Mary in the Sun

Question from Jacob:
Hey, a friend showed me this video. I’d like to know what you think.

Answer by SmartLX:
Looks fascinating, whatever it is.

It’s a pity this footage is the best we have. It was in 2011 but that’s still well into the age of smartphones. The shape that appears within the sun varies in its prominence, and at times seems to move slightly relative to other objects. I’m not inclined to think the video itself is a complete hoax, as the reactions of those present seem genuine enough. Without really knowing what the image actually looked like in detail, we can say very little about its source, so there’s no telling whether it was naturally or deliberately generated somehow.

The conclusion the local Roman Catholics (majority religion of the southern Ivory Coast) immediately drew was that it was an apparition of the Virgin Mary. People from another area might have interpreted it very differently, as the impression one gets is merely of a robed, hooded figure. Regardless of who it resembled, given that this was seven years ago widespread belief does not seem to have been significantly influenced by it, so as a hypothetical, literal sign from God it does appear to have failed in whatever large-scale goal it had.

Quite apart from everything else, I hope no one’s vision was damaged by staring directly at the centre of the sun for as long as the image appeared.

12 thoughts on “Mary in the Sun”

  1. the question of the origin of energy, mother of matter, has it scientific answer as that energy and matter have no origin, they are the essence of the universe, without cause, they have been here forever in the past and will be forever in the future, even if they kinda vanish, they can reappear out of kinda nothing, because the universe has never been a nothing, i call it pregnant nothing, pregnant with something, energy and it consequence, matter. we are of matter, all living creatures, as are non living ones, like stones.
    so far so good.
    now, theists say nothing can become out of nothing, causality law and determinism, so, energy was created by an intelligent force with a purpose.
    i beg your pardon.
    if energy and matter cannot become out of nothing, neither can god.
    plus, it is impossible that a force has intelligence, will and intention, purpose. these are attributes of material brain.
    ours and even of some animals.
    not of a force theists call god.
    so, since energy and matter, according to theists cannot become out of nothing, they are being asked by atheists to answer the simple question about the origin of god, and of energy and matter.
    they cannot answer this question because of their belief that nothing can become of nothing, so cannot their god, either.
    the conclusion should be, if one is intelligent, knowledgeable enough and with integrity and not self delusional.
    so, no, there is no god.
    now, science has to answer the same question.
    it has. god is excluded from their answer because forces must have their origin, AND don’t have intelligence, intention, purpose.
    so, they conclude with the only possible, remaining answer, that energy and matter are forever in the past and future, they never BECOME, they ARE.
    it sounds impossible.
    but so does god solution.
    and who is to judge around the question about energy and matter having no beginning, no source, now cause.
    humans can’t, because our brains developed on the Earth, with its earthly laws of physics, and thus our brains are incapable of fathoming that something, yes, did not become of nothing, but IS. MATTER IS, OR RATHER, ORIGIN IS.
    now we have reached at the video hoax.
    it i not unnatural because there are no unnatural phenomena, and mary the virgin hahaha is not a natural phenomen but a lie. she had sperm around the entrance of her vagina, or on her fingers or anybody else’ near to her vagina.
    btw it is not proven fact that jesus chist ever existed, lived, much less that he was semi or demi god, and rose after his death.
    and even if he ever lived and was curssified by the romans for saying bad things abut their ‘good’ state there, it is sure he either never died on the cross, or if he did, he did not reappear.
    furthermore, if he did exist and was crussified by bad romans, and ‘roe’ from the cave they put him in with only a stone and two guards protecting the ‘grave’, and then he with a little help of his non virgin mom, dads were the priests she had worked for, and some of his friends, he had many because he was lying them about heaven and stuff, justice and other nice things, after death, hahaha, then when he came out of the cave and continued to make fun of the roman, they killed him, this time for good.
    sorry, i am so angry at the theists that i will not make corrections for my typos, because it is obviously it is only I as an atheist that read this stuff. pity, because if atheists too read this, the site would be much better…

    1. Niki, if life could not come from nothing, yet life is, then life is what the figment of someone’s, not alive, imagination?

      Either life has always been, or it was created. And that means, “God”. And if life was created then it was created by a being that transcends the laws that we are governed by. Which means that He is eternal.

      1. i was not talking about LIFE but about ENERGY AND MATTER.
        Life was a piece of cake to appear once there was matte around, cooled down enough. Some billions of years passed, yes, but still piece of cake for NATURE with its LAWS OF PHYSICS.
        Yes, it has always been, but you mixed up matter with life. ts, ts, ts.

          Please note the first paragraphs mentioning of the conundrum what came first the chicken or the egg. In this case it is necessity of the DNA/RNA and proteins that must be present in order for a cell to be made. And without this there would be no cell. And since the RNA and DNA are essentially information, then this could not have been evolved into.

          1. the first to come was a sexless one cell organisms that cloned themselves, or rather divided themselves in to, for multiplication. but since in the presence of new environment for the daughters of the original mum-cell, all of them died if the change was for the worse. so evolution found way, i don’t know how it happened, probably by mutation or chance, as it did all the time with other new traits in living organisms, by introducing the Y chromosome, so some organisms had X, females and others Y, males. when they united, egg and sperm, then the children of theirs were different one from the other, so in case of dire changes of the surroundings, not all of them died, as in the case of division multiplication, where all the ‘children’ were coppies of the mother cell, and identical not only with her but among each other.
            so, it is actually the EGG that was the first, the original one cell organism, which we can treat as the beginning of the chain. from that one with the help of Y chromosome, i.e. another organism, there came CHICKEN

          2. If you think that I would read anything that starts with the word ‘creation’, you are very naive, and have no idea what an ATHEIST really is. I suggest you read a little about atheists.

        2. Niki, one of the laws of physics states that the total amount of energy in a closed system can not be created nor destroyed. Just changed from one form to another. (in an enclosed system)
          You state that “nature” made it all possible. But there was no nature, (coming from natural, or what just had to happen because it has always been happening), but the process of what happened was not a natural process. It had not happened before, or else there are different universes, which if this is a possibility then all of the surmising or speculations thus far put forth by the astrophysicists are blown out of the water. The speculations already made are tenuous at best right now. But if the process of the Big Bang, was a natural occurring one, then it would have been happening since for ever. And this calls all speculations into question.

          And this is one of the mistakes of the evolutionists when they speculate that one life came to be and then that one life came to be all the other kinds of organisms. They don’t know this is possible and not that many came at one time. Either by accident or by creation. They fail to take this into their factoring of what could have happened. Thus all of the their reasoning is invalid.

  2. No, I’m afraid that you haven’t realized that life is matter. Life is composed of three forms of matter, solid, liquid and gas. Biology has laws also. And one is that life comes from life. I mentioned this little tidbit to you once before. You alluded to how matter came to be, but forgot to delve into the question just how life was made distinct from inanimate matter? What caused the atoms and molecules to assemble into a cell? Where did the energy come from that quickened the inanimate into the animate?
    Life, is the animate. And the quickening of the inanimate into animate could only have been achieved by an intelligence. One that developed the cell, after He developed the molecular pieces. I’m telling you design is only accomplished by intelligent beings. And God is intelligence incarnate.
    You were not talking about life, and yet life is. It is not inconceivable that because there is life, there is matter. And since you mentioned energy, the cell is able to utilize energy more efficiently than anything we have ever dreamed of.

    1. this comment of yours proves how low iq you have, thinking that i don’t know that living organisms are matter. you are very stupid. very. veeeery.

  3. This has also been explained by science, the pass from non living matter in living. But you read wrong literature. How stupid of you, cowardly, because you are afraid you will found out your wife is cheating on you, so you are asking her sister about it, not the non biased witnesses of her cheating on you.

  4. Hold on their buba luie. Even you must realize that your first words from thought, or lack there of, to screen, “the first to come was a sexless one cell organisms that cloned themselves”,can not be valid. Why, because no one knows, When, how, why or from what.
    All of this needs to be realized, before making blanket statements.

    But there is a way to test your theory. Let’s see if what you said happened is happening.
    Tell me if there is not any process or practice, that has been happening for thousands of years,from any living organism, that is not happening today. We know that bacteria, are still acting like bacteria. They are reproducing the same way that has been seen since bacteria was discovered. The same for every other organism.

    So if you think that what you think is how it all happened, then why don’t we see it happening today?
    Surely if some organism could have arranged to do what you think before then why not today?
    Either from nothing, chemicals, or how that first one was able to procreate.

    And please remember that even though your natural selection had to have been instigated to serve some survival necessity, but there also had to have been a source from which your natural selection could select. There had to have been a reason for every organism that produced a young or a copy of itself, to suddenly decide to require a male and female to reproduce a young.

    Now barring the supposition that this organism that divided and reproduced, simply wanted the “pleasure” derived from copulation, it would seem that to divide and reproduce would be the best form of surviving. And there would be no new, information that would suddenly push the process of cellular division, into the one where a separate male and female to do so.
    Why not would it not have been a step in the wrong direction to have to depend upon two, a male and female, to reproduce, but where did the new information in the DNA come from, to tell it how to do it, and provide the mechanism to be able to do it.

    And not only this. But if this would have taken millions of evolutionary years to effect said process, how could this first organism survived waiting for all of this to happen? Why just waiting for the maturity of the male and female, would alone have killed off the organism.
    But look what would now be necessary to happen to permit reproduction from a male and female. All the extra piping, and tunneling. New blood vessels, and arteries. Tubing to carry in O2 and take out the waste. Tubing to carry in nutrients, and to carry out waste.

    And this is not to mention the changes if DNA. The copy from the male and the copy from the female. How what was decided was coming from one or the other. How both would work out to work together.

    What you are blowing off, is the intricacies, that itself would demand an intelligence to work out.
    Not something that could have happened and done so successfully all by accident. It just could not have happened. Not for just one, the first ever one, organism to become, and certainly not for it to change from one to two, and then procreate. There is toooooo much of impossibility in between the impossibilities, of just not happening.

    Please let go of your prejudices, which are preventing you and others who aren’t reasoning rightly, from being able to see the error of your evolution.

    Please think about this rationally. You’ll see that life did not begin by itself. And neither did it just begin from one lone beginning almost organism, and then evolve into becoming a cell, and then that cell changed its programming into becoming each and every kind of organism. There were all the representations of all the different kinds or types or classes which are around today. Those which reproduced through cellular division, and those which needed the combined cellular division, from a male and female to reproduce. And the ones in between.

    So once again. God did it.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *