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

[PRmerger]

Sort of apropos of this thread, or at least this seems like the best place to stick this comment:

I have never understood the desire on the part of the adherents of this - or any - religion to “prove” that their religion is “true,” or that its subordinate claims (like that miracles happen) are true.

We do it because we are reasonable people with a rational intellect.

If the central claims of this or any religion were objectively true, provable according to rational and commonly accepted standards for empirical truth (and yes, I know that one of the tenets of Catholicism is that it can be substantiated through reason), then it wouldn’t be a religion,

You mean that it wouldn’t have a component of faith.

This is true, but that’s not the same thing as saying we shouldn’t try to prove that our religion is true.

We should always have a reason for our beliefs.

And, yes, you are correct: our Catholic faith asserts that our knowledge of God can be substantiated through reason–Vatican Council I

Religion shouldn’t be simple, objective fact, and it gets itself into trouble when it starts trying to trade in that business, or pass itself off as such - just ask Copernicus.

I don’t think anyone here who’s providing apologia for Christianity offers it as “simple, objective fact”.

But that doesn’t mean that we can’t offer apologia that is “simple, objective fact”.

Both/And here at work.

 

[tonyrey]

Sort of apropos of this thread, or at least this seems like the best place to stick this comment:

I have never understood the desire on the part of the adherents of this - or any - religion to “prove” that their religion is “true,” or that its subordinate claims (like that miracles happen) are true. Sometimes, of course, miracles are themselves used in an attempt to “prove” Catholicism/Christianity is “true” (and I am sure there are similar mechanics in other religions).

If the central claims of this or any religion were objectively true, provable according to rational and commonly accepted standards for empirical truth (and yes, I know that one of the tenets of Catholicism is that it can be substantiated through reason), then it wouldn’t be a religion, anymore than mathematics or geometry is, and there would be no need of the beautiful thing that is faith. No one “believes” that 2+2 is 4, they know it; no one would die to defend the idea that Ronald Reagan was the 40th President of the United States, it’s simple, objective fact.

Religion shouldn’t be simple, objective fact, and it gets itself into trouble when it starts trying to trade in that business, or pass itself off as such - just ask Copernicus.

The division between faith and reason is arbitrary because they are complementary.
“Credo quia absurdum” is at the opposite extreme from Christianity which is based on the rational belief that God is a loving Father who has created us with the power to choose what to believe, how to live and who to love. It is the only logical foundation of the principles of liberty, equality and fraternity in stark contrast to the atheist’s view that we are related solely by an accident of birth in a valueless, purposeless and meaningless universe…

 

[tonyrey]

We do it because we are reasonable people with a rational intellect.

You mean that it wouldn’t have a component of faith.

This is true, but that’s not the same thing as saying we shouldn’t try to prove that our religion is true.

We should always have a reason for our beliefs.

And, yes, you are correct: our Catholic faith asserts that our knowledge of God can be substantiated through reason–Vatican Council I

I don’t think anyone here who’s providing apologia for Christianity offers it as “simple, objective fact”.

But that doesn’t mean that we can’t offer apologia that is “simple, objective fact”.

Both/And here at work.

In other words it’s a false dilemma.

 

[tonyrey]

OK. So we have a guy, not only with a badly broken leg, but an open compound fracture. With gangrene having set in. Zero medication. Or at least nothing that would pass muster these days. Not even clean bandages. Living in the country, in the late 19th century. Not exactly a sterile environment.

That someone with such a wound would even survive a few weeks without the very best of medical attention, such as it was over 140 years ago, in not credible in itself. The fact that he could actually get around with crutches at any time at all is not credible. That he survived for 8 years in such a condition is already asking for a miracle.

We have a problem in this case, as in so many, that the initial conditions already stretch what we are required to believe beyond what any reasonable person could be expected to accept. To accept the story just up to this point, notwithstanding any potential miraculous healing, would exhibit a degree of gullibility that would be dangerous in a lot of situations.

There is no reason whatsoever to accept these conditions as having any connection with reality at all. Except…we have a miracle coming. We must believe it up to this point, or the miracle itself is just an equally tall tale.

I have mentioned this before, many times, but it appears to be easier to accept this type of story when there is less evidence to support it. If someone survived such an accident in the bush in modern times with minimal attention for even three or four weeks it would be discounted out of hand. People would wonder what exactly might be the reason for so blatantly a falsehood. Picture in the papers? Book deal?

Yet these examples keep on coming. There is no stopping them. As if the more there are, the greater the weight of evidence. As if any of the examples had any weight in the first instance. It’s just floss. Wispy accounts of unbelievable stories that are held to be accurate and undeniable by those relating them. Miracles are not being exhibited. What is being exhibited is a serious lack of skepticism in those who are doing the telling. Adding more to the mix just exhibits a greater gullibility.

And what happens when doubt is cast on any given story? Well, the ‘atheist’ tag on the top right of my post will certainly come into play. Because this isn’t just an unbelievable story of a miraculous healing. It is a Christian story of a miraculous healing. Any story that doesn’t include your particular religion, stories from Haiiti or Paraguay or Zaire will be consigned to the same waste paper basket as I’m placing yours.

But there must be more. Lots more. Because even if almost all are shown to be risible, you only need one to prove your case. There only needs one real sighting of Elvis or Bigfoot or one genuine case of Alien abduction and the proponents of each are in the clear, so they have to keep coming. If you don’t believe THIS one, then wait until you hear the NEXT one!

Except, as I said, they add no weight. They just confirm that the skeptical meter is flat lining.

You disbelieve on principle in spite of all the tangible evidence to the contrary. How do you explain the facts in Rudder’s case? If x-rays won’t convince you nothing will…
Your blind faith in the power of physical energy has no rational basis whatsoever.

 

[Little_Tiger]

OK. So we have a guy, not only with a badly broken leg, but an open compound fracture. With gangrene having set in. Zero medication. Or at least nothing that would pass muster these days. Not even clean bandages. Living in the country, in the late 19th century. Not exactly a sterile environment.

That someone with such a wound would even survive a few weeks without the very best of medical attention, such as it was over 140 years ago, in not credible in itself. The fact that he could actually get around with crutches at any time at all is not credible. That he survived for 8 years in such a condition is already asking for a miracle.

We have a problem in this case, as in so many, that the initial conditions already stretch what we are required to believe beyond what any reasonable person could be expected to accept. To accept the story just up to this point, notwithstanding any potential miraculous healing, would exhibit a degree of gullibility that would be dangerous in a lot of situations.

There is no reason whatsoever to accept these conditions as having any connection with reality at all. Except…we have a miracle coming. We must believe it up to this point, or the miracle itself is just an equally tall tale.

I have mentioned this before, many times, but it appears to be easier to accept this type of story when there is less evidence to support it. If someone survived such an accident in the bush in modern times with minimal attention for even three or four weeks it would be discounted out of hand. People would wonder what exactly might be the reason for so blatantly a falsehood. Picture in the papers? Book deal?

Yet these examples keep on coming. There is no stopping them. As if the more there are, the greater the weight of evidence. As if any of the examples had any weight in the first instance. It’s just floss. Wispy accounts of unbelievable stories that are held to be accurate and undeniable by those relating them. Miracles are not being exhibited. What is being exhibited is a serious lack of skepticism in those who are doing the telling. Adding more to the mix just exhibits a greater gullibility.

And what happens when doubt is cast on any given story? Well, the ‘atheist’ tag on the top right of my post will certainly come into play. Because this isn’t just an unbelievable story of a miraculous healing. It is a Christian story of a miraculous healing. Any story that doesn’t include your particular religion, stories from Haiiti or Paraguay or Zaire will be consigned to the same waste paper basket as I’m placing yours.

But there must be more. Lots more. Because even if almost all are shown to be risible, you only need one to prove your case. There only needs one real sighting of Elvis or Bigfoot or one genuine case of Alien abduction and the proponents of each are in the clear, so they have to keep coming. If you don’t believe THIS one, then wait until you hear the NEXT one!

Except, as I said, they add no weight. They just confirm that the skeptical meter is flat lining.

Alright. Rudder and his co-conspirators (the Catholic Church, the Medical Bureau, other doctors and witnesses) managed to pull off a grand, late-19th century lie which became one of the most famed Lourdes cures, and is one of the 69 officially recognized by the Church.

As for the comment concerning non-Catholic miracles, no. As Tim Staples explains in the CA video (from CA Live) “Miracles in Other Religions?” (I think that’s the title, or something to that effect, my apologies), miracles may well occur for non-Catholics, as manifestations of God’s mercy (say, the healing of a Hindu couple’s dying child, which is the example Staples’ uses if I remember right).

Yes, good point, it would only take one definitive miracle. And so I suggest the following-
amazon.com/Miracle-Lourdes-Ruth-Cranston/dp/0385241879
This is the updated version of Cranston’s book. The additions are authored by the Medical Bureau itself. Feel free, if you like, to skip to the most recent cures. God bless you and keep you!

 

[Little_Tiger]

I would just like to leave you also with a brief quotation from Cranston, the Protestant journalist who originally authored the book - “The day is past when professional men would scoff at such things… Investigations of the cures are as precise and methodical as the analyses at any first-class hospital. A Medical Commission of twenty distinguished physicians and surgeons of various countries passes upon these records before a cure is finally and officially declared. When it is declared, you may be sure it is authentic and rests on unimpeachable evidence.”

 

[PumpkinCookie]

The Rudder case is certainly interesting. If the testimony is true, it would appear to be a genuine miracle (to me at least). The difficulty lies in validating the testimony. You know what would be better? If a miracle would happen now so we could see it happen after someone catches it on video.

Why do we constantly have to be digging around old dusty documents and trusting superstitious strangers from centuries ago to find evidence of miracles? Why has the stream suddenly dried up, just when we’ve developed the ability to video-record these things almost anywhere on the planet?

Also: to comment on Bradski’s contribution, it does seem miraculous in itself that Rudder was able to survive with an open, gangrenous severed bone for 8 eight years without developing a fatal infection of some kind. People die in near-sterile hospitals from infection of surgical wounds in 2016. It’s hard to believe he could have survived in that state in 19th century squalor for so long!

 

[Little_Tiger]

The Rudder case is certainly interesting. If the testimony is true, it would appear to be a genuine miracle (to me at least). The difficulty lies in validating the testimony. You know what would be better? If a miracle would happen now so we could see it happen after someone catches it on video.

Why do we constantly have to be digging around old dusty documents and trusting superstitious strangers from centuries ago to find evidence of miracles? Why has the stream suddenly dried up, just when we’ve developed the ability to video-record these things almost anywhere on the planet?

No need to consult anything old, as Lourdes miracles have continued into the 20th and 21st century. I hate to repeat myself so many times, but please see the Cranston book .

 

[tonyrey]

If miracles are a sign of truth, and only one religion is true, shouldn’t only one religion produce bona-fide miracles?

If several religions are “more or less” true, then I guess we would expect to see miracles coming from a variety of religions.

Or, are miracles not necessarily a sign of truth?

A false dilemma. There is no reason why miracles should be confined to one religion because all religions have the same philosophical and spiritual foundation:

archive.org/details/perennialphilosp035505mbp

 

[PumpkinCookie]

No need to consult anything old, as Lourdes miracles have continued into the 20th and 21st century. I hate to repeat myself so many times, but please see the Cranston book .

Show me the video bro. No more books. No more hearsay. First hand evidence.

 

[Little_Tiger]

The Rudder case is certainly interesting. If the testimony is true, it would appear to be a genuine miracle (to me at least). The difficulty lies in validating the testimony. You know what would be better? If a miracle would happen now so we could see it happen after someone catches it on video.

Why do we constantly have to be digging around old dusty documents and trusting superstitious strangers from centuries ago to find evidence of miracles? Why has the stream suddenly dried up, just when we’ve developed the ability to video-record these things almost anywhere on the planet?

Also: to comment on Bradski’s contribution, it does seem miraculous in itself that Rudder was able to survive with an open, gangrenous severed bone for 8 eight years without developing a fatal infection of some kind. People die in near-sterile hospitals from infection of surgical wounds in 2016. It’s hard to believe he could have survived in that state in 19th century squalor for so long!

For the purposes of this discussion, I think it is more effective, then, to refer you both to the Cranston book, where you can find detailed information on much more recent cures.

 

[PumpkinCookie]

Also, why hasn’t anyone set up a lab at Lourdes to conduct trials? Even if the healing isn’t the result of divine intervention, it is possible some environmental factor could be the cause. It could be very valuable information for medical science!

 

[PumpkinCookie]

For the purposes of this discussion, I think it is more effective, then, to refer you both to the Cranston book, where you can find detailed information on much more recent cures.

1955 is not recent my friend! I mean, it is comparatively recent to 1000 AD or 356 AD, but certainly not recent enough to be motivating. Science and philosophical skepticism have advanced considerably since then.

 

[Little_Tiger]

1955 is not recent my friend! I mean, it is comparatively recent to 1000 AD or 356 AD, but certainly not recent enough to be motivating. Science and philosophical skepticism have advanced considerably since then.

1988, actually.

 

[PumpkinCookie]

A false dilemma. There is no reason why miracles should be confined to one religion because all religions have the same philosophical and spiritual foundation:

archive.org/details/perennialphilosp035505mbp

Indeed, I think there is a core of truth in many religions. The problem is that Catholicism claims to be the MOST true and exclusively without error. If that were the case, wouldn’t we expect it to produce bigger and better miracles than other faith traditions? Why have the miracles dried up or retreated into dubious cures of internal illnesses? Why can’t we get a column of fire, or a genuine resurrection?

Jesus told his followers they would do greater signs than he did. “I tell you the truth, anyone who believes in me will do the same works I have done, and even greater works, because I am going to be with the Father” (John 14:12).

Well…where are these works?

Hello followers of Jesus, we’re all watching. Please do some of those works he was talking about, and if it won’t trouble you too much, just hit the camera button on your phone. Thanks!

 

[Little_Tiger]

Yes, the edition I linked to is updated by the Medical Bureau and was published in 1988. The new additions are by the Bureau, not Cranston.
Forgive me everyone, but this will be my last post on this thread. If anyone wishes to have a discussion via PM, feel free, but between my kitten and dog, both of whom are in my sole care while my mom is at work during the day, as well as my summer homework for AP Lit, I have found it a bit too time consuming for me at this point to be engaging in multiple discussions. But I will leave everyone with this -
I most highly recommend the Cranston book for the umpteenth time .
Remain open to truth, wherever it may be found.
Please know that my prayers will be sent up to Almighty God, as they have been, that you all may come to the knowledge of the truth.
May God bless you all and keep you!

 

[PumpkinCookie]

1988, actually.

Cranston died in 1956 and her book was published in 1955. 1988? People believed in “trickle-down” economics back then LOL…

Just a joke, everyone calm down, I understand that supply-side theory has merit, take a deep breath…

 

[inocente]

It is easy to see that the argument here is not logical - there is no logical contradiction between God both freely choosing to let someone be cured a bit sooner and freely choosing not to override the free will of the Nazis (especially given that Western Allies have been informed about Holocaust (almost miraculously, by “Witold’s Report”) and yet did not do much about it). Nor was any contradiction derived from those propositions.

Sure, if God is a Cosmic Slot Machine. Morally obscene.

 

[inocente]

miraclesoflourdes.blogspot.com/p/pieter-de-rudder.html
The two bones were joined instantaneously after having been separated for eight years.
God bless!

These days the obvious thing to do is google for more information. The Wikipedia article reports a number of discrepancies, and links to an even more skeptical article at csicop.org/si/show/belgian_miracles.

I’ve no relevant expertise, and that superficial investigation only took me a couple of minutes, but as this thread has shown that seems par for the course on deciding whether or not a miracle has occurred. For better and for worse we’re the now generation.

 

[Aloysium]

. . . Jesus told his followers they would do greater signs than he did. “I tell you the truth, anyone who believes in me will do the same works I have done, and even greater works, because I am going to be with the Father” (John 14:12).

Well…where are these works?

Hello followers of Jesus, we’re all watching. Please do some of those works he was talking about, and if it won’t trouble you too much, just hit the camera button on your phone. Thanks!

God is Love.

Stop looking at images and sifting through mental illusions of reality, just sit quietly and pray.

1 Kings 19:11-13 The Lord said, “Go out and stand on the mountain in the presence of the Lord, for the Lord is about to pass by.” Then a great and powerful wind tore the mountains apart and shattered the rocks before the Lord, but the Lord was not in the wind. After the wind there was an earthquake, but the Lord was not in the earthquake. After the earthquake came a fire, but the Lord was not in the fire. And after the fire came a gentle whisper. When Elijah heard it, he pulled his cloak over his face and went out and stood at the mouth of the cave.