That’s a very broad definition, which I like.I’ve always learned that a miracle is “an occurrence that strengthens faith…”
To each his own.
Agreed. I had an experience once. The wife of a fellow in a group of friends was having surgery on Monday. On Friday, X-Rays and scans showed a large, very ugly and malignant mass in her chest. The surgeons went in to remove it. That Sunday, the priest (who was also a member of our group of friends) cited the situation at the petitions of the congregations. We all prayed for a good outcome. When the surgeons opened her up Monday, there was no mass. Just a small red area that looked like a healing wound/abrasion.That’s a very broad definition, which I like.
I read the OP thinking of waters parting, water into wine, polio being cured, etc. I find that sort of miracle irrelevant to what I can gain with my spiritual growth. I don’t think God owes me a cancer cure, or he doesn’t exist.
Exactly, there isn’t even a reason to conclude such ‘substance’ exists scientifically if by definition it’s no a detectable change. Might as well cite an object’s aura or chi or ‘cromulence’.A change of ‘substance’ alone is a metaphysical change.
No, I am not.You’re just being disingenuous at this point. If you choose an explanation because it supports what you believe to be true, then that can’t be used as evidence to support the event in question.
Definition? What definition? Whose definition? I presented the definition I was using for “physical,” and you didn’t attempt to refute it, so there’s no way this can possibly be correct. The definition I cited does not, in fact, relate to the science of physics, yet it is a definition of “physical,” some permutation of which can be found in almost any dictionary.I dare say that’s true. But the change that occurs during transubstantiation cannot be observed by scientific means. It is therefore, by definition, not a physical change. A change of ‘substance’ alone is a metaphysical change.
Oh, dearie me; there is so much wrong with this that it is difficult to know where to start. The Shroud was most certainly not “proved” to be anything by Pia’s photos, and in particular it was not proven to be miraculous. It’s not helpful to go on and on about ‘proof’. Apart from general, ill-defined usage, there are two formal meanings of the word which you confuse. Either it is an incontrovertible mathematical statement derived by rigorous deduction from accepted axioms, or it is consensus of opinion arrived at by a jury, and even that is qualified by “beyond reasonable doubt”. Scientists rarely use the word proof, but when they do, it is in the second sense, not the first. Your last statement above is wrong. Scientific acceptance (not proof) really is similar to an election won by a majority.I have previously stated that the Image on the Shroud was proven to be the miraculous Image of Jesus way back in 1898 when Secundo Pia inadvertantly performed the first scientific test on the Shroud. That many people do not accept that simple test as proof, does not in any way negate it. Scientific proof of an event is not an election to be won by a majority.
This is completely wrong. All definitions of physical relate to the science of physics. I cannot think of a single one which doesn’t, and neither Merriam-Webster nor the Oxford English Dictionary suggest any figurative sense in which it doesn’t. Your selection of “relating to the body” is, as I say, a subsection. In this case it specifically refers to a body as opposed to the mind, in other words a detectable object compared to an undetectable one. No doubt you will now grub through the dictionary to find a definition of body which includes some sense of undetectable, but that would be to misrepresent Merriam-Webster.Definition? What definition? Whose definition? I presented the definition I was using for “physical,” and you didn’t attempt to refute it, so there’s no way this can possibly be correct. The definition I cited does not, in fact, relate to the science of physics, yet it is a definition of “physical,” some permutation of which can be found in almost any dictionary.
That may be, but there are other conclusions which apparently you cannot arrive at. Others have.The only conclusion I can arrive at that makes sense, is that your initial assumption that physics must be applicable to all physical things (in every particular, no less,) must be flawed in some manner.
I hope you’ll forgive me if I don’t find the “wrong! wrong! Wrong! and if you don’t agree with me, you’re misinterpreting whatever source!” defense to be compelling.This is completely wrong. All definitions of physical relate to the science of physics. I cannot think of a single one which doesn’t, and neither Merriam-Webster nor the Oxford English Dictionary suggest any figurative sense in which it doesn’t. Your selection of “relating to the body” is, as I say, a subsection. In this case it specifically refers to a body as opposed to the mind, in other words a detectable object compared to an undetectable one. No doubt you will now grub through the dictionary to find a definition of body which includes some sense of undetectable, but that would be to misrepresent Merriam-Webster.
Others are wrong. I presented evidence that they’re wrong, and no contrary evidence has been presented that they’re right. Therefore, the rational position is to believe that they’re wrong.That may be, but there are other conclusions which apparently you cannot arrive at. Others have.
No. I specifically mentioned both the Merriam-Webster definition and the Oxford English Dictionary. Neither of these give any suggestion that the word ‘physical’ can apply to undetectable things or changes.I have cited sources, and all you’ve done is express personal incredulity; a logical fallacy.
Exactly. The word body has both physical and non-physical senses, so that Jesus’s remark, “This is my body” does not imply that bread changes physically when it becomes his body.I could easily locate a definition of “body” to which physics is not necessarily applicable, but I see no good reason to do so, until you present some actual refutation of something I said, instead of just denying the evidence and expecting me to take your word for it.
I hope you’ll forgive me if I don’t find … etc.Others are wrong.
No you didn’t. You attempted to define ‘physical’ in non-physical terms by reference to a definition in Merriam-Webster that clearly refers to a ‘physical’ body, but which you chose to interpret as a possible non-physical body. The distortion is apparent from the context of the whole of Definition 3, where the other definitions and all the examples quite clearly refer to a non-physical body.I presented evidence that they’re wrong, and no contrary evidence has been presented that they’re right.
I already quoted from M-W in support of my claim, so as I said, this is just an unsupported rejection of my position. To cite a source is to back up your position with a claim made in that source. To suggest that because certain sources don’t overtly refute your claim, that it must therefore be true is not valid reasoning.No. I specifically mentioned both the Merriam-Webster definition and the Oxford English Dictionary. Neither of these give any suggestion that the word ‘physical’ can apply to undetectable things or changes.
Ludicrous paranoia. Neither the Jews nor the Muslims acknowledge the resurrection of Christ either, and yet prominent shroud scholars of both religions believe in the authenticity of the Shroud, without acknowledging a miracle.Proof of Jesus resurrection in His miraculous Image on His burial Shroud cuts to the core of the Baha’i philosophy, so it is not surprising that Baha’i apologists might have a strong agenda to discredit the Shroud and its Image. They might even appear on this forum posing as “card carrying Catholics” with their insidious agendas.
No. I think we’re not going to agree on this, so I won’t press it further. It is clear to me, and to all rational people, that a physical change is necessarily one which is detectable or observable, and that dictionaries confirm this. Your attempts to contradict this have failed. Nevertheless, there may be people who agree with you, and good luck to them, and to you. I’ll not pursue an “I’m right, you’re wrong argument” further, unless new and better evidence is produced.I already quoted from M-W in support of my claim, so as I said, this is just an unsupported rejection of my position. To cite a source is to back up your position with a claim made in that source. To suggest that because certain sources don’t overtly refute your claim, that it must therefore be true is not valid reasoning.
And the “No True Scotsman” fallacy, on top of the cake. This discussion has really been a lot of fun.No. I think we’re not going to agree on this, so I won’t press it further. It is clear to me, and to all rational people, that a physical change is necessarily one which is detectable or observable, and that dictionaries confirm this. Your attempts to contradict this have failed. Nevertheless, there may be people who agree with you, and good luck to them, and to you. I’ll not pursue an “I’m right, you’re wrong argument” further, unless new and better evidence is produced.
cough, miracle of calanda, coughGod has never replaced a missing limb. Think about that. He could if He wanted to.