No I didn’t, and movies are not necessarily based on evidence.
Yes you do, I made that clear in my response, and you responded to it above, but only mentioned my correction of your spelling of the word occurring, you ignored the rest.
You’ve now added a straw man fallacy to the two previous logical fallacies I explained, as I never mentioned mass hysteria.
FYI You may want to look up common logical fallacies, and understand what they are and what it means when you use them.
So what? Can you demonstrate any objective evidence for the claim this was a miracle? If you can’t this is a repetition of your earlier bare appeal to numbers, that is called an argumentum ad populum fallacy.
- Nothing can be asserted as logical if it violates a principle of logic.
- A basic principle of logic is that nothing that contains a known logical fallacy can be asserted as logical.
So using a known logical fallacy is by definition irrational. Now you ignored the logical fallacies I pointed out in my previous post, so I’m curious, do you care that your assertions about this claimed “miracle” are so far by definition irrational?
I don’t even know what that means, but apparently from the claim, they appear to not know that the sun moving in the solar system would destroy our planet, or understand that their claim was not witnessed by countless people elsewhere on the planet.
Do you know what Occam’s razor is? I think your rationale would benefit from understanding it, and how it applies here, and in general.
That’s an unevidenced claim, and of course the alleged eyewitness would also be offering an unevidenced claim, unless anyone can demonstrate some objective evidence? No offence but you don’t seem to understand the difference, and are pretending you don’t care. If you want to debate a claim, you can’t simply relate it, then state you have no evidence and move on, that’s farcical.