Speaking for myself, when I said that there were miracles that would convince me, the ones I’m imagining are ones that I would in some way be a witness to. Of course I’ve heard of tons of alleged miracles, but the ones I’ve looked into haven’t really panned out for various reasons (including, most often, just a lack of information; that may leave the possibility of a real miracle open, but it’s not enough to convince me of one).
I’d respond by wondering if we could figure out how many were intentional hoaxes and how many are the result of accidental natural embalming (there are several different ways that a body might become preserved due to environmental factors). We know that both of those are possible and can probably find examples of both, so in order to raise the likelihood of a supernatural explanation, I’d want to be able to rule them out as a first step in examining a given case.
From a God-fearing perspective, sure, but that doesn’t do much good for a non-believer.
Thanks for the reply! (this got a bit long, sorry)
Just a couple points on the first two cut ups there, but the last is most interesting.
With regard to the first, a miracle doesn’t become widely known as such without the details. Much of the time details as noted by observing third parties. Obviously, those are the foundation to the miracle. I would guess you have seen this, but it gives me chills -
thedivinemercy.org/news/A-Matter-of-Faith-a-Matter-of-Fact-5114
SNIP:
"Dr. Castanon had a sample from the Host sent to Dr. Frederick Zugibe, a forensic expert in New York who was told nothing about the circumstances surrounding the case so as not to prejudice the study. Dr. Zugibe testified that the sample was a fragment of a heart muscle and contained a large number of white blood cells, which is telling.
“It is my contention that the heart was alive, since white blood cells die outside a living organism,” Dr. Zugibe said. “They require a living organism to sustain them. Thus, their presence indicates that the heart was alive when the sample was taken. What is more, these white blood cells had penetrated the tissue, which further indicates that the heart had been under severe stress, as if the owner had been beaten severely about the chest.”
Dr. Castanon said that he and his colleagues were bowled over. When informed that the analyzed sample came from a consecrated Host, Dr. Zugiba replied that it was an “inexplicable mystery to science — a mystery totally beyond her competence.”
Moreover, Dr. Castanon said that the blood on the Host in Buenos Aires is type AB — just like that of Eucharistic miracles elsewhere, including Lanciano, as well as the blood discovered on the famous Shroud of Turin."
Code:
With regard to the second, I hope you wouldn't see 2 small lines and conclude there is not a whole lot of information remaining. This book I am reading is maybe between 250-300 pages. Each case describing the possibility of natural preservation pending environment and such. It actually comes across fairly neutral when getting into the discovery of the bodies. It doesn't have to state the obvious in the details - this is not normal.
At the end of the day a mummy state, natural or unnatural, is not a state that includes flexibility (soft tissue presence) or fragrance (If not applied). Oh yeah, and most dead bodies don't open their eyes! (that was a creepy one)
Believers, don't just believe this stuff because they hear it, they dig and learn details.
But let’s focus on the last point as it was raised earlier in this thread, I believe.
I could be wrong, but I think it was in this thread where it was mentioned that a non-believer would never see a miracle.
There has never been a person that said ‘God did this, I don’t believe in God’ (or maybe there has, but they wouldn’t be too concerned with being influential in their commentary).
I find it interesting that you cut out the glasses portion…
In order to see, there is a cause to - see. Pending the situation there are things we must do to see, most common is to open our eye lids, for physical sight, in our nature.
Many times in discussions like this I hear from folks that they - ‘see’, so when God crosses them, they will notice.
How do they know that they ‘see’ if there are multiple perspectives?
That’s why I used the ‘perspective’ of God fearing. For someone to ‘see’ a miracle, that means that person would fall into the ‘God fearing’ perspective.
Don’t get caught up on the word perspective, as much as the point that -
It is impossible for a non-believer to see a miracle. This situation can’t exist.
If ‘seeing’ (a miracle), they are no longer non-believing. That’s a perspective change, or glasses change, which was required BEFORE ‘I see’. ( I don’t usually see, and then put my new glasses on)
Even if seemingly instantaneous, still something happens before, to allow the sight.
Take care,
Mike
). Some agnostics *will *say that they believe that the arguments against God are good, in which case they might be considered “tentatively atheist” or an “agnostic atheist.” Properly speaking, agnosticism doesn’t even really apply to God so much as to one’s certainty about God existence. One can, for example, be an “agnostic theist” **who believes in God, but doesn’t think we can know for sure. (This is a *really ***rare position, however.)
