Convincing Miracles?

[Tiberius]

I don't know about the rest of you, but I like reading about miracles, and although most of them read as rather ridiculous stories, there is one that I've always found almost convincing. I say "almost" because there are still discrepancies with it.

The miracle in question is called "The Miracle of the Sun". Here is the wikipedia description:

The Miracle of the Sun is an alleged miraculous event witnessed by as many as 100,000 people on 13 October 1917 in the Cova da Iria fields near Fátima, Portugal. Those in attendance had assembled to observe what the Portuguese secular newspapers had been ridiculing for months as the absurd claim of three shepherd children that a miracle was going to occur at high-noon in the Cova da Iria on October 13, 1917.

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. 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. The sun was then reported to have careened towards the earth in a zigzag pattern, frightening some of those present who thought it meant the end of the world. Some witnesses reported that their previously wet clothes became "suddenly and completely dry."

Estimates of the number of witnesses range from 30,000-40,000 by Avelino de Almeida, writing for the Portuguese newspaper O Século, to 100,000, estimated by Dr. Joseph Garrett, professor of natural sciences at the University of Coimbra, both of whom were present that day.

The miracle was attributed by believers to Our Lady of Fátima, an apparition of the Blessed Virgin Mary to three young shepherd children in 1917, as having been predicted by the three children on 13 July, 19 August, and 13 September 1917. The children reported that the Lady had promised them that she would on 13 October reveal her identity to them and provide a miracle "so that all may believe."

According to these reports, the miracle of the sun lasted approximately ten minutes. The three children also reported seeing a panorama of visions, including those of Jesus, the Blessed Virgin Mary, and of Saint Joseph blessing the people.

Now what is striking about this miracle is the following:

• It was by all accounts an accurate prediction. The three children predicted that "something miraculous" would happen on 13th October, and it did.
  
• Thousands of people saw it, and not just the people gathered to watch it. There were various skeptics there who saw it, as well as believers.
  

The reasons for my rejection of the miracle are:

• Not all people gathered saw the sun "dance", many simply saw various colours. Some people (including believers) saw nothing at all. - This seems to suggest that it was a visual phenomenon, possibly caused by staring at the sun for too long.
  
• Nobody outside of a 40 mile radius saw anything. - [b]This suggests that it was localized phenomenon. It also countered the prediction that the miracle would let "everyone" believe.[b]
  
• Joe Nickell, a skeptic claims that by the accounts of people there, the sun was in the wrong area of the sky and at the wrong elevation to actually be the sun. He suggests that it was a "sundog", a relatively common phenomenon (picture below).
  
  
• What's more, although 100,000 people were supposedly there, including the press, none of the photos form the day were of the miracle, but of the reacts of people as they watched it. I find it hard to believe that someone didn't take a picture, so this suggests that when developed, the photos showed nothing out of the ordinary.
  

What does everyone think? Do you have any "almost convincing" miracles that you want to share?

[Edwardo Piet]

I know someone who, when I mentioned this miracle; suggested that it could have been a temporary hole in the fabric of space-time or something so a whole bunch of people saw, and 'connected to', an alternative dimension: A parallel one/ parallel universe.

He found it actually more probable than everyone being mistaken.

But what I'm thinking is "how did he figure that out?" i.e: How did he come to that conclusion? Probability through mere personal intuition? Personal incredulity?"

He's a big fan of Bayesian probability/logic it seems. Dawkins talked of it in TGD as being kind of GIGO (garbage in garbage out) and that he original numbers aren't good enough, so the conclusion can't be trusted.

He seems to know a lot about Bayesian logic though and I'd like to talk to him more about it. Is there any value in it? Or is it complete bollocks? How can you have 'different kinds of probability?' or is it actually a strong part of probability theory? (I don't know).

Anyways, that's a separate question. I read of this in TGD where Dawkins says it was 70,000 people and I was amazed - here it says 100,000! That's 30% more, and it was big ENOUGH!!

I think it is the greatest example of a questionable miracle. But I still won't believe it until I understand how to come to a sensible conclusion of it being a real anomaly of laws of the universe or whatever, rather than simply a shit load of mistaken humans. And yes I did use 'simply' because comparable to the laws of the universe being different, despite its ridiculousness, it still kind of looks a lot more probable to me.

But as I said, it's not about how it looks, or how it 'feels to me' it's about if there is actually a logical rational reason, actual evidence that implies that this is anything more than a gigantic anomaly of misunderstood humans. I still need evidence to believe otherwise, otherwise I will assume it was basically just the normal laws of the universe at work - meaning it didn't 'really' happen!!

I know of no remotely convincing miracles off heart....

The closest I can get are spiritual or transcendent of some kind - they don't remotely convince me for more than a split second or two - because it's basically just me getting lost in beautiful music or images that temporarily give you the feeling superficially (although it feels a lot deeper) that there is 'something more'. But it is only a temporary thing when I get lost in thought, and feel peace and beauty in nature and the universe. This awe, I guess the religious feeling that Einstein and Dawkins speak of.

The thing is you 'feel' that there is 'something more' very temporarily, well I do when I get it, and I mean VERY temporarily, off and on for spilt seconds - basically when you're lost in a fantasy world!

What is more amazing and beautiful though is when you begin to think, realize; and feel - that all these wonderful feelings of transcendent - aren't really transcending nature and reality, it just feels that way. Nature, the universe, really can be that beautiful. It can feel totally transcendent - like it is transcending nature and reality - when, nope, what's really, and even more beautiful, amazing and wonderful is the fact that reality really can be that way without transcendent. And that feels even more transcendent to me than actually believing in 'transcending reality itself' whatever that would mean and entail!

But then on the other hand of course, as we all know - reality is also a bunch of shit too, with the crap that goes on around the world - crap being a gargantuan understatement - all the really terrible, awful stuff.

Perhaps one more reason to believe reality isn't 'really' transcendent, it just can feel that way. And it can feel that way even more - when you realize and 'believe' that it can feel that way without it having to really be 'transcending reality itself' ( whatever that would entail).

EvF

[Pippy]

Hey guys,

I too like reading about miracles. Did you ever read about the Law of Large numbers or the Law of averages? That is interesting when it comes to probability. It theorized that a miracle would happen every day(ish) if there was a large enough focus group. Oh, a miracle being something almost statistically impossible.

A very good point about the specific miracle discussed was that it seemed localized. Obviously if something is happening to the sun, you would notice anywhere it is risen.

If I could close by pointing out that I think we are all miracles. How did I get here, to be on a most complex device discussing things with others so far away at light speed? How is it that the numbingly intricate system that is my living body has made it this far? How can I even have these self-aware thoughts? It is a miracle, however it arrived.

"It looks like an open faced roast beef sandwich",
-Pip

[Oldandeasilyconfused]

Growing up,my favourite [regular] miracle was that of' the "levitating saint", Joseph of Cupertino. A monk, he would often enter a state of religious ecstacy when praying and levitate. He would even do this out of doors when all of the monks were praying,so that one would be obliged to grab his belt to prevent him from floating away.

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

In recent times there was the stigmata Therese Neumann , surviving on only on a couple of communion wafers a day.hock:


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


Modern Hinduism is full of living saints and miracle workers.There is one very famous one called Sathya Sai Baba, who produces objects from the air.When with poor followers,it's flowers. When with rich followers, gold trinkets.

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

Do I believe these miracles? Not for a second. Carl Sagan said; "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence". There is no such evidence for these claims.

My position is that as a species,we humans often see what we want to see,are gullible and easily duped,and above all, virtually all human beings lie,constantly. The average is about two or three times every ten minutes, I think. It might be more.


I found the linked wiki article below fascinating.

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

[Pippy]

Hey all,

Padraic, you make a very good point, and I agree. One of the most fundamental problems is lying, or untruth. I read through the wiki, it is funny how rarely you wiki something so simple as 'lie'. I come from a place that taught me to do my absolute best not to ever tell lies. I can't think of the last time I lied. Honestly (hehe). I know it seems crazy, and I can already hear people saying, 'oh but we have to take your word on it'. Some of the things I do are paradoxical... As such, it made me gasp when you said you thought the average was about 2 or 3 times every ten minutes. One lie every 4 minutes or so? <shudder> Does it count if your world view is a continuous lie? Something profound there, in the truth/untruth dichotomy.

Our nature is not as dark as some think, I would assert. Our nature is only potential. The darkness (and light) is an influence.

Thank you for listening,
-Pip

[Edwardo Piet]

Well I can't remember the last time *I* lied either really, except like when I as a kid. That doesn't mean I haven't done - I could have easily just forgot about it.

I do a lot more of simply 'not mentioning the truth, regardless of importance' because I want to make absolutely sure I express it correctly first. Problem is when I never get round to it.

I read a book called The Road Less Travelled over a year ago; and what's funny he actually definites WHITE lies as: Not mentioning the truth, keeping the truth secret. While black lies are direct lying as in telling false statements.

Blimey if that's what white lying is then I do it all the time! Any second I don't mention something true that I wanna say cos I don't know how to put it eloquently enough...so I repress it and say something else.

EvF