Billions of people have HD video cameras in their pockets: why aren't we seeing lots of miracles on video?

[Little_Tiger]

I agree with the Catechism.

100%.



Not sure why you are citing it?

I await his corroboration that he is claiming we have absolute certainty.

Yes, we have certitude that what we profess is true.

Just not absolute certitude.

There is hardly a single thing that we can assert that has 100% certitude, and. as Monsignor Pope asserts: it’s a very, very dangerous road to walk.

We shouldn’t demand absolute certitude.

It’s not necessary.

And it’s puzzling that someone would place so much investment in asserting such a false teaching.

Friend, you just made my point for me. You just said “There is hardly a single thing that we can assert that has 100% certitude”. So, there is almost nothing, but something. But the Catechism teaches that the truths we know through faith, we know with greater certitude than anything else. And so, if you acknowledge that something can be asserted with 100% certitude, you must acknowledge that we can assert the truths of faith, one of which is God’s existence, with 100% certitude, since the Catechism teaches that we know the truths of faith with greater certitude than anything else.
God bless you, friend!

 

[PRmerger]

Friend, you just made my point for me. You just said “There is hardly a single thing that we can assert that has 100% certitude”.

Yes. I gave some examples: I am 100% certain that there is no such thing as a square triangle (see page 8).

I am 100% certain that there are no married bachelors.

But aside from logical contradictions, not so much.

Especially in the arena of theological truths.

 

[Little_Tiger]

My friend, I find it truly disturbing that you refer to the teaching of the Catechism as false.

 

[Little_Tiger]

Yes. I gave some examples: I am 100% certain that there is no such thing as a square triangle.

I am 100% certain that there are no married bachelors.

But aside from logical contradictions, not so much.

Especially in the arena of theological truths.

Yes, exactly. Those are pieces of human knowledge: that there are no married bachelors, that there are no square triangles. You know those things with absolute certainty. But the Catechism says that faith is more certain than all human knowledge.

 

[PRmerger]

My friend, I find it truly disturbing that you refer to the teaching of the Catechism as false.

Oh, be careful, little tiger. Misrepresenting someone’s views is not permitted here.

Unless you can demonstrate where I have stated that the teachings of the Catechism are false, you will be reported.

Or you may retract and I will never mention this again.

 

[PRmerger]

My friend, I find it truly disturbing that you refer to the teaching of the Catechism as false.

I suggest you retract.

I agree with the Catechism.

100%.

 

[Little_Tiger]

Oh, be careful, little tiger. Misrepresenting someone’s views is not permitted here.

Unless you can demonstrate where I have stated that the teachings of the Catechism are false, you will be reported.

Or you may retract and I will never mention this again.

If I interpreted your correctly, you referred to my assertion of 100% certitude of the truths of faith as false. I have shown that that is the teaching of the Catechism. Therefore, you indirectly but nonetheless genuinely (though I am sure unintentionally) referred to the Catechism’s teaching as false. I do not retract dear friend, and I did not misrepresent, unless you were not referring to my assertion of 100% certitude as false.
God bless you as always!

 

[PRmerger]

If I interpreted your correctly, you referred to my assertion of 100% certitude of the truths of faith as false. I have shown that that is the teaching of the Catechism. Therefore, you indirectly but nonetheless genuinely (though I am sure unintentionally) referred to the Catechism’s teaching as false. I do not retract dear friend, and I did not misrepresent, unless you were not referring to my assertion of 100% certitude as false.
God bless you as always!

Everything in the Catechism I give my religions assent to.

100%.

 

[Little_Tiger]

Everything in the Catechism I give my religions assent to.

100%.

That is a good thing to hear given the rampant dissent among Catholics these days
But I will reiterate what I said earlier my friend. The Catechism states that faith is more certain than all human knowledge. It also says that the certitude of faith is greater than the certitude which the natural light of reason gives. You said that you are 100% certain that there can be no square circles or married bachelors. But these are articles of human knowledge. And the Catechism states that faith is more certain than all human knowledge, and that faith is more certain than the natural light of reason (and it is through reason that we arrive at the impossibility of square circles, etc…).
May God bless you!

 

[Bradski]

Meaning?

I’m not sure if Zeitoun is that well known amongst Catholics. Everyone likes to mention Fatima when it comes to miracles – I mean, how could hundreds of people be wrong? Albeit a one off event. But if the Virgin Mary appears night after night over a period of many months and is seen by hundreds of thousands (some reports say millions) and actually recorded, then there is a lot less emphasis on it. Because, obviously, it is so easy to discredit. The more evidence available, the less credence the miracle.

Half a dozen people seeing something two thousand years ago and reported many years after the event and it’s treated as (excuse the pun) gospel. Millions of people seeing the mother of Christ on a roof in recent memory (and photographed) and it’s brushed under the table. Not even the Vatican is interested.

 

[lax16]

I’m not sure if Zeitoun is that well known amongst Catholics. Everyone likes to mention Fatima when it comes to miracles – I mean, how could hundreds of people be wrong? Albeit a one off event. But if the Virgin Mary appears night after night over a period of many months and is seen by hundreds of thousands (some reports say millions) and actually recorded, then there is a lot less emphasis on it. Because, obviously, it is so easy to discredit. The more evidence available, the less credence the miracle.

Half a dozen people seeing something two thousand years ago and reported many years after the event and it’s treated as (excuse the pun) gospel. Millions of people seeing the mother of Christ on a roof in recent memory (and photographed) and it’s brushed under the table. Not even the Vatican is interested.

I would ask why the media here in the U.S. didn’t cover it.

Why is it less credible if there is more evidence? You have lost me here.

The reason the Vatican hasn’t declared it a miracle is because it involved the Coptic Church. It’s out of the Catholic Church’s jurisdiction, so to say. If the Coptic Church declared the apparition a miracle, why would the Vatican weigh in? The local Catholic bishop at the time did declare it an authentic apparition, however.

What do you think of the apparition?

 

[fladreamer]

If God does more to prove Himself it deteriorates our free will choice to love Him. As a parent you could try to “force” your children to express their love to you, but it feels much better if they genuinely express it.

Satan was once Lucifer, knew God existed, knew who he was, yet rebelled, which means he had his free-will intact. Therefore, it is possible to know irrefutably that God exists and have free-will. They’re not mutually exclusive. Same with Adam and Eve, or whoever were the first human couple according to Catholic theology.

For what it’s worth - I remember being taught that St. Thomas held that, if after having explained the proofs thoroughly (and well), one still didn’t believe, it became as pointless as “arguing with a vegetable.”

A saint by the same name, the apostle Thomas, spent 3 years with Jesus, witnessing countless (hyperbole) miracles, from fish being mutliplied, to lepres being healed, to blind people recovering their sight, to Lazarus being raised from the dead, yet he needed to touch the holes left by the nails and the spear to believe. Thomas was a direct witness of all kinds of signs and wonders for 3 years, needed additional evidence to be convinced, and we, vegetable-like modern men, should be shamed because 2000 year-old I]accounts of miracles do not convince us? We’re not exactly held to the same standard here! He needed a million dollars to be satisfied, I’m expected to be satisfied with a dime.

 

[Little_Tiger]

Belatedly, I wanted to wish everyone a happy solemnity of Our Lady’s Assumption! May our most pure, holy, sinless and kind Mother Mary pray for us all, and obtain the graces of faith, hope, and charity, conversion to the fullness of truth and to freedom from every stain of sin, and eternal life.
Hail Mary, full of grace, the Lord is with thee!
Blessed art thou among women, and blessed is the Fruit of thy womb, Jesus.
Holy Mary, Mother of God, pray for us sinners, now, and at the hour of our death. Amen.
God bless everyone, and may Our Lady touch everyone!

 

[Little_Tiger]

catholicculture.org/culture/liturgicalyear/calendar/day.cfm?date=2016-08-15

 

[Bradski]

Why is it less credible if there is more evidence?

Because it’s easier to refute.

I was on jury duty some time back. Assault. Drug deal gone wrong. If the guy who had been assaulted had just said: ‘that girl in the dock and her boyfriend beat me up’ I reckon she might have been convicted. But his defence council kept asking more questions, getting more details. He enjoyed his moment. Just kept giving more and more information. Adding more to the story. Which he thought was adding weight to his case.

But the opposite happened. Parts of the story weren’t credible. Parts were obvious lies. Parts of his story contradicted other parts. Other people contradicted a lot of what he said.

The evidence was weak, or so he must have thought. So he kept adding to it. And the more he added, the more could be checked. And the more it was found to be false.

Someone way back, may have been another forum, pointed out that the blob of light he had found on a web site was definitely Mary. You could even make out her halo. Which was too much evidence as it was pointed out that halos were a 16th century artistic convention. Why on earth would Mary be wearing one if she made an appearance? Just to look like her pictures?

 

[Lion_IRC]

To say that I am certain - but just not 100% certain - is an amphibology.

It’s like having more than one “best” friend.

Or using the expression “we don’t have certainty” when what you mean is “I don’t have certainty”.

If YOU can demonstrate Gods existence with certainty, how on earth is it that YOU are not certain?

There are two traps people are falling into… One is of equivocation, another is some other fallacy which I am not sure the name of.

“Certain” does not always mean “perfectly certain.”…

Certainty
*Certainty is perfect knowledge that has total security from error, or the mental state of being without doubt.

Objectively defined, certainty is total continuity and validity of all foundational inquiry, to the highest degree of precision. Something is certain only if no skepticism can occur. Philosophy (at least, historical Cartesian philosophy) seeks this state.*
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Certainty

Certain
synonyms: unquestionable, sure, definite, beyond question, not in question, not in doubt, beyond doubt, unequivocal, indubitable, undeniable, irrefutable, indisputable, incontrovertible, incontestable, obvious, patent, manifest, evident, plain, clear, transparent, palpable, unmistakable, conclusive, recognized, confirmed, accepted, acknowledged, undisputed, undoubted, unquestioned, unchallenged, uncontested;
google.com.au/search?q=define+evident&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjqnJeBz8XOAhWBEpQKHYflDWQQ_SoIKTAA&biw=884&bih=579

 

[LethalMouse]

I’m not sure if Zeitoun is that well known amongst Catholics. Everyone likes to mention Fatima when it comes to miracles – I mean, how could hundreds of people be wrong? Albeit a one off event. But if the Virgin Mary appears night after night over a period of many months and is seen by hundreds of thousands (some reports say millions) and actually recorded, then there is a lot less emphasis on it. Because, obviously, it is so easy to discredit. The more evidence available, the less credence the miracle.

Half a dozen people seeing something two thousand years ago and reported many years after the event and it’s treated as (excuse the pun) gospel. Millions of people seeing the mother of Christ on a roof in recent memory (and photographed) and it’s brushed under the table. Not even the Vatican is interested.

Actually:

As established in the Council of Trent (1545-63), the local bishop is the first and main authority in the judgement of the authenticity of apparition claims. Vatican approval is not required for an apparition to be considered authentic. After an episcopal approval, the Vatican may do nothing but it may release an official statement or after some time give non-written forms of approval such as a papal visit with the crowning of the associated icon or a gift such as a golden rose, the approval of the construction of (or elevation of an existing shrine to) a basilica, the establishment of a feast day, or the canonization of the associated visionary.

Positive judgments by the local bishop (but not yet by the Vatican) theoretically are able to be reversed by a subsequent bishop - but this has never happened in the history of the Church. Negative judgments (Constat de non supernaturalitate) and rulings of no evidence of supernaturality (Non constat de supernaturalitate) have later been changed to positive judgments on a few rare occasions with the ruling of a subsequent bishop.

If a Marian apparition is recognized by the bishop, it means that the message is not contrary to faith and morals, that Mary can be venerated in a special way at the site and that the faithful can believe with confidence in the supernaturality of the event. But, because belief in a private revelation is not required by the church, Catholics are at liberty to decide how much personal spiritual emphasis (if any) to place on apparitions and the messages they deliver.

The Vatican since this happened in a Coptic Church turned it over to them or left it to them if you will.

The Bishops are validly ordained and therefore in this case this miracle is acceptable for Catholics. I think general human angst over schisms has more to do with its obscurity to catholics.

 

[PumpkinCookie]

And is there anything hidden behind that joke? What exactly do you mean by “work” here?

Catholicism doesn’t seem to help me engage with reality, live a good life, or tell me anything meaningful about God. It doesn’t “work” for me.

So, you will just repeat that there is a way that a video couldn’t have been faked without telling us what it is?

I mentioned the timestamps in the digital frames.
videoforensicexpert.com/how-to-tell-if-video-is-edited/

Also, courts use the evidence that is available and do not demand that it would be “impossible to fake” (they find it is sufficient that evidence hasn’t been faked, even if it could have been - in fact, I suspect that the court would presume that evidence hasn’t been faked). After all, it is clear that witness testimony is not “unfakable”, but courts do take it into account. You, on the other hand, have a much higher standard (and, I’d say, an unreasonably high standard).

I’m not suggesting that video is “unfakable” or that any acceptable evidence must be impervious to fraud. It’s just that contemporary HD video seems like better and more reliable evidence than ancient documents based on anonymous hearsay.

I think you misunderstood. I have asked you to explain your position in more detail. Instead you are trying to get me to agree with it - when it is not completely clear what your position actually is.

My position: I do not and cannot believe any human or group of humans speaks for God or has God’s authority unless they provide sufficient evidence for this claim. I am willing to accept the miracle I described above as evidence for the RCC’s claim to speak for God. If an Imam did the same miracle but invoked Allah and asked Allah to endorse Muhammad as the final prophet, then I would accept Islam. Ditto with other religious traditions.

So, in other words, you have no idea how exactly this miracle could be faked (otherwise you would have given a way to do so), but keep claiming that it could - maybe with the hope that someone will be a “simpleton” and be persuaded?

The substance inside could be temperature sensitive like wax, or some combination of oils. It could also be a substance that liquefies after a certain amount of time. It could be activated magnetically or chemically in some fashion. Many chemicals can change state between solid and liquid with the right conditions. Put that monstrance in a lab for one year and don’t let any priests tamper with it. Put it under video surveillance and test it to see what happens.

So, just a testimony of a witness that obviously has a conflict of interest - yourself?

For what you have proved is (at best) that it would be reasonable for you to convert under given conditions. But that’s the easy part: the hard part is proving that you would actually act reasonably. It is not enough to say that you feel you would do so: you might be biased on this point (people generally prefer to think they are reasonable).

So, as we can see, this your “proof” wouldn’t work that well even if we would agree to use a double standard. But we do not - so, let’s wait for evidence (showing that you would act reasonably) that would be “impossible to fake”.

Or, of course, you can explain why different standard is reasonable here (but no, “I can’t meet it [but it’s OK that others can’t].” is not a good explanation).

Wait, I don’t understand. How can I testify to myself? I’m saying what I think I would do given a set of circumstances. Obviously, I could be wrong. But, it is my opinion that I would convert to Catholicism if a miracle similar to the one I described were captured on authenticated video or occurred right in front of me. I don’t always act reasonably, but go ahead and subject me to the test!

Perform this miracle right now, video it with timestamps, upload it to this thread, and see what I do! I’m perfectly willing to be tested, go for it.

 

[LethalMouse]

You know I think everyone is in fact 3 people.

1. The person they show
2. The person they show themselves
3. The person they really are

In a sense like the belief held by some prots that a person who sins never “really” accepted their version of grace.

In that I think there is a partial truth and albeit some people have via person number 2 fully convinced themselves they are Catholic/Christian/Muslim/Jew/Or anything else… they often really aren’t in a sense.

The same qith certain aspects of athesits notably the kinds who spend most of their time hovering around religion or concerning themselves with it.

Similarly what if God knows number 3?

What if those who say they would convert for X miracle won’t? What if God knows that no matter how much you tell yourself under number 2 that you would accept it you won’t?

Then in the end, what would be the point? Why would He bother?

And as Pumkin your suedo challenge of “take the video and see” what if God knows already and there is no point?

What if letting or not letting MPat take the video will have the same result of MPat still believing and Pumkin not? Then why bother?

 

[PumpkinCookie]

You know I think everyone is in fact 3 people.

1. The person they show
2. The person they show themselves
3. The person they really are

In a sense like the belief held by some prots that a person who sins never “really” accepted their version of grace.

In that I think there is a partial truth and albeit some people have via person number 2 fully convinced themselves they are Catholic/Christian/Muslim/Jew/Or anything else… they often really aren’t in a sense.

The same qith certain aspects of athesits notably the kinds who spend most of their time hovering around religion or concerning themselves with it.

Similarly what if God knows number 3?

What if those who say they would convert for X miracle won’t? What if God knows that no matter how much you tell yourself under number 2 that you would accept it you won’t?

Then in the end, what would be the point? Why would He bother?

And as Pumkin your suedo challenge of “take the video and see” what if God knows already and there is no point?

What if letting or not letting MPat take the video will have the same result of MPat still believing and Pumkin not? Then why bother?

Now we’re cookin’!

I LOVE these questions. Let’s start a new thread. You want to do it or should I?

“How do we know what evidence we’ll accept for religious authority claims?”

or

“If God knows what evidence people will accept, why doesn’t he provide it?”

or

“How do we know if God has provided sufficient evidence for a religious belief?”

or

“If God knows certain people will never be saved/believe/attain holiness, why create them in the fist place?”

or

"How do religious believers know they actually believe in their religion and aren’t just deceiving themselves or mistaken about their true beliefs?

There are so many interesting discussions to be had arising from your observations.