Search results

It also quotes 30,000-100,000 witnesses of the event. Don't you think that it's quite a lot of evidence?

Just in case you want to check. The Miracle of the Sun - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia So are we talking?

The article I previously offered was from Wikipedia.

It is well documented that this event occurred. I think the argument is a bit beyond that.

Sorry, I intended it to be for someone else previously. Perhaps it was natural, perhaps it wasn't. But I think it's pretty miraculous that the event occurred as predicted by the children and at the time they said it would. I can give you lists of other unexplainable/predicted events that...

That is not what happened. You obviously know very little or nothing of this, otherwise you would understand that a lot more occurred than the sun coming from behind the clouds.

I dunno, I like high school...

Too true. How about 3u? How did you like that one?

How many children do you know of that said stuff like this, then went on to have unexplainable occurrences of the sun witnessed by up to 100,000 people? Also, if you knew the story behind this, you would also know that no one did believe them until this happened. Off the top of my head, I...

Proof by contradiction. From the same article: "De Marchi claims that the prediction of an unspecified "miracle", the abrupt beginning and end of the alleged miracle of the sun, the varied religious backgrounds of the observers, the sheer numbers of people present, and the lack of any known...

Have a read: Philosophical Proofs on the Existence of God and Existence of God.

100,000 or 30,000... that still is an insurmountable amount of evidence. As the article stated, people who weren't part of the crowd saw the event of the sun occur. This rules out any "emotional fervour". There were a series of apparations that led up to this event, in which they were told this...

Firstly, I am not saying that science is wrong. I'm pointing out that it is very much limited because it categorises the natural (which in itself is limited). Atheists, as put forward by many on this forum, give science a certain 'omnipotence'; science is "the lens that sees everything" I think...

Catholics on pot? All 100,000 of them for 11 miles around? Please...

Yeh, time pressure seemed to be a major theme of this year's maths papers.

Medically Inexplicable? Thus, science is limited and will never be able to explain the supernatural. Therefore, denying the existence of God because of lack of scientific proof is really quite ridiculous. Have a read of this one: The Miracle of the Sun - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Take...

Applying causality to God contradicts the definition of what God is. God is the supreme being that caused everything to exist, so thus cannot be a cause of something else.

I'm hoping so. I could be as low as 108 though. But you're right, it won't affect anything. It was a relatively hard paper; up there with 2000 and some of the early 90s. Or at least I think so. Some people are going around saying it was easy, but they seem to be all talk. What did you think?

Not as great as I intended. I'm hoping 110 region. What about you?

Correct. All come as a result of our rationality and free will. I'm interested that no one commented on the Lourdes example I gave. I was getting ready to shell out some more examples, but you've all gone quiet! No surprise, though; I'd go quiet too if I were an atheist.