Freethought & Rationalism Archive

mdejess · 07-07-2008, 02:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Keith&Co.

Quote:

Originally Posted by mdejess

But those phenomena occurred objectively; the problem then in the impossibility of examining through digging into a phenomenum inside out and upside down is interpreting it as to render it of mundane everyday contingency, like mass hallucination.

I'm not sure if i am understanding this statement.

You're criticizing debunkers for not debunking apparent miracles they were not able to overhaul and find the 'bunk' in. WHich actually seems like the right way to respond to something you haven't been able to investigate.

Then, you seem to be saying that it's not the silence you're criticizing, it's the fact that they have a bias to interpret 'objectively occuring phenomena' as being of mundane origin? Is that about right?

First, i'd agree that if something happens, it happens. It may even be said to have happened objectively, although that seems redundant. Objectivity is removing bias and opinion. An actually occurring event seems the opposite of subjective, thus objective.
THe problem comes in getting an objective evaluation of that event. If the people that witness a 'miracle' are either biased towards or biased away from interpreting that miracle as a non-mundane event, then there isn't much in the way of objective evidence to evaluate, no matter what really happened.

However, if a group or our culture or our society has witnessed, filmed, investigated and recorded a number of strange events, and none has actually provided objective evidence of aliens, of the supernatural, of unicorns or of lesbian Republicans, then would it really be an objectionable 'bias' for investigators to refrain from attributing something to a classification that hasn't been shown to really exist?

I mean, should we really call something the work of aliens before we know that there are aliens? WOuldn't it be preferable to find the aliens first, then suss out their characteristics, THEN evaluate the posited alien workings to see if they match what we know about them?
Such as, if most crop circles go clockwise, but the Drazi have a religous phobia about clockwise motion in non-fruit-bearing vegetation, then we could more easily dismiss claims that the Drazi were in a certain field, knocking down the wheat, on a given night.

I say:

But those phenomena occurred objectively; the problem then in the impossibility of examining through digging into a phenomenum inside out and upside down is interpreting it as to render it of mundane everyday contingency, like mass hallucination.

Tell me in fewer words what exactly you find unacceptable for yourself in what I say above.

Mdejess

Diogenes the Cynic · 07-07-2008, 02:32 PM

What phenomena are you alleging "occurred objectively?" In the case of Fatima, all that "occurred objectively" was that some people said they saw the sun moving. The sun did not actually, objectively move. The only thing that requires explanation is why a bunch of people claimed they saw something that objectively did not occur.

dr lazer blast · 07-07-2008, 03:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ZouPrime

Quote:

Originally Posted by dr lazer blast

the article is not incorrect. Considering the fact that it was predicted, and the number of people that witnessed the event along with a couple of other factors, all rule out mass hysteria. How can you definitively prove that it didn't happen?, thats what I'd like to know.

Well, significant perturbations in our climate, tides, seasons etc. have not been observed.

The sun moving at massive speed in space for a few seconds would have drastic and unambiguous consequence for ou planet and the life that inhabit it. That none of these consequences happened is strong indication that the sun did not "dance".

Considering the fact that it was a miracle and by definition a miracle a supernatural event I am sure that whatever was causing the sun to move made sure our earth and climate was ok.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miracle

Quote:

A miracle, is a fortuitous event believed to be caused by interposition of divine intervention by a supernatural being in the universe by which the ordinary course and operation of Nature is suspended, or modified. It is derived from the old Latin word miraculum meaning "something wonderful".

dr lazer blast · 07-07-2008, 04:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic

What was actually predicted? What rukes out mass hysteria, lying or suiggestion?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Our_Lady_of_F%C3%A1tima

Quote:

As early as July the Lady had promised a miracle for the final apparition, on October 13, so that all would believe. What transpired became known as "Miracle of the Sun".

The thing that rules out mass hysteria and lying and suggestion are the number of people involved, the inclusion of Dr. Joseph Garrett, professor of natural sciences at the University of Coimbra who was also there attested to it, the varied nature of skeptics.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miracle_of_the_Sun

Quote:

the varied nature of the observers as including both skeptics and believers alike, the sheer numbers of people present, and the lack of any known scientific causative factor, all reasonably rule out the theory of a mass hallucination.[26] That the activity of the sun was reported as visible by those up to 18 kilometers away, also precludes the theory of a collective hallucination or mass hysteria.[26]

Quote:

Because the earth is still here and because no one else in the world observed the sun bouncing around.

by definition a miracle is a supernatural event, so what would be a natural reaction of the sun moving around can't be taken into account.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miracle

Quote:

A miracle, is a fortuitous event believed to be caused by interposition of divine intervention by a supernatural being in the universe by which the ordinary course and operation of Nature is suspended, or modified. It is derived from the old Latin word miraculum meaning "something wonderful".

Quote:

Also the shroud of turnin has not been definitively proven to be a fake so I don't know where that came from either, furthermore it is not only the shroud of turnin but other alleged miracles as well match the blood type.

The Shroud was carbon dated to the 14th Century in the 80's.[/QUOTE]
have you done any recent research on the shroud?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shroud_of_turin

Quote:

However, the 2008 research at the Oxford Radiocarbon Accelerator Unit may revise the 1260–1390 dating toward which it originally contributed, leading its director Christopher Ramsey to call the scientific community to probe anew the authenticity of the Shroud

Recent research and stuidies state that the 14th century dating of the shroud was recalled.

variant 13 · 07-07-2008, 04:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dr lazer blast

Considering the fact that it was a miracle and by definition a miracle a supernatural event I am sure that whatever was causing the sun to move made sure our earth and climate was ok.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miracle

Quote:

A miracle, is a fortuitous event believed to be caused by interposition of divine intervention by a supernatural being in the universe by which the ordinary course and operation of Nature is suspended, or modified. It is derived from the old Latin word miraculum meaning "something wonderful".

But then if you're going to go down that sort of road couldn't you just as easily say that the idea that the sun was dancing in the sky was implanted in the minds of the people and be done with it? It's just as awe inspiring to them.

barbos · 07-07-2008, 04:25 PM

Regardless of the age Turin Shroud does not qualify for a real miracle. As far as science concerned it is just a piece of cloth.

Angra Mainyu · 07-07-2008, 06:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dr lazer blast

A miracle, is a fortuitous event believed to be caused by interposition of divine intervention by a supernatural being in the universe by which the ordinary course and operation of Nature is suspended, or modified. It is derived from the old Latin word miraculum meaning "something wonderful".

If a miracle is just believed to be so, then I guess there are miracles.

Now, another question is whether it's even possible for such beliefs to be true. It seems not. What is "the ordinary course and operation of Nature"?

If something can't be explained by science, then science is limited.

That would mean our knowledge of nature is limited.

But we already know it is. So, better theories would be required. If that's not achievable, well, our knowledge would remain limited.

But how could the "ordinary course and operation of nature" possibly be suspended?

What would it be for the "ordinary course and operation of nature" to be suspended?

Would the actions of advanced aliens be an example of such suspension?

How would Yahweh, if he existed - and even if God existed - be any difference?

Quote:

Originally Posted by dr lazer blast

by definition a miracle is a supernatural event, so what would be a natural reaction of the sun moving around can't be taken into account.

What is a supernatural event?

dr lazer blast · 07-07-2008, 07:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Angra Mainyu

If a miracle is just believed to be so, then I guess there are miracles.

I am not following you here, a miracle is not 'just believed to be so' the word 'miracle' has many definitions which is usually along the lines of the one I quoted.

Quote:

Now, another question is whether it's even possible for such beliefs to be true. It seems not. What is "the ordinary course and operation of Nature"?

an ordinary course and operation of nature for example would be the earth being affected by the sun if it were to move in the ways described in the miracle of the sun, we know about different variables such as gravity, climate, heat etc. we know that the sun moving around would change those variables at least in some way.

Quote:

Would the actions of advanced aliens be an example of such suspension?

How would Yahweh, if he existed - and even if God existed - be any difference?

This miracle would be attributed to Yahweh considering the visions of hell and apparations of Mary and Jesus appearing to tell the 3 kids that the event was going to happen.

Quote:

Originally Posted by dr lazer blast

by definition a miracle is a supernatural event, so what would be a natural reaction of the sun moving around can't be taken into account.

What is a supernatural event?[/QUOTE]
A supernatural event would be the 2 miracles listed in the thread.

GenesisNemesis · 07-07-2008, 07:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dr lazer blast

The thing that rules out mass hysteria and lying and suggestion are the number of people involved, the inclusion of Dr. Joseph Garrett, professor of natural sciences at the University of Coimbra who was also there attested to it, the varied nature of skeptics.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miracle_of_the_Sun

Quote:

According to many witness statements, after a downfall of rain, the dark clouds broke and the sun appeared as an opaque, spinning disk in the sky.[2] It was said to be significantly less bright than normal, and cast multicolored lights across the landscape, the shadows on the landscape, the people, and the surrounding clouds.[2] The sun was then reported to have careened towards the earth in a zigzag pattern,[2] frightening some of those present who thought it meant the end of the world.

I guess we think it's the end of the world even when "God" shows us a "miracle". It's a pity how it's a purely personal experience for all of them.

mdejess · 07-08-2008, 12:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mdejess

Quote:

Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic

There's nothing to investigate. Fatima was mass hysteria. A bunch of idiots said they saw the sun dance around, but in point of fact, it didn't actually "dance around." It is eminently verifiable that the sun did not dance around because the earth is still intact (which it would not be if it had been shaken violently in such a manner), and nobody else saw it outside of a few hysterical peasants all hepped up on religious fanatacism. Their say so does not equal evidence. The sun did not actually move, no matter what they think they saw.

As to the Lanciano relic, it's hard to find any information on this othere than religious websites, but from what I can see, it appears that it might actually be some preserved human heart tissue. So what? What's so amazing about that? The claim is that it was transubstantiated from bread? Ok, prove it. Prove it used to be bread. Showing me an object and claiming it used to be a different object does not amaze me. If I show you a chocolate chip cookie and tell you it used to be a frog, are you going to be more impressed if you can verify that what I gave you was an actual chocolate chip cookie? All the breathless claims about the Lanciano relics being actually human are completely meaningless. Who cares if they're human? Prove they used to be something else.

Any claim which cannot be examined cannot be examined. I'm not sure why you find that remarkable. It doesn't change the fact that no miraculous claim which can be examined has ever withstood the laugh test.

Of course there are phenomena which are observed but cannot be examined because man's resources for the present in science and technology are not adequate to examine them.

But those phenomena occurred objectively; the problem then in the impossibility of examining through digging into a phenomenum inside out and upside down is interpreting it as to render it of mundane everyday contingency, like mass hallucination.

In the case of people who believe in miracles, that is also an interpretation; for people who don't, at most they could admit if they care that the phenomena were unusual, exceptional, extraordinary.

The laugh test is also an interpretation approach.

Mdejess

I believe my thoughts in the above post are worth repeating here as my contribution to this thread.

Allow me to just say that in any investigation and writing about phenomena which are a challenge to our understanding in the light of our present mastery of science and technology, it is important if we would be adepts in clear thinking to avoid the words in the quote below which I put in bold.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic

There's nothing to investigate. Fatima was mass hysteria. A bunch of idiots said they saw the sun dance around, but in point of fact, it didn't actually "dance around." It is eminently verifiable that the sun did not dance around because the earth is still intact (which it would not be if it had been shaken violently in such a manner), and nobody else saw it outside of a few hysterical peasants all hepped up on religious fanatacism. Their say so does not equal evidence. The sun did not actually move, no matter what they think they saw.

...All the breathless claims about the Lanciano relics being actually human are completely meaningless. Who cares if they're human? Prove they used to be something else.

Any claim which cannot be examined cannot be examined. I'm not sure why you find that remarkable. It doesn't change the fact that no miraculous claim which can be examined has ever withstood the laugh test.

Again, when you are investigating phenomena which some people take to be miraculous -- I for my own part call them unusual, exceptional, extraordinary, please if you be an adept of clear thining follow the following thoughts from yours truly:

Of course there are phenomena which are observed but cannot be examined because man's resources for the present in science and technology are not adequate to examine them.

But those phenomena occurred objectively; the problem then in the impossibility of examining through digging into a phenomenum inside out and upside down is interpreting it as to render it of mundane everyday contingency, like mass hallucination.

In the case of people who believe in miracles, that is also an interpretation; for people who don't, at most they could admit if they care that the phenomena were unusual, exceptional, extraordinary.

The laugh test is also an interpretation approach.

Mdejess

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

07-07-2008, 02:32 PM	#22
Diogenes the Cynic Moderator - Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Twin Cities, Minnesota Posts: 4,639	What phenomena are you alleging "occurred objectively?" In the case of Fatima, all that "occurred objectively" was that some people said they saw the sun moving. The sun did not actually, objectively move. The only thing that requires explanation is why a bunch of people claimed they saw something that objectively did not occur.

07-07-2008, 04:25 PM	#26
barbos Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2005 Location: Chicago Posts: 8,047	Regardless of the age Turin Shroud does not qualify for a real miracle. As far as science concerned it is just a piece of cloth.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.