by them -because they seek those things instead of the truth and righteousness.

It is said that the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night. Many will not be aware of things even as they happen.

 

[Etritonakin]

I don't find the adventures of the isrealites very convincing for several reasons--the Mayans and native Americans had equa"........ beliefs for political reasons, and you get all the bizarre, strange, and ridiculous stories and myths that exist today and arereal.

See above

 

[Banjankri]

If things did not exist before human consciousness then human consciousness could never have come into existence.

So, some things need existence to appear, and some don't. Freaking miracle. Consciousness needs things to come into existence, but universe came out of nowhere, and it's OK. Now that's a huge belief, you know. Not mentioning fundamental things like quantum fluctuations, appearing from nowhere.
Nevertheless, that was not my point, when I was talking about existence. Existence is a result of perception, not a fundamental feature of reality. Take something and break it apart. It existed as a whole, and it existed as its parts. Break those apart, and you will go further into a pyramid of existence, having more and more existent components. But hey, you can combined those parts in something new, creating something new, a new existence. You and up with infinite amount of existence. Where is it stored? Nowhere. It is just the way our minds work. There is no free floating, infinite existence out there, somewhere. Its how we perceive.
Moreover, I am not saying that "somewhere out there", there is nothing. That would be as false as saying that there is something out there, independent of perception. I am just saying that existence happens here, in our minds only. Nobody can ever refute that.

We can infer things beyond our own experience, which is what science is all about

Religion too...

I mean I made quite a few points which you didn't really address so I guess you accept my definition of reality as consistent?

No, because it isn't. You pick what you need, thats far from being consistent.

Through mathematics and logic for example.

And how do you know if those are true? Those are only methods for checking consistency of given assumption.
Everything that is green is a frog. Your eyes are green, thus your eyes are frogs.
This is logically correct statement. It is truth?

Things like the theory of relativity also have mounds of empirical evidence supporting it.

What amount do you need, to be able to classify something as truth? Purple color has all the empirical evidence it can get, we can clearly see it exists, but still it's just an illusion.

Even though it is only 99.999999% confirmed, I accept it as truth as much as I accept that I will die or be seriously injured by jumping off a tall cliff.

Predictability. Illusion can be also predicted, and confirmed. How do those two differ?

 

[thau]

This is an amusing. Lets begin with your strawman: I never claimed that rearranging the stars is the only thing that would convince me. It was that since God is perfect, he should know what should convince me and do that if he cares about belief. My point is that to convince me it would need to clearly be something that isn't a natural phenomena and that it would need to convey that it was accomplished by Yahweh as opposed to Zeus, or thor, or an evil alien overlord, oir a variety of other possible deities.

Also what are you quoting from? When you quote something you generally need to cite it and provide your source.

And just because its an unusual light phenomena doesn't mean it defies the laws of physics. And what does rearranging the star sun even mean for that matter? Not only is star sun redundant, but shifting magnetic fields from the earth
s interior combined with a solar flare can create very unusual optical phenomena. Unusual phenomena doesn't suddenly mean God; this is the same kind of logic ancient people used to argue that the solar eclipse was a result of an angry God , rather than just a celestial phenomena. In 1917 solar science and atmospheric optics was not well understood, making it very likely that people misinterpreted what they saw.

Finally how did these people know it was from God? Do they look at the aurora borealis and say that too must be from Allah or Zeus?Even if it is unexplained and it defied that laws of physics, which is not true at all, it still wouldn't mean that God did it. I mean thats a pretty weird way of convincing people anyways--instead of doing it over every major city in the world, and making it clear that it was accomplished by Yahweh, God instead decided to do it over one city and made it ambiguous as to whether or not he did it. You haven't shown whatsoever that a cosmic lightshow is evidence for God. The reason rearranging the stars would be a lot more effective and convincing is because it would clearly defy the laws of physics by making stars travel faster than the speed of light and defying conservation of momentum, and it would convey that God did it since there would be a clear message about who the agent was.

[Lets begin with your strawman: I never claimed that rearranging the stars is the only thing that would convince me.]

Not the “only” thing, but the one example you gave us that would convince you. That was the larger point you were making.


[In 1917 solar science and atmospheric optics was not well understood, making it very likely that people misinterpreted what they saw.]

This is exactly where you and so many others look desperate. You are not interested in examining the true facts of the event, your whole mission is defined by this “I do not want to believe there is a God, so I will only respond in a way that advances that cause. Anything that brings my beliefs into question I will ignore and focus on that which I can cause some doubt, albeit of preposterous possibilities. “


[Finally how did these people know it was from God? Do they look at the aurora borealis and say that too must be from Allah or Zeus?]

Because there were scores of supporting reasons and facts to lend one of common sense to draw the obvious conclusions. Three little children cannot possibly maintain fantastic lies for six months, be imprisoned and interrogated by govt officials for three days, and threatened to be boiled if they did not refute their stories, yet refuse to and all three remain adamant --- this cannot happen if it is not the truth they witnessed. They were from pious Catholic families, they prayed the rosary every day. Jesus was their Lord, not Zeus or Allah. They insisted to all those demanding the truth it was the Virgin Mary who was appearing to them and talking to them about what?.... about Jesus Christ, about heaven and hell and purgatory. About to continue going to mass and praying the rosary. They screamed in unison on July 13th when the Mother of God showed them a vision of hell. They described what they saw in great, yet horrifying, detail. Three children between 6 and 9 years old! Yet none of this can penetrate your thick obstinate hide. You try to pick away at the edges of the events with your cynical statements like “how can we be sure it was your God and not Zeus?” What folly.


[Even if it is unexplained and it defied that laws of physics, which is not true at all, it still wouldn't mean that God did it.]

No, of course not. God is silent you insist, so you can walk through your life accountable to no one for all your illicit pleasures and self-centered ways. After all, that is what your real objective is, and most of the world for that matter. Chesterton was so right when he said “when man stops believing in God he does not then believe in nothing, he will believe in anything.”

 

[Nietzsche]

Nothing has ever been brought forward that could sincerely explain away the supernatural events at Fatima, Portugal, 1917. Three young shepherd children have reported seeing the Virgin Mary each month. On July 13th (the third apparition) they tell the anxious crowd assembled that the Virgin Mary will perform a miracle for all to see in 90 days on October 13. This explains why 70,000 believers and scoffers assembled on October 13, a very dark, rainy and muddy day. The three children arrive and soon after Lucia points to the sky. The sun splits the grey clouds and begins to twirl, bounce and dance defying cosmic laws. It shoots of multi colored rays across the whole landscape changing the color of the people's faces, blue, green, yellow. All are spellbound. This lasts approximately 12 minutes until for a climax the sun grows in great size, turns blood red and charges the earth. All are terrified, but just as suddenly the sun recedes and all is peaceful. The very muddy ground and drenched clothes of those present are inexplicably now dry.

The Marxist and anti-clerical journalists from ‘O Seculo’ Lisbon newspaper there initially to mock this event humbly report the truth in their newspaper. There are also countless testimonies in print and on film as to what took place including that of scientists. It’s all there for anyone’s serious research. Some of the 70,000 do not see this phenomenon, but the vast majority clearly do and their accounts are very much the same. If God chooses to deny some a gift or manifestation how does that discount the accounts of all the other eye witnesses? This is no minor miracle. It was predicted 90 days in advance to the exact day it would occur by three small children back in July. And this does not impress the doubters? Mass hallucination has no validity if one is honest about all of the facts and details. It is a hyper improbable theory at best. God did what he chose here to show the world He is real and that He is the God of Jesus Christ, not Buddha, Muhammad or any others. It is the one salient miracle that remains unassailable and incontrovertible, in my opinion, and should be in the opinions of unbiased honest men. Again, this miracle does not stand on its own, but is a remarkable empirical event in history which lends solid evidence to support all other events and claims surrounding Jesus Christ.

Question. Why are all the reports of the Miracle of the Sun so different? If they really were witnessing the same thing, and given how utterly mind-blowing such an event would be(and thus stick out extremely well in their memory), surely all their reports would be nigh-identical, right? But they aren't. And why was it only there? If it were the sun moving like that, everyone in the western hemisphere would've seen something. And even if the average individual in the west didn't, we've got astronomers across the globe that should've noticed something incredibly wrong. But the only reports come from those who were in the group, or those who have, to be frank, a vested interest in this being true(the Pope for starters). I am not trying to say that the people who saw it were lying. I do not doubt they believe it 220%. But I do think that they might be mistaken.

One more thing, in most of the reports state that people had been staring at the sun & sky for a while, waiting for the event. You ever done that? Stare at the sun for a while? I have. Eventually, you start to see some really, really weird stuff, even when you close your eyes.

 

[thau]

Question. Why are all the reports of the Miracle of the Sun so different? If they really were witnessing the same thing, and given how utterly mind-blowing such an event would be(and thus stick out extremely well in their memory), surely all their reports would be nigh-identical, right? But they aren't. And why was it only there? If it were the sun moving like that, everyone in the western hemisphere would've seen something. And even if the average individual in the west didn't, we've got astronomers across the globe that should've noticed something incredibly wrong. But the only reports come from those who were in the group, or those who have, to be frank, a vested interest in this being true(the Pope for starters). I am not trying to say that the people who saw it were lying. I do not doubt they believe it 220%. But I do think that they might be mistaken.

One more thing, in most of the reports state that people had been staring at the sun & sky for a while, waiting for the event. You ever done that? Stare at the sun for a while? I have. Eventually, you start to see some really, really weird stuff, even when you close your eyes.

Except they were not all that different. What is impressive is the great similarities, not their differences. Everyone sees things in their own way and remembers that part which impressed them most. How could they be that similar if it was all hallucinated?

So easy to discredit the testimony of a secular scientist? Or the account from a Marxist journalist there to mock it, yet humbly, report the facts in the Lisbon paper ‘O Seculo’ of what he witnessed? Have you any idea how many eye witness testimonies were recorded in print and on film? Not to mention the testimonies of those who were 10 and 20 miles away from the event?

Excerpt from Wikipedia article quoting the Marxist journalist:
"Before the astonished eyes of the crowd, whose aspect was biblical as they stood bare-headed, eagerly searching the sky, the sun trembled, made sudden incredible movements outside all cosmic laws — the sun 'danced' according to the typical expression of the people." ― Avelino de Almeida,writing for O Século. O Século was Portugal's most widely circulated and influential newspaper. It was pro-government and anti-clerical at the time. Almeida's previous articles had been to satirize the previously reported events at Fátima.

As for other eye witness accounts, begin with Dr. José Maria de Almeida Garrett, professor at the Faculty of Sciences of Coimbra, Portugal. The following is just a small quote. You can read his lengthier testimony at >>> Essentials The Facts The Miracle of the Sun

Dr. Almeida Garrett, PhD (Coimbra University):
“… The sun's disc did not remain immobile. This was not the sparkling of a, heavenly body, for it spun round on itself in a mad whirl. Then, suddenly, one heard a clamor, a cry of anguish breaking from all the people. The sun, whirling wildly, seemed to loosen itself from the firmament and advance threateningly upon the earth as if to crush us with its huge and fiery weight. The sensation during those moments was terrible.
“… All the phenomena which I have described were observed by me in a calm and serene state of mind, and without any emotional disturbance. It is for others to interpret and explain them.”

Here is an excerpt from >>> Fr. Pio Sciatizzi, professor of algebra and trigonometry at the Gregorian University, Rome, author of Fátima in the Light of Faith and Science in the 1940s wrote this:

“Of the historic reality of this event there can be no doubt whatsoever. That it was outside and against known laws can be proved by certain simple scientific considerations… Given the indubitable reference to God and the general context of the event, it seems that we must attribute to Him alone the most obvious and colossal miracle of history.”

If you go to this website >>> HEAVEN S PROGRAM FOR SALVATION Testimonies to Fatima s Miracle of the Sun you will read excerpts from testimonies including that of a written deposition by Portuguese aristocrat Baron of Alvaiazere, to Church investigators:

“. . . An indescribable impression overtook me. I only know that I cried out: I believe! I believe! And tears ran from my eyes. I was amazed, in ecstasy before the demonstration of Divine power . . . converted in that moment.”

Here is another professional testimony of a Dr. Formigao, Professor at Santarem seminary:
“As if like a bolt from the blue, the clouds were wrenched apart, and the sun at its zenith appeared in all its splendour. It began to revolve vertiginously on its axis, like the most magnificent fire-wheel that could be imagined, taking on all the colours of the rainbow and sending forth multi-coloured flashes of light, producing the most astounding effect. This sublime and incomparable spectacle, which was repeated three distinct times, lasted for about ten minutes.

“The immense multitude, overcome by the evidence of such a tremendous prodigy, threw themselves on their knees. The Creed, the Hail Mary, acts of contrition, burst from all lips, and tears, tears of thanksgiving and repentance sprang from all eyes.”


Then we have that of a lawyer, Carlos Mendes, who declared:
“I saw the sun as if it were a ball of fire, begin to move in the clouds. It had been raining all morning and the sky was full of clouds, but the rain had stopped. It lasted for several seconds, crushingly pressing down on us. Wan faces, standing here, from every side great ejaculations, acts of contrition, of the love of God. An indescribable moment! We feel it. We remain dominated by it. But it is not possible to describe it.”

More written testimonies:

Report of John Carreira, a boy at the time of the miracle, who eventually became a sacristan at the Fátima shrine, serving for 50 years. On 13 October 1917, onlookers in the crowd pressed him against the three visionary children, so that “my knees jammed between Lucia's and Francisco's feet,” he later wrote.

“…I saw the sun spinning round and it seemed about to come down on us. It revolved like a bicycle wheel. Afterwards, it returned to its place . . . I wasn't afraid, but I heard people cry out: 'Oh, we are going to die! We are going to die!'”

Antonio de Oliveiro, farmer, said:
“I looked at the sun and saw it spinning like a disc, rolling on itself. I saw people changing colour. They were stained with the colours of the rainbow. The sun seemed to fall down from the sky… The people said that the world was going to end . . . They were afraid and screaming.”

Maria dos Prazeres, widow:
“I saw the sun turn upon itself; it seemed to fall from the sky The people around me were crying that the world was going to end.”

Dominic Reis (in TV interview in the U.S. in l960)
“The sun started to roll from one place to another and changed to blue, yellow -- all colours. Then we see the sun coming towards the children. Everyone was crying out. Some started to confess their sins because there was no priest around there . . . My mother grabbed me to her and started to cry, saying: 'It is the end of the world!' And then we see the sun come right into the trees.”

Maria Candida da Silva
“Suddenly the rain stopped and a great splendour appeared and the children cried: 'Look at the sun!' I saw the sun coming down, feeling that it was falling to the ground. At that moment, I collapsed.”

Rev. Joao Menitra
“I looked and saw that the people were in various colours -- yellow, white, blue. At the same time, I beheld the sun spinning at great speed and very near me. I at once thought: I am going to die.”.


Now we have testimonies from a number of eye witnesses who were not at the Fatima site, but several miles away: They are taken from the website above and also from the website >> Fatima Testimonies in 1917

There may have been many former atheists in Fátima that day, but there were plenty in Portugal, nonetheless, to charge hallucination. For those the Lady provided witnesses who were not at the scene and could not have been subject to collective suggestion.

Joaquim Lourenco, a schoolboy, was in the village of Alburitel, a few miles from Fátima.. He later became canon lawyer of the diocese of Leiria.
“… I looked fixedly at the sun, which seemed pale and did not hurt my eyes.
“Looking like a ball of snow, revolving on itself, it suddenly seemed to come down in a zigzag, menacing the earth.
“Terrified, I ran and hid myself among the people, who were weeping and expecting the end of the world at any moment. It was a crowd which had gathered outside our local village school, and we had all left classes and run into the streets because of the cries and surprised shouts of men and women who were in the street in front of the school when the miracle began.

“There was an unbeliever there who had spent the morning mocking the 'simpletons' who had gone off to Fátima just to see an ordinary girl. He now seemed paralyzed, his eyes fixed on the sun. He began to tremble from head to foot, and lifting up his arms, fell on his knees in the mud, crying out to God.

“But meanwhile the people continued to cry out and to weep, asking God to pardon their sins. We all ran to the two chapels in the village, which were soon filled to overflowing. During those long moments of the solar prodigy, objects around us turned all colours of the rainbow.


Abano Barros (a building contractor, who later became a U.S. citizen) witnessed the apparition from the village of Minde, eight miles away…
“I was watching sheep, as was my daily task, and suddenly, there in the direction of Fátima, I saw the sun fall from the sky. I thought it was the end of the world.”

Poet Alfonso Lopes Viera saw the miracle from a distance of 30 miles at the ocean-side town of San Pedro der Muel.
Alfonso Lopes Vieira (observed the display from a distance of nearly 25 miles):
“On that day of October 13, 1917, without remembering the predictions of the children, I was enchanted by a remarkable spectacle in the sky of a kind I had never seen before. I saw it from this veranda...”

Fr. Ignacio Lorenco (Alburitel, 11 miles away):
“… I feel incapable of describing what I saw and felt. I looked fixedly at the sun, which seemed pale and did not hurt the eyes. Looking like a ball of snow revolving on itself, it suddenly seemed to come down in a zigzag, menacing the earth. Terrified, I ran and hid myself among the people, who were weeping and expecting the end of the world at any moment.
“Near us was an unbeliever who had spent the morning mocking at the simpletons who had gone off to Fátima just to see an ordinary girl. He now seemed to be paralyzed, his eyes fixed on the sun. Afterwards he trembled from head to foot and lifting up his arms fell on his knees in the mud, crying out to our Lady.

“Meanwhile the people continued to cry out and to weep, asking God to pardon their sins. We all ran to the two chapels in the village, which were soon filled to overflowing. During those long moments of the solar prodigy, objects around us turned all the colors of the rainbow. We saw ourselves blue, yellow, red, etc. All these strange phenomena increased the fears of the people. After about ten minutes the sun, now dull and pallid, returned to its place. When the people realized that the danger was over, there was an explosion of joy, and everyone joined in thanksgiving and praise to our Lady.”


Note: The miracle was also seen in Pombal, 32 miles north of Fátima.
The total land-area of visibility, based on witness interviews, was approximately 32 by 20 miles.
No records of the solar phenomena were recorded by any of the world's observatories
The above reports and others were published in 1961 in Meet the Witnesses, by John Haffert, International Lay Delegate of the Blue Army of Our Lady of Fátima. (A.M.I. Press, Washington, N.J., U.S.A.).
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

You combine the words of eye witnesses both present and several miles away along with the prediction of little children on what day it would occur 90 days in advance, and all of the other phenomena associated with the Fatima events and miraculous claims and you have a sign from God. No other explanation can stand up to it.