What do you think about the Fatima miracle of the Sun?

[Nyarlathotep]

@Agnostotheist

I was referring to the entanglement/observation dilemma.

So was I. Like I said, remove the observer but keep the light; and you still get the same effect. Ditch the light but keep the observer; and the effect vanishes. Perhaps message me if you want to go down that rabbit hole.

[David_Killens]

@Agnostotheist

Yea, I agree, but not to likey that we will be observing quarks via optics. Unless your talking about some type of photon collider that I have not heard of. I was referring to the entanglement/observation dilemma.

You are confusing two separate issues. One is determining the state of a subatomic particle. The other is just proving they exist. The proof that they exist has been well established. Major high energy labs make them every day. Some have long lifetimes, others are unstable and decay very quickly. But they have been proven to exist.

[David_Killens]

@Agnostotheist

But, he had to hold on to an idea in his mind that conflicted with what could be visually substantiated—or so it seemed.

You have it bass-ackwards. He observed, and attempted to postulate a model based on those observations. As far as being proven … look up, document the activities in the sky. Reference Copernicus and his proposition and math matched. The obstacle to his theory being accepted was this thing called religion. Copernicus’ theory disagreed with some christian theology and biblical passages, so to the church, by default he was wrong. Because the bible said so.

[Get_off_my_lawn]

@Agnostotheist

I did say that I didn’t rule that out. I just haven’t met any aliens so I rank it a lesser possibility.

You say you rank “aliens did it” a lesser possibility since you haven’t met any aliens. Which would imply that “god did it” is ranked a higher possibility since…you have met god, like the Moses story 'n’shit?

[Sheldon]

@Agnostotheist

I did say that I didn’t rule that out. I just haven’t met any aliens so I rank it a lesser possibility.

What objective evidence can you demonstrate that aliens or miracles are possible? We have testimonies identical to yours based on exactly the same argument from personal experience you are using that they are. I can believe neither, I can’t believe both, and believing one would be obviously biased and therefore closed minded. Though if i wanted to be pedantic I’d point out that we could postulate aliens as natural, and we know natural phenomena are possible, given miracle are supernatural by definition that makes unevidenced miracles less possible surely?

@Agnostotheist

I’m asking this group about Fatima, because I find it a bit hard to swallow myself. I surmised all you all might have some ideas about it that I haven’t thought of.

No objective evidence has been demonstrated, only subjective hearsay. That alone is a sound epistemological reason to disbelieve the claim. it is also unfalsifiable, as are all miracles.

@Agnostotheist

I surmised all you all might have some ideas about it that I haven’t thought of. So far, not.

So you already knew that by definition all miracles are based on a known common logical fallacy called argumentum ad ignorantiam? I am dubious, and I think that statement is being disingenuous.

@Agnostotheist

My point is that the math is only a model and not the real thing, so one could argue that math alone is not a good reason to believe in entanglement, yet science does.

A model that makes predictions that match observation, and of course the idea must also be falsifiable, and peer reviewed. Unlike religious beliefs.

@Agnostotheist

A better example might by Copernicus’ heliocentrism. At the time science did not have good reason to believe that the earth was not the center of everything.

That’s an argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy again, it is irrational to believe something just because it is cannot be disproved, and especially if it is unfalsifiable, which supernatural claims are of course.

@Agnostotheist

Copernicus had was an idea that maybe what seems obvious (that the sun, moon and stars are going around him) is not actually so. So, he worked out a mathematical model, that could not be proved until Galileo came along. I suppose you can argue he had good reason because he believed in the power of math.

Science doesn’t prove things, it gathers evidence, an idea must be falsifiable, and testable, and it has to be peer reviewed, as of course Copernicus’s mathematical model was, by Galileo, the model matched reality, and Galileo gathered evidence that demonstrated this. Your beliefs are unfalsifiable, based on subjective hearsay, and not a sound mathematical model, and in thousands of years not one shred of objective evidence has been demonstrated to support it, you’re comparing brain surgery to a witch doctor or a faith healer.

@Agnostotheist

So if my belief in God is based on a personal experience that cannot be conveyed in a way that someone else can verify, that doesn’t mean I don’t have good reason to believe in God.

Your claim is unfalsifiable, and you can demonstrate nothing beyond subjective opinion for it. Again the comparison with science is risible.

@Agnostotheist

But I grant you that it does not provide evidence that you (or anyone else) should.

Our own subjective feelings are insufficient reason to believe anything ourselves, we don’t get to set a subjective standard we can ringfence from scrutiny, and the proliferation of people using this identical claim to make other claims you don’t believe or are even contradictory to your own, is ample evince it has no objective value.

@Agnostotheist

I have tried to convey several times now that my interest in this forum is to gain a wider world view.

So why are you still using known logical fallacies in this post that I have already pointed out and explained, like argumentum ad ignorantiam? A very simple question to ask yourself here is do you value your religious beliefs more that any others, if you do then until you abandon that obvious bias anything you may learn is useless to you. if you’re objectively seeking the truth, then you will bend your beliefs to the evidence and make sure they conform to the principles of logic. I’ve not met a theist yet who does this, they try to bend the evidence and reason to their belief, as you have done here again in this post, by focusing on one statement from David, and misunderstanding it a little perhaps. Then making ludicrous comparisons between the scientific method and your unevidenced belief.

[Sheldon]

@Agnostotheist

I did say that I didn’t rule that out. I just haven’t met any aliens so I rank it a lesser possibility.

Well firstly, what objective evidence can you demonstrate that aliens or miracle are possible at all? Secondly of course people use the exact same argument form personal experience you are using for a deity, but for aliens, so how are we to measure your arbitrary claim they seem less likely to you?

@Agnostotheist

I’m asking this group about Fatima, because I find it a bit hard to swallow myself. I surmised all you all might have some ideas about it that I haven’t thought of. So far, not.

So you already knew all miracle by definition are based on a known common logical fallacy called argumentum ad ignorantiam? Then this thread seems moot to me.

[David_Killens]

@Agnostotheist

I did say that I didn’t rule that out. I just haven’t met any aliens so I rank it a lesser possibility.

I rank the possibility of aliens (I define as intelligent life from another planet) more possible. Our knowledge on how life can originate, plus the count of possible earth-like planets, even the Drake equation all lend credence.

But when you attempt to calculate the possibility of a supernatural being, you have absolutely nothing to go on, no starting point to calculate any odds.

[Sheldon]

@David_Killens

I rank the possibility of aliens (I define as intelligent life from another planet) more possible. Our knowledge on how life can originate, plus the count of possible earth-like planets, even the Drake equation all lend credence.

I’d have stopped at us knowing life in the universe is possible is an objective fact, whereas we have no objective evidence that anything supernatural is even possible.

@David_Killens

But when you attempt to calculate the possibility of a supernatural being, you have absolutely nothing to go on, no starting point to calculate any odds.

Ah, I should’ve read on. This in a nutshell is what makes me dubious about claims for miracles, we know natural phenomena exist, it is an objective fact, we have nothing like objective evidence for anything supernatural. By definition a miracle also seems to me to be using an argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy, by claiming it cannot be explained by natural or scientific laws.

[Agnostotheist]

@Nyarlathotep

It is believed because it makes predictions that match observation (because it works!); that is what makes it science

I understand that point and agree with you. I an not anti-science. I was just trying to make the point that scientists have to have a question things that science in general suggests that they should not have a good reason to do, such that “they should withhold belief” as David Killens argued against miracles. The misunderstanding is pinned to the use of the term “good reason.” We did not mutually defined who apples the reason or what is its basis.

His comment came out the accusations:

@David_Killens

standards of evidence for religious stuff is incredibly low

I get why he hold that opinion of me. He has offered evidence that blow holes (his words) in the bible, and I responded that, such does bother me. Then, he assumes (as most—possibly all—who have responded in the topic area) that I believe the Fatima story, when I’m really on the fence about it. I have very little doubt that I am fair less sceptical than all of the others that have responded to this topic, yet still skeptical

I offered the topic for the insight it can give me from those more skeptical.

I do understand that most theists that join AR are hostel or are on a mission of evangelization. So, I understand why atheist in AR make these assumptions and accusations about me.

I have been trying hard to not proselytize my theism. I often have written a draft response, only to revise/delete the evangelical aspects. I am finding all the scepticism trying, yet understandable. I hope if I stick with it, I might gain some trust. But, I have little hope for respect.

[Sheldon]

@Agnostotheist

“they should withhold belief” as David Killens argued against miracles.

It’s been amply explained that there is no comparison between a falsifiable idea or a mathematical model that makes predictions, and an argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy, which is what the word miracle defines.

@Agnostotheist

His comment came out the accusations:

@David_Killens

standards of evidence for religious stuff is incredibly low

Well you have admitted you can demonstrate nothing, so David’s assertion is entirely accurate, especially as you are one in a long line of theists and apologists, who cannot demonstrate any objective evidence.

@Agnostotheist

Then, he assumes (as most—possibly all—who have responded in the topic area) that I believe the Fatima story, when I’m really on the fence about it.

So you keep saying, and yet you can demonstrate no objective evidence to support the claim for a miracle, or even demsonrate that a miracle is even possible, if that is not a rational reason to be disbelieve something I’d love to here what is?

@Agnostotheist

I offered the topic for the insight it can give me from those more skeptical.

Yet you have not addressed my observation that a miracle claim is by definition based on an argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy.

@Agnostotheist

I do understand that most theists that join AR are hostel or are on a mission of evangelization.

I assume you mean hostile? Hostile to bad reasoning or weak arguments, I think I would agree, that makes sense if you care that what you believe is true, then you set as objective a standard as our reason can achieve.

Evangelisation is the wrong word, you came here to us remember, and it’s been explained to you that you cannot convert someone to atheism, as it is not a belief nor a claim.

@Agnostotheist

So, I understand why atheist in AR make these assumptions and accusations about me.

if you say you are a theist that is all they have to go on, and they are not making completely unevidenced assumptions, for instance it is usual for those who profess to be Catholics to believe in the claims for miracles by the RCC.

@Agnostotheist

I have been trying hard to not proselytize my theism.

Well you have admitted you have nothing to proselytise it with, since you cannot demsonrate any objective evidence.

@Agnostotheist

I am finding all the scepticism trying, yet understandable. I hope if I stick with it, I might gain some trust. But, I have little hope for respect.

that’s pretty disingenuous, as others and I have explained to you, we respect people, and their right to hold any belief, but you cannot insist we respect a belief. Many theists come here, with the mistaken notion their beliefs deserve respect from atheists, but that is clearly just a way to ringfence those beliefs from critical scrutiny.

[Nyarlathotep]

@Agnostotheist

My only access to an atheist world view is mostly through Christian Apologists. And they are a bit biased.

I’ve known 100s of honest Christians. However; I have never met a Christian apologist who wasn’t an intellectually dishonest habitual liar. As far as I can tell; it is a requirement.

[Nyarlathotep]

@Agnostotheist

I was just trying to make the point that scientists have to have a question things that science in general suggests that they should not have a good reason to do, such that “they should withhold belief” as David Killens argued against miracles.

I’m sure you know what you meant with this sentence, but I don’t. And it seems central in your reply to me so I guess I don’t really understand that either.

[Nyarlathotep]

@Agnostotheist

My point is that the math is only a model and not the real thing, so one could argue that math alone is not a good reason to believe in entanglement, yet science does. Of course “good reason” is subjective, so one can argue that math is a good reason to believe.

I don’t know what to tell you here. If you are disagreeing with the mathematics, then you are guaranteed to be wrong. Personally, I don’t like to be wrong; but you do what works for you.

[Get_off_my_lawn]

@Agnostotheist

My point is that the math is only a model and not the real thing, so one could argue that math alone is not a good reason to believe in entanglement, yet science does.

What you leave out of the metaphorical equation here is that neither the model nor the math(*) is random. The model is based on empirical observation and experiments, as well as physical principles we already know. Further, the models themselves are checked empirically against reality, and if they don’t match, the model is modified (leading to a new iteration of testing it with empirical measurements) or even scrapped. In addition to being quantitatively descriptive of the reality we already know, good models are also predictive, which means that they can predict new behaviour that we can later check with experiments. Famous predictions that have later been measured and found to be according to theory include the bending of light by huge masses, gravitational time dilation, and gravitational waves (general relativity); antimatter, neutrinos, quantum entanglement, the Higgs boson (quantum mechanics); the prediction of the chemical properties of as yet undiscovered chemical elements (chemistry). These are but a few examples.

What reality and empirical data is religion and theology measured up against? What predictions can religion and theology give us?

(*) the model is expressed in math as well as physical laws and principles.

[Agnostotheist]

@Get_off_my_lawn

What you leave out of the metaphorical equation here is that neither the model nor the math(*) is random.

I’m arguing that “good reason” is subjective. I agree the math and the model are not random. I agree that they often show strong correlations. But correlation is not causation. So, at what point do we have good reason to believe in it? If someone has a personal experience with the supernatural then that could be as much of a good reason for them as mathematical models are for scientists.

[Get_off_my_lawn]

@Agnostotheist

I’m arguing that “good reason” is subjective. I agree the math and the model are not random. I agree that they often show strong correlations. But correlation is not causation. So, at what point do we have good reason to believe in it? If someone has a personal experience with the supernatural then that could be as much of a good reason for them as mathematical models are for scientists.

Theory, models and math are verifiable and falsifiable (in the Popperian sense) through experimentation (math is verified and proven through logic). An important part of the verifiability is repeatability, where independent researchers can repeat experiments, and get the same results, thus further verifying the theory. At the same time, experiments testing the theory should also do their best to stress the theory, attempting to falsify it. A good and correct theory would stand up against attempts to falsify it. Also, a good theory can make predictions of phenomena as yet unobserved. Good examples are gravitational lensing and gravitational time dilation with general relativity, Paul Dirac’s relativistic solution of the Schrödinger equation predicting antimatter, and the Higgs boson, as predicted by Higgs et al using the Standard Model. If you have any doubts about classical physics, relativity theory, quantum mechanics, statistical physics, fluid dynamics, etc (each within their domains), you’d have to argue bloody brilliantly to argue that these are mere correlations, and do not describe causal relationships.

Contrast this to religion and claims of the supernatural…what correlations are there? What causations are there? What predictions have they made that have later been verified? Can you count them?

Regarding the supernatural, the first problems you will bang your head against are correlation and repeatability under controlled trials. If there is no correlation and no repeatability, there is no phenomenon there. Someone claiming to have experienced something supernatural first have to make a convincing account for the experience not being the result of an acid trip, a lucid dream, fever fantasies, or something similar.

So you see, personal anecdotes do not constitute evidence. Repeated experimentation, verification, and attempted falsification do. And that’s where religion and supernatural shit fall through, as they do none of the above.

[Agnostotheist]

@Get_off_my_lawn

Theory, models and math are verifiable and falsifiable

I agree. It is the scientific process. But there is not always agreement between scientists as to how much coorlation and repeatability of a model constitutes accept of a hypothesis as theory. Yet other hypothesis are offered for evaluation based on hypothesis and models that remain questioned by others. In other words there are scientists that believe there is “good reason” to accept a model/hypothesis that remains incomplete.

@Get_off_my_lawn

Contrast this to religion and claims of the supernatural…what correlations are there?

For witness of supernatural events there is no coorlation. For the witnesser the may chose that what they experienced is “good reason” to believe it. For anyone else they must choose to accept the testimony of the witness as good reason, or not. This is part and parcel why I asked this forum about miracles. I want different perspectives to help my judge the testimony.

@Get_off_my_lawn

Someone claiming to have experienced something supernatural first have to make a convincing account for the experience not being the result of an acid trip, a lucid dream, fever fantasies, or something similar.

I agree that the vast majority of the accounts of phenomenon accredited to the supernatural that don’t hold up to scrutiny. But the Catholic Church has their Magisterium (or whatever they call it) evaluate claims of supernatural and judge them as credible. That judgment doesn’t require parishioners to believe it. In the past I generally dismissed such just what you suggest, dreams, acid trips etc… But, after become a Christian, I’m more willing to accept the testimony and the Catholic Church’s evaluation as “good reason” to believe. Currently, I remain sceptical, but haven’t yet read much in this format that I have not already considered.

@Get_off_my_lawn

So you see, personal anecdotes do not constitute evidence

I agree, that private revolution does not stand up to scientific scrutiny. But it is used in the evaluation of history, other social sciences and in the prosecution of those accused of crimes. So, I’ve come to believe it is close minded to dismiss account of supernatural without scrutiny, as I once did.

[Sheldon]

@Agnostotheist

I’m arguing that “good reason” is subjective.

You think logic is subjective? I’m inclined to disagree.

@Agnostotheist

So, at what point do we have good reason to believe in it?

When it is supported by sufficient objective evidence.

@Agnostotheist

If someone has a personal experience with the supernatural then that could be as much of a good reason for them as mathematical models are for scientists.

If someone has a personal experience of flying around the moon unaided, is that evidence they flew unaided around the moon? What if they claim they can only do this undetected?

dear oh dear…

[Sheldon]

@Agnostotheist

there is not always agreement between scientists as to how much coorlation and repeatability of a model constitutes accept of a hypothesis as theory. Yet other hypothesis are offered for evaluation based on hypothesis and models that remain questioned by others. In other words there are scientists that believe there is “good reason” to accept a model/hypothesis that remains incomplete.

I don’t necessarily believe what a scientist claims, I will accept what the scientific method has validated. Do you really not know the difference?

Sir Isaac newton’s theories on gravity I accept, because the method validates them, but not because he was a scientific genius, or else I’d have to accept his superstitious beliefs in alchemy, astrology, and unitarian christianity.

See the difference?

[Nyarlathotep]

@Agnostotheist

But the Catholic Church has their Magisterium (or whatever they call it) evaluate claims of supernatural and judge them as credible…But, after become a Christian, I’m more willing to accept the testimony and the Catholic Church’s evaluation as “good reason” to believe.

So an organization with a 1000+ year history of lies and corruption (to say the least) which is basically founded on belief in miracles/magic; you’re saying they investigated and found miracles/magic are real?

To me it doesn’t sound like you are serious. If you are serious, you should do your own investigation. You could start a thread here and see what everyone can come up with.