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.
It’s not false because I can name an integer such that that n+1 is not an integer. It’s false because it can be used to prove things that are false. As you yourself demonstrated.
I’m still not sure what this has to do with what is being discussed.
peace
Children learn by faith. Not sure what point keiths is making, if any.
I’ll note that revelation has just been refuted — decisively.
Unless one equivocates the meaning of word knowledge
How do you know that? 😉
peace
Articulated insight!
fifth,
An argument leads to a bogus conclusion, and the only possibility that occurs to you is that its premise must be false? Seriously?
Hint #1: The premise is not false.
Hint #2: The argument was constructed using Fifth Logic™.
I’d need more comprehensive articulation to know what insight was had if any.
peace
How do you know that? Be specific in your answer.
Hint: the truth of a premise is not determined by your inability to refute it.
I’m almost certain that is not the case but I am willing to be proved wrong.
How do you know what Fifth Logic™ is?
peace
It’s not the only possibility but it will do.
peace
PS what does all this have to do with knowledge or it’s justification?
It seems like you are just trying to muddy the water.
Who cares?
You can take it as just an opinion (a mathematician’s opinion on a mathematics question) if you don’t want to consider it knowledge.
What math question? Are we discussing math?Some one should have told me.
peace
fifth,
Though you can’t see it, the flaw in the argument — that is, the flaw in Fifth Logic™ — is obvious. The problem is not with the premise.
See if you can figure it out.
If not, I’ll explain tomorrow (unless someone else takes pity on you in the meantime).
Happy New Year.
I really could care less what the problem in the argument is. It’s your argument and it fails that should be enough.
Instead of explaining why it fails why not explain what it has to do with anything. And how you know
I would never make such an argument in fact I think it’s just silly.
Revelation is never false and therefore it can never lead to false conclusions. If the conclusion is false it’s not based on revelation
peace
Happy New Year keiths!
You have a mathematical proof that 0 is a number and a mathematical proof that 0 is an integer?
Do you have an explanation for why we teach things to children that we don’t know are true?
You don’t know the highest number, right? Do you know anyone who does know the highest number? And if you add one to that number?
How could you possibly know this?
How can you have an argument with only one premise that leads to a false conclusion and the premise be true at the same time?
Doesn’t that sort of thing violate the law of non-contradiction?
peace
wait a minute
Perhaps now we are getting closer to relevancy
Are there hidden assumptions not specifically detailed in the argument?
What are they keiths? Please list them all
Peace
Presupposition or claim?
No need to be coy, keiths.
Those Arabs have been subverting truth for a long time. Or maybe it was Indians.
Zero a number? Arabsurd.
Tomorrow is closer than it appears in the mirror.
Whoever you choose to place your faith in. You have a proof or you don’t have a proof.
If you add 1 to the highest number, God automatically substracts 1. See? God is the answer to every nonsensical question!
Mung, I’m so happy you are outing yourself as a slightly more erudite Joe G
While in your mind you may be having a bit of fun, you should know by now that people are what people do. You act, say and reason like Joe G then you areJoe G, whatever you might think of yourself.
Is zero odd or even then Mung?
Only Mung could being faith into mathematics.
Moved a couple of comments to guano. The rules state we should not question the sanity of fellow commenters.
A link to the the guanoed comments.
fifth,
No.
Jesus, fifth. My last comment stuck it right under your nose:
A false premise is not the only possible cause of a bogus conclusion. An invalid argument — say, one based on Fifth Logic™ — can also get you there, even if the premise(s) are true.
See “Validity and Soundness”.
Argument I and Abe’s argument are both invalid. They both use Fifth Logic™.
Argument I:
Abe’s argument, via KN:
Do you see the common flaw?
Lots of brain cells died in 2016.
Or the year before.
Or the year before.
Or the year before…
no,
I think your confusion comes from not understanding that there is no such thing as false revelation.
If we think we know something and it’s false it’s because we don’t have revelation or because we are ignoring the revelation that we do have
If you were trying to show how that I would go about proving that a number was an integer it would possibly look more like this
Argument I:
Premise 1. Revelation is how I know thingsPremise 2. Intergers are whole numbers. (i.e. not a fraction)
Let’s prove that 6 is an integer.
6 is an integer because 6.0 is an integer (by Premise 1and 2).
6.0 is an integer because 6.00 is an integer (ditto).
6.00 is an integer because 6.000 is an integer (ditto).
…and so on.
QED.
Do you see the difference?
you are welcome
peace
It’s definitional and therefore a presupposition
reveal: Make (previously unknown or secret information) known to others:
from here
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/reveal
You can’t make information known to others unless you already know it yourself. You can’t know it yourself unless it’s true.
peace
OMFG, this is some hilarious shit, hahahaha
QED you say? LMFAO
OK Keiths, your argument went right over his head, but the hilarity than ensued made it worthwhile
possibly true.
Perhaps you can break it down in such a way that it is understandable. As of now it seems to be just so much irrelevant distraction.
Maybe that was the point
peace
PS and don’t forget to tell us how you know
I thought you would like that 😉
peace
No Fifth, no. I’ve lost all hope that you can learn anything. Just like Frankie or Bill Cole you’re totally incapable of grasping the simplest concepts. At this point I only read your posts in hopes that you’ll provide a good laugh. And you don’t disappoint
The real question is can anyone learn anything and if so how.
In other words how do you know? 😉
If you don’t answer the question I will have to assume you have no answer and your laughter is inpart an embarrassed laughter
peace
dazz:
Unbelievable.
For example, here’s another instance of your beloved circularity:
Integers are whole numbers, whole numbers are not fractions…fractions of what? Of integers, of course. Back to square one
It’s revelation all the way down 😉
peace
You like turtles… all the way down, we get it, LMFAO
apparently not if you think that keiths had a relevant argument.
peace
by the way how do you know you get it? 😉
And of course, there are fractions of integers that are integers, but primary school level math is too hard for fifth
And so fifth begins 2017 the same way he ended 2016.
keiths,
It’s a shame that you don’t have an actual answer to the question. If you did you could simply post it an claim a well deserved victory.
In the absence of argument I guess youtube is all you got.
I did enjoy the video though. It was much better that the penis talk
Peace and happy new year
keiths:
fifth:
I’m not surprised.
The flaw is that both arguments depend on regresses that do not terminate. The castle needs a surer foundation than thin air.
Or a recognition that the demand for foundations cannot be satisfied.
No in my case the regress does indeed terminate. It terminates at revelation. It’s exactly the same answer each time the question is asked
In your argument the regress does not terminate each number is slightly different than the one before it.
Do you see the difference?
peace
except when it can.
As is the case in my worldview. Christianity is apparently unique in this regard
That is the point
peace