A question about miracles

[User124]

Danser— even objective moral values don’t exist among believers themselves, for the way you see morality as a Catholic is different from other religions and faiths, even among people from the same faith.
There is as well atheists who accept an objective morality that is suitable for most times and different places and societies, an atheist who rejects hate crimes in USA, won’t accept it if it was in Pakistan, that person would see it as an unethical behavior in both places, even that the crime could be acceptable in one society but not the other.

 

[Mumbles140]

atheism.about.com/od/atheismmyths/a/AtheistsChoose.htm
I don’t know why you are not seeing the differences between disbelief and the choice of rejection, here’s an article maybe it will be more clear.

"Those also can attain to salvation who through no fault of their own do not know the Gospel of Christ or His Church, yet sincerely seek God and moved by grace strive by their deeds to do His will as it is known to them through the dictates of conscience.

----> Nor does Divine Providence deny the helps necessary for salvation to those who, without blame on their part, have not yet arrived at an explicit knowledge of God and with His grace strive to live a good life." (Declaration on the Church pargraph 16)

The last paragraph shows that disbelief is not an explicit choice of rejection and that not only “ignorant islander” atheists can be saved if they live a good life according to the knowledge they have.

1. I understand completely the difference you are trying to show, but I think we are talking about the same thing, just a matter of semantics. I say that everyone has a choice to believe in God or not. You think your disbelief is not a choice, because you assume that the choice is rejecting God or not, and since you don’t believe in God, there is nothing to reject.

My point is that your disbelief is a choice: a believer may say you are rejecting God, but let’s break down what they mean. They are saying you are educated, you know people believe in God, you understand religion and what is involved in worship, and therefore could choose to believe if you wanted to. You have a choice to believe in God, or not to believe. A believer may believe that God exists, and so they associate your choice as a rejection of God’s existence. I think the believer’s view does not affect the nature of the choice. The nature of the choice is really a knowledge of God (i.e. you know there is something you could have faith in - not this ‘explicit, 100% God exists, no doubts’ argument) and a decision to believe in Him or not.

1. God’s mercy is infinite, and only He knows who will join Him in eternal splendor, or who will cast themselves into Hell. However, I would not rely on this, especially if you are trying to play semantics on the word ‘explicit’. You want proof of His existence? Sorry, it requires faith to see it. If that is your definition of explicit, than you are out of luck. However, if you read it as someone who has more than a passing knowledge of who Jesus is, and understands the basics of Catholic theology and teachings (which, in being an active member of a Catholic forum, I think you fit the bill), you can claim explicit knowledge about God, as people have explicitly talked to you about Jesus, the Magisterium, etc.

But again, this really is a separate matter, so if you would care to join another thread (it seems there is always one active) about salvation of non-believers, we could always find one and join in.

 

[User124]

My point is that your disbelief is a choice: a believer may say you are rejecting God, but let’s break down what they mean. They are saying you are educated, you know people believe in God, you understand religion and what is involved in worship, and therefore could choose to believe if you wanted to. You have a choice to believe in God, or not to believe. A believer may believe that God exists, and so they associate your choice as a rejection of God’s existence. I think the believer’s view does not affect the nature of the choice. The nature of the choice is really a knowledge of God (i.e. you know there is something you could have faith in - not this ‘explicit, 100% God exists, no doubts’ argument) and a decision to believe in Him or not.

This is like assuming that those who do not believe never done researchs or evaluations, but it’s quite the contrary. Having a lot of people who believe in a certain thing doesn’t change facts.

 

[danserr]

Danser— even objective moral values don’t exist among believers themselves, for the way you see morality as a Catholic is different from other religions and faiths, even among people from the same faith.
There is as well atheists who accept an objective morality that is suitable for most times and different places and societies, an atheist who rejects hate crimes in USA, won’t accept it if it was in Pakistan, that person would see it as an unethical behavior in both places, even that the crime could be acceptable in one society but not the other.

You are confusing moral ontology (the existence of moral values and duties with moral epistemology the perception of objective moral values and duties.

To say that people disagree on whether or not a thing exists is not to say that it does not exist. To say that some cultures might wrongly think that child rape is acceptable is not evidence that child rape really is acceptable. It is just evidence that those cultures are mistaken.

As to atheists accepting that a certain code of conduct would be appropriate for most societies, this does not show that that moral code is objectively true (true independent of what people think). In fact, without God, the existence of such a code seems impossible since moral values, even those proposed by the atheist in your example, would simply be the result of socio-biological conditioning or personal preference. This means that moral values without God would simply be subjective (dependent on what people think).

Or else some things really are objectively right (love) and wrong (child rape), which only makes sense if God exists.

 

[Mumbles140]

This is like assuming that those who do not believe never done researchs or evaluations, but it’s quite the contrary. Having a lot of people who believe in a certain thing doesn’t change facts.

Quite the opposite, actually. My point was you have done your research, and decided you did not find enough evidence to believe in the existence of a deity. That is the choice you made. I’m not sure what in my statement made you assume I thought you hadn’t done research - I think anyone, believer or not, who doesn’t research religion and determine if it is for them or not is a fool.

Also, never in my argument did I say having many believers should be a factor in the choice to believe in God or not. I brought up the number of believers as a point of emphasis that most people in the world are aware of the idea that there is a God because so many people believe in some sort of God, so they know that concept exists. Whether they choose to believe in God should be decided after much thought and an unbiased examination of the evidence.

To try and reel this back in, did you have a chance to look at the information on the Lourdes miracles?

 

[User124]

Quite the opposite, actually. My point was you have done your research, and decided you did not find enough evidence to believe in the existence of a deity. That is the choice you made. I’m not sure what in my statement made you assume I thought you hadn’t done research - I think anyone, believer or not, who doesn’t research religion and determine if it is for them or not is a fool.

Also, never in my argument did I say having many believers should be a factor in the choice to believe in God or not. I brought up the number of believers as a point of emphasis that most people in the world are aware of the idea that there is a God because so many people believe in some sort of God, so they know that concept exists. Whether they choose to believe in God should be decided after much thought and an unbiased examination of the evidence.

To try and reel this back in, did you have a chance to look at the information on the Lourdes miracles?

Actually when you do the researchs and figure out things, you get to a conclusion more than a decision.

I looked for the links you posted, they are about personal experiences more than scientific evidences, do you have any other links?

I’m asking you about links, in a favor of a possible discussion for them later.

Have a good day.

 

[Mumbles140]

Actually when you do the researchs and figure out things, you get to a conclusion more than a decision.

I looked for the links you posted, they are about personal experiences more than scientific evidences, do you have any other links?

I’m asking you about links, in a favor of a possible discussion for them later.

Have a good day.

You say conclusion, but that also carries the connotation of only one possibility. No definitive, empirical evidence exists to prove/disprove the existence of God. So without that smoking gun, I prefer the term ‘decision’ rather than ‘conclusion’.

As for the links, I’ll try and find more, but I do not have the medical records or any of that matter. However, my aunt and cousin are both RN’s who make annual trips to Lourdes on pilgrimages with the sick and handicapped. Because they are medical professionals, and bound to patient confidentiality, they are given a packet on each of the declared miraculous healings at Lourdes that includes patient history, medical staff evaluations before and after the healing, test results, etc. Though you won’t likely accept this as anecdotal, these people are all medical professionals, and believe wholeheartedly in these healings.

 

[User124]

You say conclusion, but that also carries the connotation of only one possibility. No definitive, empirical evidence exists to prove/disprove the existence of God. So without that smoking gun, I prefer the term ‘decision’ rather than ‘conclusion’.

As for the links, I’ll try and find more, but I do not have the medical records or any of that matter. However, my aunt and cousin are both RN’s who make annual trips to Lourdes on pilgrimages with the sick and handicapped. Because they are medical professionals, and bound to patient confidentiality, they are given a packet on each of the declared miraculous healings at Lourdes that includes patient history, medical staff evaluations before and after the healing, test results, etc. Though you won’t likely accept this as anecdotal, these people are all medical professionals, and believe wholeheartedly in these healings.

It’s like saying to a kid : “You decided to stop believing in Santa” but the kid actually figured out that Santa is a lie.
No definitive, empirical evidence exists to prove/disprove the existence of Santa.

PS: I’m not trying to compare Santa to God, I’m only clearing up the differences between conclusion and decision in this situation.

A claim of the existence of something needs proofs, not otherwise.

If you go to the police station and tell them that a thief stole your ferrari, without papers and evidences for your existent ferrari, their perfect position would be to not believe you.

For more information, see Russel’s teapot.

Waiting for the links when you can.

 

[Mumbles140]

It’s like saying to a kid : “You decided to stop believing in Santa” but the kid actually figured out that Santa is a lie.
No definitive, empirical evidence exists to prove/disprove the existence of Santa.

PS: I’m not trying to compare Santa to God, I’m only clearing up the differences between conclusion and decision in this situation.

A claim of the existence of something needs proofs, not otherwise.

If you go to the police station and tell them that a thief stole your ferrari, without papers and evidences for your existent ferrari, their perfect position would be to not believe you.

For more information, see Russel’s teapot.

Waiting for the links when you can.

Is Santa non-existent? The spirit of Santa Claus came from a very real person - St. Nicholas. And really, isn’t it his ‘spirit’ (in the emotional sense, not in the ‘ghost’ sense) that is personified in Santa Claus?

Regardless, if you are referring to a person entering through someone’s chimney in the middle of the night and leaving presents, then I agree you can have definitive proof he doesn’t exist, as you will not see him leaving presents if you recorded your living room all night. However, the same is not with God, as there is no “yes or no” test to see if God exists. He leaves us signs, there is written record of Him speaking to prophets and ancient Jewish leaders, but God doesn’t reveal Himself in the sky and waive to everyone.

I also don’t agree that the claim of existence of something needs proofs. Many people claim evolution is factual and that we all started from a primordial ooze, but all we’ve seen proof of is adaptation and certain similarities, almost as if one artist continued improving upon designs. Or what about the Big Bang theory? Many people take that as factual, and yet there is no proof, only evidence that fits a puzzle. It’s like when they find a fracture of a jaw bone of an ancient reptile, and build up what the dinosaur would actually look like based on this fragment of a bone. Definitive? Certainly not, but evidence can suggest.

Again, with the ferrari, you are trying to use something tangible and of this world - something you can pick up and feel, but God (except in the Eucharist) is not this way, and even then, He appears in the accident of bread and wine, but the substance is the Real Presence of Christ.

What about a memory? Can doctors open up your brain and pick out a specific memory from it? In sci-fi movies, you see brains hooked up and memories played out on machines, but this isn’t real life. If you told someone you had a memory of something, would they ask for proof? Or would they take the person on the trustworthiness of their word, and the reasonableness of what they are saying, and make a decision to believe them or not believe them? There can be no conclusion, only a decision to believe or not believe.

 

[User124]

Is Santa non-existent? The spirit of Santa Claus came from a very real person - St. Nicholas. And really, isn’t it his ‘spirit’ (in the emotional sense, not in the ‘ghost’ sense) that is personified in Santa Claus?

Regardless, if you are referring to a person entering through someone’s chimney in the middle of the night and leaving presents, then I agree you can have definitive proof he doesn’t exist, as you will not see him leaving presents if you recorded your living room all night. However, the same is not with God, as there is no “yes or no” test to see if God exists. He leaves us signs, there is written record of Him speaking to prophets and ancient Jewish leaders, but God doesn’t reveal Himself in the sky and waive to everyone.

I also don’t agree that the claim of existence of something needs proofs. Many people claim evolution is factual and that we all started from a primordial ooze, but all we’ve seen proof of is adaptation and certain similarities, almost as if one artist continued improving upon designs. Or what about the Big Bang theory? Many people take that as factual, and yet there is no proof, only evidence that fits a puzzle. It’s like when they find a fracture of a jaw bone of an ancient reptile, and build up what the dinosaur would actually look like based on this fragment of a bone. Definitive? Certainly not, but evidence can suggest.

Again, with the ferrari, you are trying to use something tangible and of this world - something you can pick up and feel, but God (except in the Eucharist) is not this way, and even then, He appears in the accident of bread and wine, but the substance is the Real Presence of Christ.

What about a memory? Can doctors open up your brain and pick out a specific memory from it? In sci-fi movies, you see brains hooked up and memories played out on machines, but this isn’t real life. If you told someone you had a memory of something, would they ask for proof? Or would they take the person on the trustworthiness of their word, and the reasonableness of what they are saying, and make a decision to believe them or not believe them? There can be no conclusion, only a decision to believe or not believe.

Santa is a fictional character, it has St Nicholas as origin but I was talking about Santa: The red clothes old man living in the pole with green creatures, who gives gifts to children on 25 December of each year.

Whatever I’m writing, you would still believe that (my) disbelief is a decision.

If you decide tomorrow to believe in the Muslim god, when you are convince that Jesus is God, would it work?

Try it and let me know!

 

[Mumbles140]

Santa is a fictional character, it has St Nicholas as origin but I was talking about Santa: The red clothes old man living in the pole with green creatures, who gives gifts to children on 25 December of each year.

Whatever I’m writing, you would still believe that (my) disbelief is a decision.

If you decide tomorrow to believe in the Muslim god, when you are convince that Jesus is God, would it work?

Try it and let me know!

OK, well then there is actual evidence that Santa, in the sense you described, is a fictional character. The defining characteristic is he comes to everyone’s house and brings them toys on Christmas Eve. A child could very well see that no such character appears at his house on Christmas Eve bringing toys, and would likely find his parents hanging up his stocking and filling it with treats. That is definitive evidence.

I also never said that, in the sense we are discussing, conclusion and decision were separate things. I said that ‘conclusion’ carries with it the connotation that it is an inevitability, that only one such conclusion exists. Decision, however, I find more fitting when there is no definitive evidence one way or the other.

One could say the same about voting for a politician. There is no definitive proof one will be better than the other. Some might say they reached the conclusion that one was more likely to perform well, or more in line with one’s personal beliefs, or you can say you made a decision to support one and not the other. I just feel that ‘conclusion’ carries with it the weight of authority, and I don’t think there is any authoritative or definitive evidence in the matter of the existence of God.

Also, I do believe in the Muslim God because ‘Allah’ is the same God Christians worship, and the same that the Jews worship. The theology surrounding the views of God is different, but it is still the same God. Do churches in African worship a different Jesus than American churches because He appears black on their crucifixes and white on ours? No - the same God, just different interpretations and understandings of Him.

Now, I have reviewed Muslim teachings compared to Catholic teachings, and Jewish teachings as well, and in accepting Jesus as God (and not a prophet), I believe that Catholicism is the True Church founded by God. There is a very real succession, both in authority and also in teachings/tradition, from the apostles to the Early Church Fathers, through the history of the Papacy, and into the present day. I do not see this with Muslims, just as many Christians don’t believe that Jesus came to America, as the Mormons do. They all still worship the same God, but have different theologies as such.

 

[User124]

OK, well then there is actual evidence that Santa, in the sense you described, is a fictional character. The defining characteristic is he comes to everyone’s house and brings them toys on Christmas Eve. A child could very well see that no such character appears at his house on Christmas Eve bringing toys, and would likely find his parents hanging up his stocking and filling it with treats. That is definitive evidence.

I also never said that, in the sense we are discussing, conclusion and decision were separate things. I said that ‘conclusion’ carries with it the connotation that it is an inevitability, that only one such conclusion exists. Decision, however, I find more fitting when there is no definitive evidence one way or the other.

One could say the same about voting for a politician. There is no definitive proof one will be better than the other. Some might say they reached the conclusion that one was more likely to perform well, or more in line with one’s personal beliefs, or you can say you made a decision to support one and not the other. I just feel that ‘conclusion’ carries with it the weight of authority, and I don’t think there is any authoritative or definitive evidence in the matter of the existence of God.

Also, I do believe in the Muslim God because ‘Allah’ is the same God Christians worship, and the same that the Jews worship. The theology surrounding the views of God is different, but it is still the same God. Do churches in African worship a different Jesus than American churches because He appears black on their crucifixes and white on ours? No - the same God, just different interpretations and understandings of Him.

Now, I have reviewed Muslim teachings compared to Catholic teachings, and Jewish teachings as well, and in accepting Jesus as God (and not a prophet), I believe that Catholicism is the True Church founded by God. There is a very real succession, both in authority and also in teachings/tradition, from the apostles to the Early Church Fathers, through the history of the Papacy, and into the present day. I do not see this with Muslims, just as many Christians don’t believe that Jesus came to America, as the Mormons do. They all still worship the same God, but have different theologies as such.

Allah means God, unlike many Christians or Muslims who think that Allah is a name, but you are still running away from my question, try to decide to believe in Krishna or whatever god just for one day, I’m mostly sure you can’t.

 

[Mumbles140]

Allah means God, unlike many Christians or Muslims who think that Allah is a name, but you are still running away from my question, try to decide to believe in Krishna or whatever god just for one day, I’m mostly sure you can’t.

I know that Allah means God, and I don’t think I did run away from your question. When it comes to religion, you can’t make a ‘decision’ to believe in one God, and then another the way you decide what shirt you are going to wear for the day. It requires research, an understanding of the theology, the history of the faith, and evidence that supports the belief in a certain God.

When I would learn about a new religion, whether it was one of the monotheistic religions all tracing back to the God of Abraham, or some form of polytheism, I always tried to see how the religion came to be, if there is history that supports that, etc. I’ve found that with the Catholic Church, as there is a very solid history of the Jewish people and their religious beliefs.

Then Jesus Christ came into the world and began preaching some pretty radical ideas, and yet they all fulfilled the ancient Jewish prophets, and were consistent with the overall theology of the Jewish people, although many of the old covenant rules were replaced by Christ, the New Covenant. Many rejected Him, but some came to believe in Him, and He made them fishers of men. This was not an easy choice for the disciples, as it often meant martyrdom for the first 3 centuries after Christ’s death and resurrection.

In this time before the compilation of the Bible, the tools of teaching were letters and writings by the Early Church Fathers, and to be honest, the Catholic Church has held true to those writings on topics where other branches of Christianity fail to maintain those beliefs. That is why I believe the Catholic Church to be the True Church established by Christ, who is God become Man. And as Christ taught that even the gates of Hell would not prevail upon His Church, I am ready to stand with all Catholics and endure whatever we must in this world to help the Church prevail until Christ comes again.

However, we continue to go severely off track. Have you looked any more into miracles associated with the Catholic faith - Marian apparitions such as Fatima, the miraculous healings at Lourdes, Eucharistic miracles where the accidents of bread and wine become true flesh and blood, the incorrupt bodies of some saints. You can choose not to believe in miraculous healings and Eucharistic miracles, but there are bodies on display in glass cases, bodies that died before preservation methods as we know them today existed, and have not begun to decompose. How can you deny that there is something extraordinary about that? Something out of this world about that? And these are not random occurrences - these were holy people who devoted themselves to God, and He has rewarded them accordingly.

 

[User124]

I know that Allah means God, and I don’t think I did run away from your question. When it comes to religion, you can’t make a ‘decision’ to believe in one God, and then another the way you decide what shirt you are going to wear for the day. It requires research, an understanding of the theology, the history of the faith, and evidence that supports the belief in a certain God.

When I would learn about a new religion, whether it was one of the monotheistic religions all tracing back to the God of Abraham, or some form of polytheism, I always tried to see how the religion came to be, if there is history that supports that, etc. I’ve found that with the Catholic Church, as there is a very solid history of the Jewish people and their religious beliefs.

Then Jesus Christ came into the world and began preaching some pretty radical ideas, and yet they all fulfilled the ancient Jewish prophets, and were consistent with the overall theology of the Jewish people, although many of the old covenant rules were replaced by Christ, the New Covenant. Many rejected Him, but some came to believe in Him, and He made them fishers of men. This was not an easy choice for the disciples, as it often meant martyrdom for the first 3 centuries after Christ’s death and resurrection.

In this time before the compilation of the Bible, the tools of teaching were letters and writings by the Early Church Fathers, and to be honest, the Catholic Church has held true to those writings on topics where other branches of Christianity fail to maintain those beliefs. That is why I believe the Catholic Church to be the True Church established by Christ, who is God become Man. And as Christ taught that even the gates of Hell would not prevail upon His Church, I am ready to stand with all Catholics and endure whatever we must in this world to help the Church prevail until Christ comes again.

However, we continue to go severely off track. Have you looked any more into miracles associated with the Catholic faith - Marian apparitions such as Fatima, the miraculous healings at Lourdes, Eucharistic miracles where the accidents of bread and wine become true flesh and blood, the incorrupt bodies of some saints. You can choose not to believe in miraculous healings and Eucharistic miracles, but there are bodies on display in glass cases, bodies that died before preservation methods as we know them today existed, and have not begun to decompose. How can you deny that there is something extraordinary about that? Something out of this world about that? And these are not random occurrences - these were holy people who devoted themselves to God, and He has rewarded them accordingly.

That’s my point! The researchs I done leaded me to disbelief, it isn’t a “decision”.

I asked you for some “scientific” links about these miracles, could you present any?!

 

[Mumbles140]

That’s my point! The researchs I done leaded me to disbelief, it isn’t a “decision”.

I asked you for some “scientific” links about these miracles, could you present any?!

Again, I don’t have access to the medical records of the miraculous healings at Lourdes, but you can very easily find information about them online.

I’m also sorry that you won’t accept the work and documentation of Catholic doctors and scientists, as these are the ones who typically certify these things.

What I can lead you to are secular reports of miraculous occurrences, such as what happened with the sun dancing in the sky at Fatima. You said if you had proof of a miracle, it would make you consider belief in God. Well I am challenging you to own up to your word - search for yourself online. I feel any source I give will be dismissed as ‘biased’, so hopefully you can find your own sources. However, to point you in the right direction, I include this link. Pay special attention to the words of the newspaper articles from O Seculo and the other secular newspaper report at the time…

markmallett.com/blog/2010/09/debunking-the-sun-miracle-skeptics/

 

[User124]

Again, I don’t have access to the medical records of the miraculous healings at Lourdes, but you can very easily find information about them online.

I’m also sorry that you won’t accept the work and documentation of Catholic doctors and scientists, as these are the ones who typically certify these things.

What I can lead you to are secular reports of miraculous occurrences, such as what happened with the sun dancing in the sky at Fatima. You said if you had proof of a miracle, it would make you consider belief in God. Well I am challenging you to own up to your word - search for yourself online. I feel any source I give will be dismissed as ‘biased’, so hopefully you can find your own sources. However, to point you in the right direction, I include this link. Pay special attention to the words of the newspaper articles from O Seculo and the other secular newspaper report at the time…

markmallett.com/blog/2010/09/debunking-the-sun-miracle-skeptics/

Sorry, but in what way “the miracle of the Sun” is related to Catholicism?

It’s not about a challenge, it’s a comprehension to how things work, if I have reasons to not believe in Catholicism and see evidences to disprove it, I would definitely need powerful and undeniable miracles.

I also find it weird to our situation on earth that a God’s desire is to make the Sun dance, what about feeding Africa? That would definitely be a noble miracle.

 

[Mumbles140]

Sorry, but in what way “the miracle of the Sun” is related to Catholicism?

It’s not about a challenge, it’s a comprehension to how things work, if I have reasons to not believe in Catholicism and see evidences to disprove it, I would definitely need powerful and undeniable miracles.

I also find it weird to our situation on earth that a God’s desire is to make the Sun dance, what about feeding Africa? That would definitely be a noble miracle.

The Miracle of the Sun is related to Catholicism as three peasant children had repeated meetings with the Virgin Mary, who told them that on that specific day, she would appear to them, and perform a great miracle so that all may see. I don’t know what else it would be attributed to.

The question about these ‘evidences’ is whether you are finding any excuse, no matter how theoretical or possibly impossible, to explain something away because you don’t believe, or whether it is something that can be rationally dismissed.

There was a UFO sighting at a US Air Force base in England (Rendlesham Forest, or something like that), and for all of the sights described, there were reasonable answer. The lights flashing through the trees was from a light house, the cuts on the bark supposedly from the space craft were from lumberjacks preparing to cut those trees down, etc. Very reasonable, very plausible. How could you explain away the children knowing that the Miracle of the Sun would occur on that day? Or what about the beautiful grotto springing up from mud and weeds in Lourdes, where again all the townspeople witnessed the final apparition that was predicted by a child?

God performs miracles to be a sign, that point towards Him. God has fed his people in Egypt, and Jesus fed 5,000 with the loaves and fish. But God’s miracles aren’t to end all the trouble in the world. One could also ask why God didn’t have the Redskins win the Super Bowl, even though I prayed so hard for it to happen. Blanket statements like that are complete perversions of the idea of miracles. But if you want to talk about feeding Africa, look at all the work done by Catholic Charities, who are doing the will of God by feeding the hungry, clothing the naked, caring for the sick. If you want to keep talking about miracles, then please give me reasonable explanations to disprove any of the affirmed Catholic miracles I have mentioned, or ones you find yourself.

 

[User124]

The Miracle of the Sun is related to Catholicism as three peasant children had repeated meetings with the Virgin Mary, who told them that on that specific day, she would appear to them, and perform a great miracle so that all may see. I don’t know what else it would be attributed to.

The question about these ‘evidences’ is whether you are finding any excuse, no matter how theoretical or possibly impossible, to explain something away because you don’t believe, or whether it is something that can be rationally dismissed.

There was a UFO sighting at a US Air Force base in England (Rendlesham Forest, or something like that), and for all of the sights described, there were reasonable answer. The lights flashing through the trees was from a light house, the cuts on the bark supposedly from the space craft were from lumberjacks preparing to cut those trees down, etc. Very reasonable, very plausible. How could you explain away the children knowing that the Miracle of the Sun would occur on that day? Or what about the beautiful grotto springing up from mud and weeds in Lourdes, where again all the townspeople witnessed the final apparition that was predicted by a child?

God performs miracles to be a sign, that point towards Him. God has fed his people in Egypt, and Jesus fed 5,000 with the loaves and fish. But God’s miracles aren’t to end all the trouble in the world. One could also ask why God didn’t have the Redskins win the Super Bowl, even though I prayed so hard for it to happen. Blanket statements like that are complete perversions of the idea of miracles. But if you want to talk about feeding Africa, look at all the work done by Catholic Charities, who are doing the will of God by feeding the hungry, clothing the naked, caring for the sick. If you want to keep talking about miracles, then please give me reasonable explanations to disprove any of the affirmed Catholic miracles I have mentioned, or ones you find yourself.

Catholic Charities are a sign of people feeding others, there is many types of charities, some organizations are religious, others are not, this is what people do.

I don’t want to disprove any miracle, I only pointed that I don’t believe in miracles because I don’t think Christianity is true, and for many reasons, but you’re right, I have to do some researchs on miracles in particular and then make up my mind about them!

However, do you dismiss things like “Jesus appearing in coffee or on a toast, or a wall” as true? because I have to know if I must do researchs about all kinds of miraculous claims and not only the “strong ones” as Fatima.

 

[Mumbles140]

Catholic Charities are a sign of people feeding others, there is many types of charities, some organizations are religious, others are not, this is what people do.

I don’t want to disprove any miracle, I only pointed that I don’t believe in miracles because I don’t think Christianity is true, and for many reasons, but you’re right, I have to do some researchs on miracles in particular and then make up my mind about them!

However, do you dismiss things like “Jesus appearing in coffee or on a toast, or a wall” as true? because I have to know if I must do researchs about all kinds of miraculous claims and not only the “strong ones” as Fatima.

My Catholic Charities response was that God does not need to perform miracles to feed Africa because there are many people acting charitably to do so, such as Catholic Charities. Catholic Charities specifically is following God’s command to feed the hungry, but obviously other charities exist that are not religious.

You say you don’t believe in miracles because you don’t believe in Christianity, but that doesn’t change the fact that miraculous instances do occur. Whether you attribute them to God or not is a personal choice, but I feel that anyone must declare that the preservation of a dead body through no means whatsoever is a phenomenon not explained by science or reason. You may not call it a ‘miracle’ but I believe that would be an acceptable word.

As for these ‘miracles’ of Jesus’ face appearing on toast and the like, I leave that to the Papal investigators of miracles. Many people claim miracles, which is why the Church is so strict about actually declaring one, and for that, a full investigation is necessary. Unfortunately, there are people, including Catholics, who try to see miracles where there aren’t any (which leads to the ‘boy who cried wolf’ cases), and also people who try to turn ordinary spiritual experiences into extraordinary spiritual experiences, which are harder to document, and so less likely to be recognized.

Sometimes, miracles occurred at times when testing was impossible, but have stayed preserved (without any means, such as the incorrupt bodies of saints) over that time. Now, with modern technology, it can be tested. A beautiful example of this is the Eucharistic Miracle of Lanciano, which occurred in the 8th Century, and had the specimen tested in the 1970s. Here is a brief bit of info about that:

therealpresence.org/eucharst/mir/lanciano.html

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Ok, so here’s my doubt: I’m reading the book “A Road Less Travelled”, by M. Scott Peck, which I find truly remarkable, and at one point he speaks about miracles. This is a concept I have difficulty dealing with. As far as I know, a miracle can be defined as “something which is impossible, but does, however, happen” or “something that happens against the laws of nature”. But these definitions imply that miracles do not exist, and I know there are people who believe in the existence of miracles, including the author of the aforementioned book.

No one is required to believe in any miracle that supposedly occurred after the end of Apolostic times. I don’t think that is a very good attitude since certain events do seem to have occurred which just cannot be explained any other way. Of course Catholics must believe in the miracles worked by our Lord and the Apostoles and those recorded in the Old Testiment.
Here is a place where you can read a little more.

newadvent.org/cathen/10338a.htm

I’m probably being narrow-minded in my view, so I would like to know the opinions of different minded people. What is your definition of a miracle? Do you believe they exist?

Not narrow minded at all. I believe in the miracles found in the Old and New Testiments and in some miracles that occurred later. For example, I certainly believe in the appearance of Our Lady at Fatima, Lourdes, and Guadalupe, Mexico and in a few others as well. My personal definition would be an event, verified by impecable sources such as the Pope, or an independent team of doctors or scientists, or some Bishop of the Church that just cannot be explained by natural laws. I am more skeptical than most Catholics about some miracles.

Your English is excellent, glad to help.