Let me begin with a confession: I honestly don’t know what to make of the “miracle of the sun” that occurred in Fatima, Portugal, on October 13, 1917, and that was witnessed by a crowd of 70,000 people (although a few people in the crowd saw nothing) and also by people who were more than 10 kilometers away from Fatima at the time, as well as by sailors on a British ship off the coast of Portugal. On the other hand, no astronomical observatory recorded anything unusual at the time.
Rather than endorsing a particular point of view, I have decided to lay the facts before my readers, and let them draw their own conclusions.
Here are some good links, to get you started.
Neutral accounts of the visions and the “solar miracle” at Fatima:
Our Lady of Fatima (Wikipedia article: describes the visions leading up to the solar miracle). Generally balanced.
Miracle of the Sun (Wikipedia article). Discusses critical explanations of the miracle, and points out that people both in Fatima and the nearby town of Alburitel were expecting some kind of solar phenomenon to occur on October 13, 1917: some had even brought along special viewing glasses. Also, the solar miracle on October 13 was preceded by some bizarre celestial phenomena witnessed by bystanders at the preceding vision on September 13, including “a dimming of the sun to the point where the stars could be seen, and a rain resembling iridescent petals or snowflakes that disappeared before touching the ground.” In short: the “solar miracle” of October 13, 1917 didn’t come entirely as a bolt from the blue.
The Fatima Prophecies by Stephen Wagner, Paranormal Phenomena Expert. Updated April 10, 2016.
Catholic, pro-miracle accounts:
Meet the Witnesses of the Miracle of the Sun by John Haffert. Spring Grove, Pennsylvania: The American Society for the Defense of Tradition, Family and Property, 1961. John M. Haffert is a co-founder of the Blue Army of Fatima. He interviewed dozens of witnesses of the solar miracle at Fatima, and carefully records their testimonies in his book.
The True Story of Fatima by Fr. John de Marchi. St. Paul, Minnesota: Catechetical Guild Educational Society, 1956. Fr. de Marchi is an acknowledged expert on Fatima, whose account is based on the testimony of the seers, members of their families, and other acquaintances.
The Sixth Apparition of Our Lady. A short article containing eyewitness recollections, from the EWTN Website Celebrating 100 years of Fatima. (Very well-produced and easy to navigate.)
The Apparitions at Fatima. A short account of the visions and the solar miracle.
Catholic attempts to rebut skeptical debunkings of the solar miracle at Fatima:
Debunking the Sun Miracle Skeptics by Mark Mallett, a Canadian Catholic evangelist and former TV reporter. The author’s tone is irenic, and he evaluates the evidence fairly. His blog is well worth having a look at.
Ten Greatest (And Hilarious) Scientific Explanations for Miracle at Fatima by Matthew Archbold. National Catholic Register. Blog article. March 27, 2011. Rather polemical and sarcastic in tone.
Why the solar miracle couldn’t have been a hallucination:
Richard Dawkins And The Miracle Of Sun by Donal Anthony Foley. The Wanderer, Saturday, November 5, 2016. Makes the telling point that it was seen by sailors on a passing ship, who knew nothing about the visions.
A Catholic account by a scientist-priest who thinks that the “miracle” was a natural meteorological phenomenon, but that the coincidence between the timing of this natural event and the vision can only have a supernatural explanation:
Miracle of the Sun and an Air Lens (Theory of Father Jaki) by Dr. Taylor Marshall. Blog article. “Fr Jaki suggests that an ‘air lens’ of ice crystals formed above the Cova in Portugual. This lens would explain how the sun ‘danced’ at Fatima, but not over the whole earth. Thus, it was a local phenomenon that was seen at the Cova, and by others who were not present with the three children of Fatima within a 40 mile radius.” An air lens would also explain how the muddy and wet ground at the site of the apparitions suddenly dried up, after the miracle.
God and the Sun at Fatima by Fr. Stanley Jaki. Real View Books, 1999. Reviewed by Martin Kottmeyer. See also the attached footnote by Joaquim Fernandes, Center for Transdisciplinary Study on Consciousness, University Fernando Pessoa, Porto, Portugal, who argues that on the contrary, it was a UFO.
A Catholic, “anti-miracle” account by a scientist who thinks it was an optical illusion:
Apparitions and Miracles of the Sun by Professor Auguste Meessen, Institute of Physics, Catholic Univeristy of Louvain, Belgium. Paper given at the International Forum in Porto, “Science, Religion and Conscience,” October 23-25, 2003. Excerpt:
“So-called “miracles of the sun” were observed, for instance, in Tilly-sur-Seuilles (France, 1901), Fatima (Portugal, 1917), Onkerzeele (Belgium, 1933), Bonate (Italy, 1944), Espis (France, 1946), Acquaviva Platani (Italy, 1950), Heroldsbach (Germany, 1949), Fehrbach (Germany, 1950), Kerezinen (France, 1953), San Damiano (Italy, 1965), Tre Fontane (Italy, 1982) and Kibeho (Rwanda, 1983). They have been described by many witnesses and from their reports we can extract the following characteristic features, appearing successively.
“· A grey disc seems to be placed between the sun and the observer, but a brilliant rim of the solar disc is still apparent…
· Beautiful colours appear after a few minutes on the whole surface of the solar disc, at its rim and in the surrounding sky. These colours are different, however, and they change in the course of time…
· The sun begins to ‘dance’. First, the solar disk rotates about its centre at a uniform and rather high velocity (about 1 turn/s). Then the rotation stops and starts again, but now it is opposite to the initial one. Suddenly, the solar disk seems to detach itself from the sky. It comes rapidly closer, with increasing size and brilliancy. This causes great panic, since people think that the end of the world has come, but the sun retreats. It moves backwards until it has again its initial appearance…
· Finally, after 10 or 15 minutes, the sun is ‘normal’ again: its luminosity is too strong to continue gazing at it. But after about another quarter of an hour, the prodigy can be repeated in the same way…
“…It is shown that the hypothesis of an extraterrestrial intervention is not sufficient to explain all observed facts, while this is possible in terms of natural, but very peculiar physiological processes. The proof results from personal experiments and reasoning, based on relevant scientific literature.
“…Dr. J.B. Walz, a university professor of theology, collected over 70 eye-witness reports of the ‘miracle of the sun’ that occurred in Heroldsbach [an ecclesiastically condemned apparition – VJT] on December 8, 1949. These documents disclose some individual differences in perception, including the fact that one person saw the sun approaching and receding three times, while most witnesses saw this only two times! The ‘coloured spheres’ that were usually perceived after the breathtaking ‘dance of the sun’ are simply after-images, but they were not recognized as such, since the context of these observations suggested a prodigious interpretation.
“…The general conclusion is that apparitions and miracles of the sun cannot be taken at face value. There are natural mechanisms that can explain them, but they are so unusual that we were not aware of them. Miracles of the sun result from neurophysiological processes in our eyes and visual cortex, while apparitions involve more complex processes in our mind’s brain. The seers are honest, but unconsciously, they put themselves in an altered state of consciousness. This is possible, since our brain allows for ‘dissociation’ and for ‘switching’ from one type of behaviour to another.”
Meessen’s own explanation of the miracle as an optical illusion is based on experiments which he performed on himself, while looking at the sun under carefully controlled conditions (so as not to damage his eyes). However, I should point out that Meessen’s exposure to the sun’s optical effects was fairly short in duration (30 seconds), whereas the solar miracle at Fatima lasted far longer (over 10 minutes) and didn’t damage any of the spectators’ eyes.
Catholic blogger Mark Mallett also points out: “Professor Meesen’s logic further falls apart by stating that the dancing effects of the sun were merely the result of retinal after-images. If that were the case, then the miracle of the sun witnessed at Fatima should be easily duplicated in your own backyard.”
However, Meessen does a good job of debunking the “UFO hypothesis”: he points out that had it been a UFO covering the sun, it could not have been seen 40 kilometers away. Also, at least some witnesses would have reported seeing a “partial eclipse,” but none ever did.
A paranormal explanation of the solar miracle at Fatima:
The First Alien Contact And UFO Sighting Of The 20th Century by Tob Williams. Blog article. April 10, 2011. Updated June 18, 2016.
The Fatima UFO hypothesis by Lon Strickler. February 11, 2012.
https://www.paranormalnews.com/article.aspx?id=1562
“Live Science” debunking of the solar miracle:
The Lady of Fátima & the Miracle of the Sun by Benjamin Radford. May 2, 2013. Ascribes the miracle to “an optical illusion caused by thousands of people looking up at the sky, hoping, expecting, and even praying for some sign from God,” which, “if you do it long enough, can give the illusion of the sun moving as the eye muscles tire.” Also suggests that mass hysteria and pareidolia can explain some features of the visions.
Skeptic Benjamin Radford on the Fátima Miracle by Dr. Stacy Trasancos. A response to Radford’s debunking. Points out that plenty of dispassionate observers at Fatima also reported seeing the sun move. Promotes Fr. Stanley L. Jaki’s carefully researched book on Fatima. Acknowledges that there may be a scientific explanation for what happened with the sun that day, but argues that this doesn’t explain the timing of the event, and why it coincided with the visions.
Virulently anti-Fatima accounts:
Solar Miracle of Fatima and
Fraud at Fatima. The author places too much reliance on discredited sources, such as Celestial Secrets: The Hidden History of the Fatima Incident by Portuguese UFOlogist Joachim Fernandes (critically reviewed here by Edmund Grant). The author also tries to argue, unconvincingly, that only half the people at Fatima actually witnessed the miracle, whereas in fact there were only a few people who saw nothing. See Jaki, Stanley L. (1999). God and the Sun at Fátima, Real View Books, pp. 170–171, 232, 272. The author is right in pointing out, however, that Lucia’s own published account of her visions at Fatima is highly retrospective (being written over 20 years after the event) and contains a lot of added material. Also, the seers didn’t all see the same thing: Lucia, for instance, saw Our Lady’s lips move while she was speaking, while Francisco (who saw Our Lady but never heard her speak), didn’t see Our Lady’s lips moving – a point acknowledged by Fr. de Marchi (see above). Finally, some of the prophecies associated with Fatima turned out to be false.
My own take:
Given the evidence that the solar miracle was witnessed by passing sailors and also seen at several different locations within a 40-kilometer radius of Fatima, I cannot simply dismiss it as a hallucination. Professor Meessen’s arguments (discussed above) appear to rule out the possibility that it was a UFO. The theory that it was an optical illusion founders on the fact that nobody reported any damage to their eyes, subsequent to the miracle. The hypothesis that it was a natural, local meteorological phenomenon sounds promising, but the fortuitous timing of the “miracle” (which coincided with the seers’ visions) would still point to supernatural intervention of some sort. Finally, if it was really a miracle, then one has to ask: what, exactly, was the miracle? After all, no law of Nature was broken: no-one seriously suggests that the Sun actually hurtled towards the Earth, as witnesses reported. The notion of God messing with people’s senses sounds pretty strange, too: why would He do that? On the other hand, the testimony of 70,000 witnesses is very impressive, and the event clearly meant something … but what? Beats me.
Over to you.
Why do you not question your own god the way you are questioning Rumraket?
And, while I don’t like defending these Rumakiots, another nice thing one could mention is that there hasn’t been any bloodshed resulting from wars fought either on His behalf or against his followers. No innocents killed. So that’s something.
But I’m still on the fence, myself.
500,000 dead people are witnesses to Rumraket’s raising a mouse–in rigor mortis, no less–from the dead.
It is written in Rumraket’s Holy Word.
Glen Davidson
Also, in the Lord’s Gospel, Book 27, Chapter 6, there’s this, which I think is nice:
Never, I tell you, consider your faith better than that of another. I, Rumraket, need no followers. Let them have their false beliefs. Know you in your heart that they are mistaken but neither say nor do anything to gainsay them. Leave their punishment to Me alone, and trust that I will deal with them appropriately in My way, either here or in the eternal hereafter in the snow.
Picture of the house of a Christian family after being eaten by Rumraket as a punishment for their rebelion. You’ve been warned!
Keiths has provided a great argument as to why an Unitarian God like Rumracket can not be omniscient
check it out
So keiths how would you answer yourself?
Once you refute your own argument we can move on to that belief thingy
peace
dazz,
My uncle knows somebody who was there! Met him at a Rum Session.
fifthmonarchyman,
No question that it’s partly keiths’ argument there that has kept me from sending Rumraket any money.
So, thanks keiths. But I do waver. I mean just look at where that house used to be!!!
Rumllelujah!!
Watching this is like watching a toddler attack a mountain with a spaghetti noodle.
It’s definitely more fun than the penis talk. 😉
peace
Aye.
My uncle says Rumraket’s mountain is bigger and Christ’s noodle is cooked more.
So will the rest of new converts insist that there is a Unitarian God in spite of the outstanding evidence that Keiths provided?
If so it will only demonstrate that I was correct when I said there were no atheists really we just disagree about who God is 😉
peace
Try very hard to believe that.
Knowing you, it might work.
Glen Davidson
It’s the only alternative I have given that I have to assume everyone here is posting in good faith. 😉
peace
A Trinitarian god is no better equipped….it’s just a circle-jerk of reassurance.
It’s a unique feature of humans, which is what you asked for.
Even an average, casual runner can literally kill a dog running. There are warnings in most runner magazines not to take your dog more than a few miles because they will run themselves to death keeping up with you.
Horses take longer, but a good runner can also outlast one.
There are documented cases of groups of humans running antelope to death.
By casual runner, you mean someone who runs nearly every day, but not competitively.
Not the couch potato.
It depends on the temperature. Near the equator, humans have a huge cooling advantage, because they can sweat. In cold climates, there is less advantage.
Other than cooling, humans do not have that much advantage.
Oh don’t spoil the fun. I still have hope that he might actually see the identity.
I don’t know that everyone else here has as much faith in keiths’ arguments as you and I do. Many religious people just won’t listen to reason. That’s what I find, anyhow.
Sure. I think the dangerous limit is around five or six miles for a good sized dog, but I haven’t checked recently. My cat just gives me a dirty look when I invite her to come.
😉 Now THAT would be a revelation.
fifthmonarchyman:
Woodbine:
Poor fifth. It may never dawn on him that a circular infinite regress is still an infinite regress.
That dog ain’t never gonna understand addition, much less calculus.
fifth:
Indeed, although that may be giving you too much credit. The toddler will at least displace a few grains with the noodle.
I know everything. Knowing that I can do that is part of knowing everything.
But that false christian god is not unique, since he like you, is dependent on revelation for knowledge. In order for there to be revelation, someone has to know it already and reveal it. That one is Me.
I don’t pressuppose anything. To presuppose something is to assume something for which you have no justification, hence the “pre” in presupposition. The assumption must come before all else, to ground the rest. That’s the entire point. If it is justified by something external, it isn’t a presupposition, then it wouldn’t be the ground of all else.
I Myself am the ground of all being, all knowledge, truth and revelation. I don’t have to presuppose Myself, I just am and can’t not be.
Being all-knowing is My nature.
Don’t judge My children for not fully comprehending my divine and infinite nature. Of course the fallible and finite cannot fully comprehend the infallible, divine and infinite. Or stand in judgement above it.
Your ability to reason is only possible through My being as Truth.
This response is what I expect from those in rebellion and who fear My judgement.
But you already know the truth of My revelation, you just suppress it.
Revelation.
If you claim that he revealed it to you how does he know it?
I know everything because it is My nature to know everything. It must necessarily be so.
And I have answered. You even know the answer because I revealed it to you, but in your rebellion against My Word you suppress it.
You have to the free will to receive My revelation if you would only open your heart.
You Lie against Me now. I do know how I know, because it is my nature to know everything.
Even if I had refused to answer how I knew, you could not thereby conclude that I didn’t actually know. I have granted you the use of logic, use it correctly My child.
Through My revelation.
He knows through My revelation. He keeps telling you, but you don’t want to hear it. This free will to resist My revelation, I granted you this too.
It is My nature to know everything.
I know everything. If I needed revelation to know something I would know it, because I know everything.
He is justified by revelation from an omniscient being, Me.
To have knowledge you need it to be revealed from an omniscient morally perfect being, Me.
I hold no beliefs, I KNOW everything. All my knowledge is justified by My nature as an omniscient morally perfect being. I am truth.
If it has beliefs it is no god.
Oh good. It’s the silly season.
On the contrary If it has no beliefs it has no knowledge.
That is because Knowledge is justified true belief
See how easy that was. That is what happens when you bring a spaghetti noodle to a gun fight. 😉
peace
According to this line of reasoning no one can know that knowledge is possible.
So keiths answer to his own argument is to declare that all we can ever have is opinion. nice
peace
It may give you an idea of how some of the theist posts here sound to non-theists all year long. It could be educational.
fifth,
Care to tell us how the Trinity ‘solves’ the regress problem?
Think about this for a minute.
Is it possible that an omniscient and omnipresent Father could reveal things to the Son so that he could know?
If it’s possible it could happen and does happen with the Christian God
If you say it’s impossible how do you possibly know this?
peace
I just got this response from my Uncle Ray-Ray:
Is it possible that an aircraft carrier could come out of my nose fully formed?
If it’s possible for an omniscient and omnipotent father to reveal things to his son so he can know them, isn’t it also possible for an omniscient and omnipotent aircraft carrier to reveal things to its gunnery mate so she can know them?
Think about those until you understand that they blow your entire argument (and that’s what it is) up. Don’t respond until you have reached that understanding.
walto,
This Rumrackitism sounds exactly like Islam and nothing like Christianity.
I expect that it will in the end have to resort to violence to survive.
That is what happens when you abandon the source of knowledge.
peace
As usual, you have responded in spite of understanding nothing. That is why such correspondence is a waste of time and 2017 will be different.
And, by the way, your anti-Islam remarks are untoward. Rumraketism is much more like Christianity, IMO. And if you disagree, you should ask Lord Rumraket instead of spouting about a religion you obviously don’t understand at all.
It’s possible but not necessary for knowledge.
Do you see the difference?
It does not blow “my argument” up.
My “argument” here is simply that I know of nothing that can justify knowledge other than the Christian God.
The only way to blow up “my argument” is to provide another way to justify knowledge. It does not have to be the actual way it can be a possible way if you like.
IOW how do you know stuff?
Peace
The Christian God is Trinitarian knowable and bound by logic and reason.
Allah on the other hand is wholly transcendent radically unitarian and not bound by these things. Therefore we can’t hope to understand him.
Sounds like Rumraketism to me.
Peace
So ridiculous. Rumraket actually posts here. Jesus doesn’t. Which one is transcendent again?
No.
If both father and son are omniscient then there’s literally nothing the father can reveal to the son that he didn’t already know. If there is then the son isn’t omniscient.
If a Unitarian God cannot know he is omniscient then having his allegedly equally omniscient son tell him he is gets him nowhere.
You’re positing a Mobius loop of self-reference as a solution to God being unable to know he is omniscient. This isn’t just a problem for your god, it’s a problem for any god.
Neither is.
BTW, you responded without understanding. I asked you not to do that.,You are not being considerate.