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

[LethalMouse]

Hmmm.

Help me out here.

Premise - Spokesperson for the group says members of the Rational Rat Pack are non-theists.
Premise - PRmerger is a member of the Rational Rat Pack
Conclusion - Therefore…??

Think Lion THINK!

You could just put it in your sig and be like a rebel lol.

I also find it interesting as a original ratpack fan I have found in dating more religious type females like them and the more atheistic types are agaisnt said music

 

[lax16]

Well, I can be optimistic and hope he is checking out the sources I recommended. We must hope that people are open to the truth - as Tim Staples said, there is more to this than being convinced intellectually; the will can be a huge barrier to the discovery of truth. Though God has supplied us with innumerable proofs of the truth of His Church, not everyone wants the truth to be as it is.
And I must remember that it isn’t all about dialogue - prayer is needed, too. So, ultimately, I would put it like this: we must offer our brothers and sisters the proof that Catholicism is true, and we must pray that they open their minds and remain unrestricted by bias in the search for truth.
May God bless you my friend, have a good day!

Most definitely!

I always find it interesting when people think they have a slam dunk argument against Christianity or the Catholic Church and put it out there to get feedback. Then they ignore answers that should stimulate a healthy discussion.

I agree, scatter seeds anyway. Pray, hope and don’t worry.

 

[Little_Tiger]

Most definitely!

I always find it interesting when people think they have a slam dunk argument against Christianity or the Catholic Church and put it out there to get feedback. Then they ignore answers that should stimulate a healthy discussion.

I agree, scatter seeds anyway. Pray, hope and don’t worry.

Yes, it is a shame beyond words. But we love them and, like you said, hope and pray for them. That is another good point - anxiety won’t get us anywhere. If I am not mistaken, St. Josemaria Escriva in his great book The Way tells us not to suffer anxiety over the salvation of another (of course, this is vastly different from being concerned - we should care and work for their salvation, but not put ourselves through emotional agony necessarily).
And yes, that is why my signature is as it is - I have books in their which accomplish the very important task of proving the truth of the Catholic Faith step by step, from the existence of God and the immortality of the soul, to natural law and the necessity of Revelation, to Christianity and the Catholic Church. And then there is Faith and Certitude by Father Dubay, which shows us why we can and should be certain that the Catholic Faith is true. And then there is the Lourdes book, which should erase any possible remaining doubts of the truth of the Church. I want every person who reads my posts to see those books, as they are truly excellent seeds. Even if they don’t read them, at least I have given them the opportunity. Let’s keep on proving, and let’s keep on praying. God bless you!

 

[Little_Tiger]

*books in there
Sorry for the typo

 

[PraiseChrist]

1. Test the blood samples against each other and see if they’re the same DNA. If they’re the same, across hundreds of years, that would be impressive.
2. There are only so many sins (thank God). Cold-reading, guessing, coincidence. Shout out enough people’s sins and you’re bound to get them right sometimes. Confirmation bias. Has someone recorded all the instances where Padre Pio failed to guess someone’s sins, or guessed the wrong ones?

Reply to no 1
churchmilitant.com/news/article/eucharistic-miracles-confirm-real-presence-of-jesus-christ

See post #381 for no 2

 

[JapaneseKappa]

Reply to no 1
churchmilitant.com/news/article/eucharistic-miracles-confirm-real-presence-of-jesus-christ

See post #381 for no 2

I mean, doesn’t that page contain a bald-faced lie?

In 1970, they were examined scientifically and, like the Buenos Aires sample, found to be from a human heart with AB-positive blood… They both had the exact same DNA.

But DNA fingerprinting hadn’t been invented in 1970. It was invented in 1985.

 

[PraiseChrist]

I mean, doesn’t that page contain a bald-faced lie?
But DNA fingerprinting hadn’t been invented in 1970. It was invented in 1985.

No, ppl were able to find out blood types well before the 1980s

 

[JapaneseKappa]

No, ppl were able to find out blood types well before the 1980s

But they claimed the DNA was identical. Do you think DNA and blood type are the same thing?

 

[PumpkinCookie]

I apologize for being absent from this thread. I run two businesses and when business is good, I have to work. When things are slow, I like to argue with people on the internet.

Unfortunately I am unexpectedly busy, today being no exception. I want to respond as briefly as I can.

The evidence that has been offered here isn’t convincing enough for me, because it is all really old, and secondary and tertiary sources. The reason I am wondering about HD video, is because this would be a primary source that would allow the one who experiences the evidence to make a judgment, rather than have the judgement imposed upon him or her by a text written by a biased observer.

Several people here have offered anecdotes and 19th century books about reports about reports of miracles. Why hasn’t someone taken their phone to Lourdes and captured a miraculous healing in real time? This would be convincing to me.

I don’t believe in UFOs, Bigfoot, the Lochness monster, Mothman, Satyha Sai Baba, or any else like this, although the proponents and believers in these things have offered a similar quality of evidence for their beliefs.

For me to believe in Catholicism and simultaneously reject Bigfoot, Hinduism, UFOs, the Iluminati conspiracy, etc: I need evidence that is of a higher quality. A real life miracle on HD video would be such evidence, but I’m afraid that what has been offered here is not exceptional.

Thank you.

 

[Bradski]

Several people here have offered anecdotes and 19th century books about reports about reports of miracles. Why hasn’t someone taken their phone to Lourdes and captured a miraculous healing in real time? This would be convincing to me.

Some time ago I researched the rate at which cancers went into remission amd the numbers of people who went to Lourdes versus the number of approved miracles in the cases of cancer.

It turned out that the rate at which people experienced spontaneous remission was slightly better in the general population than the rate at which miraculous cures occurred at Lourdes.

That is, you were more likely to recover if you DIDN’T go to Lourdes.

 

[Aloysium]

Some time ago I researched the rate at which cancers went into remission amd the numbers of people who went to Lourdes versus the number of approved miracles in the cases of cancer.

It turned out that the rate at which people experienced spontaneous remission was slightly better in the general population than the rate at which miraculous cures occurred at Lourdes.

That is, you were more likely to recover if you DIDN’T go to Lourdes.

Did you ensure that you were dealing with the same population? Before making a claim that someone is more likely to recover given x, you should be sure that all other variables are the same. Also, there are different types of healing. Staying around for a few more years may be of benefit where your family needs you or you need to work out some things. It really doesn’t matter in the long run otherwise. We all end up in the ground. By the way what ever did you make of that study that showed that prayers 10 years after the fact we’re related to improved rates of recovery. It doesn’t make sense does it. In such cases we tend to ignore the findings, don’t we. I don’t think I will take your word on this one.

 

[Bradski]

By the way what ever did you make of that study that showed that prayers 10 years after the fact we’re related to improved rates of recovery. It doesn’t make sense does it.

Absolutely none.

B: Hey, I found out that I had cancer but it cleared up by itself.
A: Great. I’ll pray for a cure.
B: No. There’s no need. I AM cured.
A: There you go. Then praying is obviously going to work.

It’ll make my day if you try to show how they proved this.

 

[MPat]

I apologize for being absent from this thread. I run two businesses and when business is good, I have to work. When things are slow, I like to argue with people on the internet.

That’s perfectly fine. Respond when you have time.

Unfortunately I am unexpectedly busy, today being no exception. I want to respond as briefly as I can.

And that’s less fine. I’d say that just about everyone would benefit more from more detailed answers coming later.

The evidence that has been offered here isn’t convincing enough for me, because it is all really old, and secondary and tertiary sources. The reason I am wondering about HD video, is because this would be a primary source that would allow the one who experiences the evidence to make a judgment, rather than have the judgement imposed upon him or her by a text written by a biased observer.

Several people here have offered anecdotes and 19th century books about reports about reports of miracles. Why hasn’t someone taken their phone to Lourdes and captured a miraculous healing in real time? This would be convincing to me.

I don’t believe in UFOs, Bigfoot, the Lochness monster, Mothman, Satyha Sai Baba, or any else like this, although the proponents and believers in these things have offered a similar quality of evidence for their beliefs.

For me to believe in Catholicism and simultaneously reject Bigfoot, Hinduism, UFOs, the Iluminati conspiracy, etc: I need evidence that is of a higher quality. A real life miracle on HD video would be such evidence, but I’m afraid that what has been offered here is not exceptional.

Isn’t it interesting that you emphasise that it is you who hasn’t been convinced? For that indicates the main question: what is it about you that makes you unconvinced?

Why hasn’t someone taken their phone to Lourdes and captured a miraculous healing in real time? This would be convincing to me.

Correction: you think it would be convincing to you. It is highly unlikely that it really would convince you.

I don’t believe in UFOs, Bigfoot, the Lochness monster, Mothman, Satyha Sai Baba, or any else like this, although the proponents and believers in these things have offered a similar quality of evidence for their beliefs.

For me to believe in Catholicism and simultaneously reject Bigfoot, Hinduism, UFOs, the Iluminati conspiracy, etc: I need evidence that is of a higher quality.

Are you sure the only reason why you reject all those other things is insufficient evidence?

For example, what about the contrary evidence - let’s say, the argument that all planets from which space aliens might have come are just too far to get here, even at the speed of light? Or what about peer pressure - just about all the people you trust considering those beliefs to be silly?

A real life miracle on HD video would be such evidence, but I’m afraid that what has been offered here is not exceptional.

And why should evidence be “exceptional”? To blow your closed mind open?

I’d say you should not look at the evidence at the moment. Instead, you should read detective stories. Let’s say, Father Brown stories by G. K. Chesterton (they are available for free at cse.dmu.ac.uk/~mward/gkc/books/).

For right now you have to learn to use evidence. To find out that even seemingly humble pieces of evidence can add up. To formulate several hypotheses, to test them. To notice something that “doesn’t fit”. Just like real (and fictional) detectives do.

 

[MPat]

Some time ago I researched the rate at which cancers went into remission amd the numbers of people who went to Lourdes versus the number of approved miracles in the cases of cancer.

It turned out that the rate at which people experienced spontaneous remission was slightly better in the general population than the rate at which miraculous cures occurred at Lourdes.

That is, you were more likely to recover if you DIDN’T go to Lourdes.

You know, “anecdotes and 19th century books” sound far more reliable than such research. For there are major problems with it.

First, “number of approved miracles” is lower than the total number of healings. In order to be counted among “approved miracles” there has to be no alternative explanation. Sometimes there is. But it is still a healing, and such healings are counted for the other sample. Thus it should be counted here as well.

Second, isn’t it more likely that “hopeless” cases will be more common in Lourdes?

For now those two should be sufficient.

So, after reading the “abstract”, my recommendation is “Strong Reject”.

 

[Aloysium]

Absolutely none.

B: Hey, I found out that I had cancer but it cleared up by itself.
A: Great. I’ll pray for a cure.
B: No. There’s no need. I AM cured.
A: There you go. Then praying is obviously going to work.

It’ll make my day if you try to show how they proved this.

It is not prayer but God who heals.
Faith moves mountains because it is faith in God.
Faith in God means doing His will because it is the ultimate good.
God is not an independent variable to be manipulated.
You’re not going to find your proof that God exists using these methods.
One knows Him in other ways.

I’m going to potentially make your day:
As to the study, it was peer reviewed with a valid finding, if only one of a kind.
You fail to understand how the study was constructed and how it demonstrates the nature of supplicant prayer and of God as an eternal being outside of time.
Basically, they took the names of people who had been treated for cancer ten years earlier, not knowing the outcome. They were randomly distributed into groups. A church congregation in the present, prayed for the people in one group; again, people who were treated years earlier. When they examined the charts, it was found that there was a significant difference in recovery between the two groups, those who were prayed for having fared better.
Please refer to what I wrote above. We are to do God’s will. He inspires us and we follow.
God speaks to those who listen. But your doubt is too strong. It is clear to me that unfortunately, you do not have an open mind. Having settled your accounts with reality, you may be incapable of hearing anything but the echo of your own thoughts. This can change in an instant.

 

[Aloysium]

. . . It’ll make my day if you try to show how they proved this.

I apologize for the earlier misinformation. The lesson to be learned is not to post on the train with my smart phone, where I have less access to materials and information that are important to the discussion.

The actual study wasn’t about cancer but rather sepsis. It was published in the British Medical Journal in 2001 and entitled Effects of remote, retroactive intercessory prayer on outcomes in patients with bloodstream infection: randomised controlled trial, authored by Leonard Leibovici. It did involve praying for patients who had been hospitalized ten years earlier. The findings were that mortality was reduced in the intervention group (people who were prayed for ten years later) and length of stay in hospital and duration of fever were significantly shorter in the intervention group than in the control group (those who were not prayed for). I am not convinced of the author’s conclusion that remote, retroactive intercessory prayer can improve outcomes in patients with a bloodstream infection. It did in this particular situation that was likely inspired, but I believe that as a general statement, the study does speak to the reality of our relationship with God, who is outside time and does respond to our needs in a manner that is for the good.

 

[Bradski]

Basically, they took the names of people who had been treated for cancer ten years earlier, not knowing the outcome. They were randomly distributed into groups. A church congregation in the present, prayed for the people in one group; again, people who were treated years earlier. When they examined the charts, it was found that there was a significant difference in recovery between the two groups, those who were prayed for having fared better.

I think it safe to assume that some people would have died of the disease. What happened to them when they were the subject of someone’s prayers?

And when they split the people into two groups, they could have checked the difference in recovery immediately and they would have showed an improvement. Unless you want to suggest that the records showed random recovery rates before the prayers were said and then mysteriously showed an improvement after prayers were said. Plainly nonsensical.

In which case, there is no need to pray. You just need to divide people up into two groups with the intention of praying for one of them and that group will have fared better.

In which case, now it seems that this might work, what stopped the congregation praying for the other group?

I’m not sure you have thought this through. In fact, I’m not sure anyone has thought it through.

 

[Bradski]

The actual study wasn’t about cancer…

No. It was a joke, Al. A parody of a trial. A spoof. It wasn’t meant to be taken seriously. For the very obvious reasons I mentioned above.

See: blogs.discovermagazine.com/neuroskeptic/2014/12/20/ethics-joke-science/#.V7sNgXhkmrU

 

[inocente]

No. It was a joke, Al. A parody of a trial. A spoof. It wasn’t meant to be taken seriously. For the very obvious reasons I mentioned above.

See: blogs.discovermagazine.com/neuroskeptic/2014/12/20/ethics-joke-science/#.V7sNgXhkmrU

Thanks for posting that, just read the paper - ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC61047/

Nice dry humor, from the authoritative author line (Leonard Leibovici, professor ) to the illustration of cells in the shape of a red nosed reindeer.

 

[Aloysium]

No. It was a joke, Al. A parody of a trial. A spoof. It wasn’t meant to be taken seriously. For the very obvious reasons I mentioned above.

See: blogs.discovermagazine.com/neuroskeptic/2014/12/20/ethics-joke-science/#.V7sNgXhkmrU

The paper you quote it states:

Leibovici later wrote that he did not personally take these results seriously. They were intended as a reductio ad absurdam of randomized controlled trials for impossible treatments: “The purpose of the article was to ask the following question: would you believe in a study that looks methodologically correct but tests something that is completely out of people’s frame (or model) of the physical world… I believe that prayer is a real comfort and help to a believer. I do not believe it should be tested in controlled trials.”

and

. . . it was nonetheless an accurate description of an experiment. He stated that “the details provided in the publication (randomisation done only once, statement of a wish, analysis, etc) are correct.” As a result, I don’t think that people who took the paper seriously are in error. They are missing the joke, certainly, but this is not the same thing. It’s not as if Leibovici just made up his results.

. . . which is pretty much what I said.

The joke was in the conclusion:

Remote, retroactive intercessory prayer can improve outcomes in patients with a bloodstream infection. This intervention is cost effective, probably has no adverse effects, and should be considered for clinical practice. Further studies may determine the most effective form of this intervention and its effect in other severe conditions and may clarify its mechanism.

and on those who go by headlines and conclusions, not knowing what is actually in the details.

This experiment is not unlike one in which a mould grew in the petrie dish ruining one experiment but opening up other possibilities. The conclusion is a joke, the results are what they are.

If you are calling into question randomised trials and statistical analyses as a means to understanding our world, which is not what he is saying, to my way of thinking, you would be a nihilist rather than the atheist you claim.

On the other hand, in the quantum world of Shroedinger’s cat, although not something I would agree with in general, perhaps although an event has occurred, where one does not yet know the outcome, is it possible that prayers might influence what one encounters in the future because they have influenced the course of events in the past?

Prayers form part of the dialogue between oneself and God. We share with Him who we are, our needs, our questions, our joys and our pain.