Do you believe in God?

[Famine]

This whole discussion = the eternal question.

Heck. Why do We exist?

Because we exist.

 

[TrievelA7X]

Duke actually made quite an intelligent observation, which is very germane to this case, i.e., it was an event which took place in a formerly highly Catholic culture which was experiencing a crisis of belief; people saw a Catholic vision because it was a Catholic culture. Nice going, Duke!👍

You, Famine, on the other hand, prejudiced and foreclosed further investigation by dismissing, and debunking the whole thing by blandly claiming that people were seeing things and nothing was odd. 👎

It's hard to know which of you is the scientist and which is the watchman. I say Duke is better at both, in this case.

Sincerely yours,
Dotini

Drugs have existed as long as man, and we've always been able to use them, and hallucinate.
I bet Jimi Hendrix saw some things himself.

 

[Dotini]

I'm not seeing the disparity between the two.

Duke said something that was essential to say in order to light the path to further understanding through inquiry. You said something in a way that that closed off further inquiry, as it indicated the matter was firmly settled in your view. In matters involving a mystery, one must keep one's mind and eye's open. Duke might be a good crime scene investigator, or a forensic engineer. You, like your friend Dan, like to clutch tightly to your principles, and reason toward your desired effect. That's great if you are moderating an echo chamber of like-minded believers. In a forum of discursive opinion, you will inevitably lose credibility.

All the best,
Dotini

 

[Sam48]

It is more important to have the right answer later than it is to have the wrong answer right now.

Why is that?

 

[Famine]

Duke said something that was essential to say in order to light the path to further understanding through inquiry. You said something in a way that that closed off further inquiry, as it indicated the matter was firmly settled in your view.

We said exactly the same thing - Catholic people see things. It's an entirely accurate description of the "incident". For some reason you've interpreted our mindsets to be different when the reality is that they are the same:

1. The incident is accurately described as "Catholic people see things".
2. The event is unrepeatable (unless you're Pope Pius), unverifiable and unsubstantiated.
3. This does not prove the existence of any deity.
4. Step 3 does not disprove the existence of any deity.

In matters involving a mystery, one must keep one's mind and eye's open.

And one must not forego searching for the correct conclusion over time in order to develop any conclusion right now.

You, like your friend Dan

And indeed our mutual friend, Duke.

Why is that?

What?! Seriously? You don't think it's important to get things right so long as you have an answer now?

What's the point in an answer if it's wrong?

 

[TheCracker]

Why is that?

Why would you want the wrong answer just for the sake of having an answer?

 

[Dotini]

Yes, too bad. Because that renders the entire event an odd, not fully-understood occurance.

However odd, it does nothing to prove that there is a god.



Please understand that my participation in any discussion on this forum is unrelated to my role as a member of staff. When I need to put on my staff hat, it will be obvious, and I will do my best to keep it separate from my opinion hat.

The event at Fatima, and similar events, are fine for discussion. I do not see any reason they should not be welcome. But merely saying that the Fatima "vision" could be evidence of god is not the same as it being proof of god.

And, frankly, I'd automatically suspect anything that so carefully matches the overbearingly popular doctrine in such a highly-religious culture to be the direct result of predisposition. In other words, people saw a Catholic vision because it was a highly Catholic country... just like people see little green men with big eyes coming out of a brightly-lit spheroid when they are predisposed to believe that's what aliens look like.

Now, show me something utterly alien and I'll believe it might be alien.

Also, please understand, I think that statistically speaking it is certain that not only are there other sentient cultures in the universe; in fact there are bound to be many many so, no matter how rare. They could possibly have even visited this planet. But I wouldn't guarantee it based on the evidence.

Poor dear old Famine! For your convenience, I have quoted Duke so that you can view his quote right in front of you. I have highlighted portions which clearly show he agrees that something odd happened and that the path of inquiry, though difficult, is still open. Also, I have highlighted his rather prescient passage concerning the predisposition of Catholics to undergo Catholic visionary experiences when and if they do have them. One key question is, what was the source of the visionary experience? Was it 70,000 people collectively? Was it the 3 illiterates? Was there another source involved? Precisely who or what was it that was doing the predisposing?! It must be remembered that 70,000 people, many skeptical and apostate, were gathered on soaked ground and hillsides over a sizable area with light rain falling from heavily clouded skies. Near the appointed hour, many were restless and doubting. Then, by the most reliable accounts, the remarkable things occurred: The ground physically dried up. The smell of roses suffused the air. The rain stopped and the skies parted to reveal the sun, but was it the sun?? The disc was seen to be whirling and throwing off all the colors of the rainbow. Many said that it seemed to approach the Earth as if to crash into it, and they were greatly frightened. Though accounts differ, all were mightily impressed, and local belief in the 3 illiterates turned around as did the attendance at the local God-boxes, as indeed it did nationally and eventually the positive effects on Catholic belief and attendance were felt world-wide. Unquestionably an event occurred that was odd, and had a purpose and an outcome that was intelligently choreographed by some source. I'd like to know what it was. You don't, so you should butt out, Famine.

I recommend for all interested students of the odd (and for all Catholics) the following book: The Great Apparitions of Mary: An Examination of Twenty-Two Supranormal Appearances, by Ingo Swann, Published 1996 by Crossroad, New York.

Ingo Swann of course was the inventor of Scientific Remote Viewing at Stanford Research Institute, which was subsequently adopted as operational by the US Army in the famous Stargate Program. In my opinion, nobody on the planet knows more about unusual events than he.


Respectfully submitted,
Dotini

 

[Duke]

Why is that?

Because some right is better than all wrong. It is worth having the most accurate answer possible even if it is somewhat incomplete. It is utterly worthless to have a complete answer that is a total shot in the dark and not borne out by any evidence at all.

Poor dear old Famine! For your convenience, I have quoted Duke so that you can view his quote right in front of you. I have highlighted portions which clearly show he agrees that something odd happened and that the path of inquiry, though difficult, is still open.

I've been enjoying the byplay between you and Famine, but I have to say that I think the odds of the Fatima incident actually being supernatural in origin are astronomical against. My "automatic suspicion" is meant by way of discrediting the vision due to its extremely coincidental nature in a country and culture highly predisposed to seeing that precise vision.

Unquestionably an event occurred that was odd, and had a purpose and an outcome that was intelligently choreographed by some source.

This is where we part ways. That casual "unquestionably" is exactly the same as the comic setup Step 3: ????? right before the punchline Step 4: Profit!!!.

 

[Famine]

Poor dear old Famine! For your convenience, I have quoted Duke so that you can view his quote right in front of you. I have highlighted portions which clearly show he agrees that something odd happened and that the path of inquiry, though difficult, is still open. Also, I have highlighted his rather prescient passage concerning the predisposition of Catholics to undergo Catholic visionary experiences when and if they do have them.

Oh look:

"Assembled throng of fervent Catholic believers see things"

The rain stopped and the skies parted to reveal the sun...

And that's where accounts diverge wildly.

But that's to be expected of eyewitness testimony - widely regarded as the least credible form of evidence. I'm sure I don't have to bring up the eyewitnesses at the Pentagon on 9/11 who saw a passenger airliner bank up sharply, miss the building and vanish into thin air, but just in case, I will.

Unquestionably an event occurred that was odd

I disagree with every part of this sentence. However, I believe it can be amended with just one word change.

Anecdotally, an event occurred that was odd.


I'd regard the sun whirling, diving, changing colours and turning inside out as "odd". If I witnessed it, I might even consider that it was odd enough for me to have imagined it. However, I'd regard anecdotal evidence of a religious experience amongst religious people as relatively run-of-the-mill - and remember that Pope Pius said he experienced exactly the same miracle in the privacy of the Vatican gardens over 4 successive days, 13 years later. Perhaps a mite conveniently.

and had a purpose and an outcome that was intelligently choreographed by some source.

Did it? Did anything actually happen? If it did, could the phenomenon have been naturally occurring - like, say, sundogs, parhelions, circumhorizontal/circumzenithal arcs, 22 and 46 degree halos, noctilucent clouds or Bishop's Rings (and there was a volcanic eruption in Europe in 1917).

Here's a fun shot from Wikipedia:

Now if I saw crap like that, I'd think it was quite odd - particularly as there's no actual sun anywhere in that picture, nor even above the horizon at that time.

I'd like to know what it was. You don't

Actually I have no strong feelings on the matter either way, nor do I have any reason to think either that either the event occurred at all or did not.

so you should butt out, Famine.

Sir, yes sir.

 

[Public'sTwin]

Poor dear old Famine! For your convenience, I have quoted Duke so that you can view his quote right in front of you. I have highlighted portions which clearly show he agrees that something odd happened and that the path of inquiry, though difficult, is still open.

On the contrary, I think Duke just espoused a wordier version of Famine's views. Neither of them are particularly condemning of a "path of inquiry"—but neither are surprised or curious about the instance, either. (Perhaps due to it being another purported vision, by another unreliable group of people, as reported after nonillions of other unreliable, unverifiable sightings by others.)

Also, I have highlighted his rather prescient passage concerning the predisposition of Catholics to undergo Catholic visionary experiences when and if they do have them. One key question is, what was the source of the visionary experience? Was it 70,000 people collectively? Was it the 3 illiterates? Was there another source involved? Precisely who or what was it that was doing the predisposing?! It must be remembered that 70,000 people, many skeptical and apostate, were gathered on soaked ground and hillsides over a sizable area with light rain falling from heavily clouded skies. Near the appointed hour, many were restless and doubting. Then, by the most reliable accounts, the remarkable things occurred: The ground physically dried up. The smell of roses suffused the air. The rain stopped and the skies parted to reveal the sun, but was it the sun?? The disc was seen to be whirling and throwing off all the colors of the rainbow. Many said that it seemed to approach the Earth as if to crash into it, and they were greatly frightened. Though accounts differ, all were mightily impressed, and local belief in the 3 illiterates turned around as did the attendance at the local God-boxes, as indeed it did nationally and eventually the positive effects on Catholic belief and attendance were felt world-wide. Unquestionably an event occurred that was odd, and had a purpose and an outcome that was intelligently choreographed by some source. I'd like to know what it was.

Of the 70,000 present, and of those interviewed, how many were, say...3rd party, objective witnesses? Like a journalist? Anyone without any intrinsic attachment to the events unfolding?

Surely if 70,000 people were congregating en masse, an objective 3rd party must have been present to witness the ground drying up and all of them incurring signs of a stroke.

You don't, so you should butt out, Famine.

Ingo Swann of course was the inventor of Scientific Remote Viewing at Stanford Research Institute, which was subsequently adopted as operational by the US Army in the famous Stargate Program. In my opinion, nobody on the planet knows more about unusual events than he.

Stargate only received a mission after all other intelligence attempts, methods, or approaches had already been exhausted.[7]
It was also reported that there were over 22 active military and domestic remote viewers providing data. When the project closed in 1995 this number had dwindled down to three. One was using tarot cards. People leaving the project were not replaced.

When gathering intelligence, misinformation can be more dangerous than no information at all.

As with all intelligence information, intelligence gathered by remote viewing must be verified by other sources. Remote-viewing information could not stand alone.(According to Ray Hyman in the AIR report, if Ed May's[12] conclusions are correct, remote viewers were right 20% of the time and wrong 80% of the time.)

 

[Dotini]

Of the 70,000 present, and of those interviewed, how many were, say...3rd party, objective witnesses? Like a journalist? Anyone without any intrinsic attachment to the events unfolding?

Surely if 70,000 people were congregating en masse, an objective 3rd party must have been present to witness the ground drying up and all of them incurring signs of a stroke.

Good questions, Public's Twin!

As the whole affair, brewing over nine months, was quite controversial, there were many public officials in attendance. Police officers, magistrates and judges, doctors and physicians, and of course large numbers of journalists and reporters. This is one of the most bizarre events recorded in history, and is fully deserving of your investigation.

Yours truly,
Dotini

 

[mindwise]

^ So science showed there can be matter in empty space between protons.

Not quite, it shows that most of the mass of what we call 'matter' resides in the empty space.
So the shocking find here is that what we call nothing, actually has mass!!!

"That's all good and well, now explain to me where that proton that inevitably started the universe came from."

i don't know about any proton's starting any universes, yet, to take a shortcut:
IF the universe is closed system, and we know that matter/energy cannot be created (the law of Conservation of energy), and neither be destroyed, then the building blocks of what protons are made off (and neutrons and electrons etc) have always existed.

This begs the question, if science needs to account for something having always existed, it's only fair to request that religion accounts for god always having existed, don't you?

i accept 'i don't know' as an answer, as that equals my understanding of it

I said i used the shortcut, as it's not as simple as that ofcourse, so need need to bring up Stress-energy-momentum pseudotensor or the cosmological constant etc.... i thought i'd try and keep it simple enough for myself to grasp

Now, sam, you hit on one of the problems many atheists have with the bible, let me explain.
You said the bible says god is eternal, and i agree that it does....
The problem is that the bible also says that God is the 'alpha and the omega, the beginning and the end'...

Now which is it, and more importantly, 'why'..

I think Duke has been stressing the point that "no answer, is better then a wrong answer"... the exact reason i accept 'i don't know' until i have solid reasons to (assume) i do know...

On that note, i don't know if a god exists or not, but to come back to "parallel lines" (or "a perfect circle", to name another one) ... most gods described to me, i am told have properties that conflict, and therefore i see reason to discard them as impossible.

Things like a god that is both "omniscient", but yet has (and lets have) a concept of "free will"..
- That's logically impossible, and hence there is reason to at least discard a god with those properties to be impossible.
if you think the two are not mutually exclusive, then please explain to me how omniscience (which requires a fixed future, else the future cannot be known) does not conflict with the ability to make a choice.

Put it simply:
If god today already knows i will choose a sandwich over a donut when i go to the bakery next week...... then how am i free to opt for a croissant when i find myself at the bakery a week from now ?
- i cannot, since me choosing a sandwich was already foreseen.
Hence, either we have free will, or the future is fixed (allowing omniscience).

Well, i'm sure someone will philosophize my argument to shreds, so a(nother) great discussion may be underway

 

[Famine]

i accept 'i don't know' as an answer, as that equals my understanding of it

And, ironically, the most important answer in all knowledge and science.

 

[Dotini]

And, ironically, the most important answer in all knowledge and science.

Agreed!

 

[Sam48]

Now, sam, you hit on one of the problems many atheists have with the bible, let me explain.
You said the bible says god is eternal, and i agree that it does....
The problem is that the bible also says that God is the 'alpha and the omega, the beginning and the end'...

Now which is it, and more importantly, 'why'..

I think Duke has been stressing the point that "no answer, is better then a wrong answer"... the exact reason i accept 'i don't know' until i have solid reasons to (assume) i do know...

On that note, i don't know if a god exists or not, but to come back to "parallel lines" (or "a perfect circle", to name another one) ... most gods described to me, i am told have properties that conflict, and therefore i see reason to discard them as impossible.

Things like a god that is both "omniscient", but yet has (and lets have) a concept of "free will"..
- That's logically impossible, and hence there is reason to at least discard a god with those properties to be impossible.
if you think the two are not mutually exclusive, then please explain to me how omniscience (which requires a fixed future, else the future cannot be known) does not conflict with the ability to make a choice.

Put it simply:
If god today already knows i will choose a sandwich over a donut when i go to the bakery next week...... then how am i free to opt for a croissant when i find myself at the bakery a week from now ?
- i cannot, since me choosing a sandwich was already foreseen.
Hence, either we have free will, or the future is fixed (allowing omniscience).

Well, i'm sure someone will philosophize my argument to shreds, so a(nother) great discussion may be underway

You can choose whatever you want (sandwich, doughnut, whatever). No matter how many times you change your mind between now and when you go to the bakery next week, God foresaw it. Logic tells us it's up to us to decide our future when it comes to thing like this. It's like a die with all sides having the same number on them, and you don't know it. So no matter how many times you roll it, it will always come up with the same answer, hence the future. So technically, you have no control over it, yet logic says you do.

Do you follow?

 

[Duke]

You can choose whatever you want (sandwich, doughnut, whatever). No matter how many times you change your mind between now and when you go to the bakery next week, God foresaw it. Logic tells us it's up to us to decide our future when it comes to thing like this. It's like a die with all sides having the same number on them, and you don't know it. So no matter how many times you roll it, it will always come up with the same answer, hence the future. So technically, you have no control over it, yet logic says you do.

Do you follow?

No. Not in the slightest.

 

[Danoff]

No. Not in the slightest.

Since my interest got piqued, I'd like to propose a scenario.

I know you assume we all have free will. I doubt that if someone invented time travel tomorrow that you'd change your mind. And yet if the person who invented time travel were to go forward in time 1 day, see your actions for a day, and were to travel back in time to his original starting point - he would know all of the choices you'd make for that day.

Do you have free will or not?

 

[Touring Mars]

On the subject of the "Miracle of the Sun", there are a few things that strike me as particularly noteworthy. Firstly, it was "predicted", and hence people not only knew to gather before the event in anticipation, many probably also "knew" (roughly) what they were expecting (or even 'expected') to see. I reckon that this alone could explain why so many people reported similar (but crucially, quite different) things.

Secondly, there would (IMO) have almost certainly been a pressure on those 'witnesses' to report something positive, even if they didn't actually see anything all that unusual, up to and including complete fabrication. Considering that many/most of those that gathered to witness the 'miracle' were fervent believers, I'd imagine that there was probably immense psychological and social pressure to conform and confirm what was 'expected' of them - i.e. when asked "Did you see that?", or "What did you see?", the answer may not be a genuine reflection of what was actually there, but more like something that confirmed that they were a true believer. This would atleast explain one major factor - that many people reportedly saw nothing unusual at all, while others who did report something reported completely different things.

One thing I do like about the story, however, is that there are some things that sound incredibly plausible and are probably quite easily explained - the visions of rainbow colours emanating from the Sun for example. Not only is it explicable (sunlight is rainbow coloured) but it is also consistent with the eyewitness accounts of the weather conditions - rainclouds clearing and Sun breaking through - perfect conditions for a rainbow. As for the more bizarre reports, the question remains as to how many people reportedly "saw" them, e.g the Sun zig-zagging? Certainly not all, and probably only a tiny fraction. And how many of those who reported that actually saw it? I guess we'll never know, and unless it happens again in a way that can be reliably documented, it will remain an apocryphal story to me.

 

[Sam48]

No. Not in the slightest.

You have total control over your future. But just because it's foreseen, doesn't change the outcome.

@Danoff- time travel goes against logic all together, so It's hard to say.

 

[Joey D]

So an unknown entity knows what I'm going to do before I do it and even if I do something uncharacteristic and spur of the moment it knows? Forgive but I don't by that for a second. Maybe some evidence needs to be put forth convincing me of a supernatural being before we start talking about what it's capable.

 

[Famine]

This:

But just because it's foreseen, doesn't change the outcome.

precludes this:

You have total control over your future.

If the result is predestined, you have no control over the result. Effect denies cause.

 

[Danoff]

@Danoff- time travel goes against logic all together, so It's hard to say.

Actually, if you read closely, what I wrote is good ammunition for you against Duke and Famine. I'm curious as to what they think about how time travel affects free choice.

 

[Sam48]

This:



precludes this:



If the result is predestined, you have no control over the result. Effect denies cause.

If I have free will, I can decide my future. If someone foresees my future, it won't alter my decisions, as long as they don't tell me. So yes I have free will, it just happens to be predictable.

 

[Famine]

Actually, if you read closely, what I wrote is good ammunition for you against Duke and Famine. I'm curious as to what they think about how time travel affects free choice.

"What's really going to bake your noodle later on is... would you still have broken it if I hadn't said anything?"

If I have free will, I can decide my future.

Bzzt. You can't decide your future if it has already been decided. Even if you're unaware of the decision, your choices aren't free as entire path from now to then is mapped out. Any "choice" you make is thus inevitable, predestined and, ultimately, not of your own making. The choice has been made, even the choice to choose a different one.

By your argument, that is.

 

[Duke]

You have total control over your future. But just because it's foreseen, doesn't change the outcome.

So I have a 20-sided die to roll, but all the numbers are the same so it doesn't matter.

I therefore have no control over my future. But because I don't know the numbers are all the same, I then think I have control?

Does. Not. Compute. What I think is irrelevant if my choice has been predetermined by rolling loaded dice.

@Danoff- time travel goes against logic all together, so It's hard to say.

Kind of like... an omnicient, omnipotent, omnipresent being?

 

[Sam48]

"What's really going to bake your noodle later on is... would you still have broken it if I hadn't said anything?"



Bzzt. You can't decide your future if it has already been decided. Even if you're unaware of the decision, your choices aren't free as entire path from now to then is mapped out. Any "choice" you make is thus inevitable, predestined and, ultimately, not of your own making. The choice has been made, even the choice to choose a different one.

By your argument, that is.

Sorry if it sounded like I contradicted myself, but human logic doesn't quit correspond with the free will we have. If I decide to go take a walk, and someone foresaw it, they didn't force me to take a walk, because they could have foreseen me doing anything, but because I decided to go for a walk, that's what they foresaw me doing.

 

[WVUscion]

Correct, sorry if it sounded like I contradicted myself, but human logic doesn't quit correspond with the free will we think we have. If I decide to go take a walk, and someone foresaw it, they didn't force me to take a walk, because they could have foreseen me doing anything, but because I decided to go for a walk, that's what they foresaw me doing.

I think the thing that is causing you to stumble is the connection between things being "foretold" and the decisions you make on a day to day basis. While yes, you may say something like "I chose to go for a walk so thus it was my choice" that is not entirely true. While yes you are the one choosing to walk instead of say laying on the couch, the foretelling of such a thing would be dictated by the higher power. The control that you feel when you made the decision to go for a walk would be an illusion.

 

[Touring Mars]

Nope, I reckon the reason for the confusion is that Sam48 is equating "foreseen" with "predetermined" as if they are the same thing, which they aren't. Even so, there is no evidence at all that anything we do is either, let alone both.

 

[Exorcet]

Free will is an interesting subject, and I have to admit, it confuses me to no end. I used to just accept it as obvious, but then I realized I had a favorite color and though, why should I have one when there is no logical reason to do so? I also wondered why I never picked my favorite color, blue just happened to be it. Does free will (or even consciousness) truly exist? I don't know.

Anyway Sam, consider this, you being who you are might just be predisposed to taking a walk. The make up of your brain and the accumulation of stimuli you've built of over the course of your entire life may just lead to you taking a walk at some point. In that case, there would be no free will, you'd be something very much like a machine responding to input(s).

It's already known that biological systems work like that to a degree. I could be all there is too it, or there could be some other factor, like free will.

 

[WVUscion]

Nope, I reckon the reason for the confusion is that Sam48 is equating "foreseen" with "predetermined" as if they are the same thing, which they aren't. Even so, there is no evidence at all that anything we do is either, let alone both.

Unfortunately you're right. Not only is there any evidence on the free will subject, but because of the nature of how free will would work, it would be impossible for there to ever be. I think the best example of this is from some works by Descartes. It obviously not only creates problems with feelings about free will, but the overall nature of existence.