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

[MPat]

B: I was seriously ill and now I am somehow cured.
M: The power of prayer!
B: No, no-one knew I was sick.
M: But I will pray for you today.
B: But I’m OK now.
M: Yes, the power of prayer!

Can you explain why there is a reason to pray for someone who has already gotten better? And assuming that you have done this (why wouldn’t you if ypu believe it works), maybe you could give us an example. Something like:

Please help Dave who…um…used to be sick.

At least we can hope you are having fun. Such total refusal to read and understand position of someone else would be pretty sad otherwise…

Or am I supposed to play along and treat that as a reply that was also meant to be somewhat serious, repeating that such prayers are used when we do not know what happened, and thus you are attacking a strawman?

 

[Bradski]

Or am I supposed to play along and treat that as a reply that was also meant to be somewhat serious, repeating that such prayers are used when we do not know what happened, and thus you are attacking a strawman?

B: I was seriously ill and now I am somehow cured.
M: Yeah, I prayed for you yesterday.
B: But…I was cured a year ago.
M: The power of prayer!

What happens if that conversation happened a week ago, so that he was cured but you hadn’t prayed for him? Do you still have to pray? Seems there’s no need.

So if you find out someone didn’t get better, then prayer is not going to work. And if you find out they did recover, there’s no need to pray.

I have confidence that we’ll manage to sort all this out.

 

[MPat]

B: I was seriously ill and now I am somehow cured.
M: Yeah, I prayed for you yesterday.
B: But…I was cured a year ago.
M: The power of prayer!

What happens if that conversation happened a week ago, so that he was cured but you hadn’t prayed for him? Do you still have to pray? Seems there’s no need.

So if you find out someone didn’t get better, then prayer is not going to work. And if you find out they did recover, there’s no need to pray.

I have confidence that we’ll manage to sort all this out.

Did you notice you ended up writing as if you thought that prayer is more likely to result in a miracle, if miracle comes after prayer…?

For, um, if you think prayers result in no miracles anyway, how could an idea that prayer results in a miracle that happened before prayer be even worse…?

Oh, and if you are really interested in position of someone else, some time ago (in this thread) I gave a link to a text by J. Akin (citing C.S. Lewis). Seek, and you shall find.

 

[Bradski]

Did you notice you ended up writing as if you thought that prayer is more likely to result in a miracle, if miracle comes after prayer…?

For, um, if you think prayers result in no miracles anyway, how could an idea that prayer results in a miracle that happened before prayer be even worse…?

Oh, and if you are really interested in position of someone else, some time ago (in this thread) I gave a link to a text by J. Akin (citing C.S. Lewis). Seek, and you shall find.

I think that I have found out all that I need.

 

[PRmerger]

I think that I have found out all that I need.

Really?

So no more searching?

That’s so very…unscientific.

 

[Bradski]

So no more searching?

On this topic? When I am expected to believe that a peasant in the 19th century can get about with a compound fracture and gangrene for eight years? When people spend post after post defending a survey that was done as a joke? When retroactive prayer makes zero sense whatsoever? When comments are made such as: ‘what about the xrays’ in reference to someone is the late 1800’s? When there are no controls offered to compare ‘miraculous healings’ with spontaneous remission? When there is a lack of skepticism being exhibited that is frankly unnerving?

I think that enough has been said.

 

[PRmerger]

On this topic? When I am expected to believe that a peasant in the 19th century can get about with a compound fracture and gangrene for eight years? When people spend post after post defending a survey that was done as a joke? When retroactive prayer makes zero sense whatsoever? When comments are made such as: ‘what about the xrays’ in reference to someone is the late 1800’s? When there are no controls offered to compare ‘miraculous healings’ with spontaneous remission? When there is a lack of skepticism being exhibited that is frankly unnerving?

I think that enough has been said.

Oh. On this topic. Ok, then.

 

[po18guy]

Blessed are those who have *not seen *and have believed.

 

[Bradski]

Blessed are those who have *not seen *and have believed.

Would that be the case. Except that we are constantly being told: 'Look. Here is the evidence. Look. Here is the proof.

People aren’t believing without seeing. They are demanding that I believe what they think they see.

 

[Ion]

Would that be the case. Except that we are constantly being told: 'Look. Here is the evidence. Look. Here is the proof.

People aren’t believing without seeing. They are demanding that I believe what they think they see.

Could you imagine your life without believing but only what you see? When you say " I don’t believe … " you actually use your belief but against the issue. Or when you decide to believe only what you see, you believe this decision is good, even if actually you use your belief against your believing system. Did you see the evolution at work, happening (yes oepr no, this question should not bring into discussion the evolution theory)

 

[Bradski]

Could you imagine your life without believing but only what you see?

Quite impossible. Which is one reason I didn’t say it.

 

[tonyrey]

On this topic? When I am expected to believe that a peasant in the 19th century can get about with a compound fracture and gangrene for eight years? When people spend post after post defending a survey that was done as a joke? When retroactive prayer makes zero sense whatsoever? When comments are made such as: ‘what about the xrays’ in reference to someone is the late 1800’s? When there are no controls offered to compare ‘miraculous healings’ with spontaneous remission? When there is a lack of skepticism being exhibited that is frankly unnerving?

I think that enough has been said.

Enough has certainly been said to demonstrate that blind scepticism is based on dogmatic materialism rather than facts:

1. The eye witnesses included several doctors who confirmed all the details of Pierre de Rudder’s infirmity and recovery.
2. “retroactive prayer” is a misnomer because the Creator transcends time and space.
3. The x-rays may well have been taken subsequently if they were thought to be necessary.
4. Spontaneous remission has never entailed the instantaneous growth of two inches of bone.
5. No evidence has been produced that all the witnesses colluded to commit fraud nor has any credible motive for such deception been presented.
6. The case for the prosecution would collapse instantly if such an allegation were taken to court.
7. There has been no credible physical explanation of Pierre de Rudder’s instant recovery.

It is highly significant that such extreme skepticism is being exhibited without any medical experience and a thorough investigation of the case.

 

[Bradski]

I’m too despondent of the dearth of critical thinking in this thread to work up any enthusiasm to reply any more.

 

[Aloysium]

:twocents:

Your kid is abducted, there is a terrible earthquake in the area where much of your family lives, a bomb has exploded in the market your spouse has gone shopping, you peek out the window and see the military police jumping out of their vehicles moving in the direction of the home in which you are hiding. The odds are pretty close to one that something very bad has happened and it is only a matter of time before it manifests itself in its full severity.

What people do in such situations is pray. Atheist too, in that case the exhortation going out to blind luck. “Come on Mama, baby needs a new pair of shoes.”

The words in themselves, may be useful as a catharsis or simply to verbalized one’s thoughts and feelings to oneself, but regardless of how earnestly they are expressed they do not magically cause an event to happen. And, they are not going to change what has happened because what has happened is in accordance with God’s will. In such cases, the motivation behind the words likely includes difficulty in accepting His will. All the more reason to continue praying. But we do pray for His intercession, especially more so, when things seem hopeless knowing that it is in His power to bring about an outcome different from the horror that seems inevitable. At that point, it is important to maintain the dialogue with God, renew our faith in His goodness, connecting with the source of the hope, strength and courage required to bear our crosses.

Jesus Christ in the Garden of Gethsemane, knowing what is about to happen, makes His will known to the Father, reaffirming His consent and demonstrating the Love that is God.

God exists in eternity. Praying now for the victims of natural disasters, war and sickness not only expresses our sense of powerlessness, our concerns, fears and hopes, it demonstrates our faith and the hope we have in God. Again, as Creator, it is in God’s power to bring about any rational, beneficent outcome to any situation, evolving in time. The parable of the judge and the widow reveals how He does listen. Persistence with prayer, however, is not to cajole Him, but for our benefit in our journey to become more loving, faithfully committed persons.

In a sense, from our limited perspective as beings in time, we might consider that it all has been already done. God’s will is done, now and forever. In that case, it may seem pointless to pray. However, a more accurate vision is one that sees that all transpires in God’s one moment, eternity, all time and place being brought into existence, with God as its cause. He does not change what has been brought into existence in the relative past, but makes it so in its moment.

We should not forget that we can participate in the expression of His goodness; doing His will, having faith, we can move mountains.

 

[tonyrey]

I’m too despondent of the dearth of critical thinking in this thread to work up any enthusiasm to reply any more.

That is an unreasonable response to these facts:

1. The eye witnesses included several doctors who confirmed all the details of Pierre de Rudder’s infirmity and recovery.
2. “retroactive prayer” is a misnomer because the Creator transcends time and space.
3. The x-rays may well have been taken subsequently if they were thought to be necessary.
4. Spontaneous remission has never entailed the instantaneous growth of two inches of bone.
5. No evidence has been produced that all the witnesses colluded to commit fraud nor has any credible motive for such deception been presented.
6. The case for the prosecution would collapse instantly if such an allegation were taken to court.
7. There has been **no **credible physical explanation of Pierre de Rudder’s instant recovery.
8. Scepticism without any medical experience and a thorough investigation of the case
   is unjustified.

 

[Lost_Sheep]

I have not read this whole thread and I’m not going to, but maybe it’s simply because a miracle cannot be recording on video. If someone had, say, an apparition of the Blessed Mother and whipped out his cell phone to record it, her image might simply not record.

 

[inocente]

tonyrey;14146100:

You have overlooked the fact that a scrupulous investigation (which is insisted on by the Church) would include X-rays taken subsequently. Do you believe the Pope and cardinals are intent on deceiving everyone?

A clear case of misrepresentation! I haven’t even mentioned the Pope and cardinals, let alone that they insisted on using this new X-ray technology.

It should be obvious I didn’t mean the Pope and cardinals were directly involved in the investigation

“This is the operative statement. The other statements are now inoperable.” - Nixon’s press secretary during Watergate

*You haven’t answered my questions:

Does your scepticism about miracles apply to Jesus and His Apostles even though they are recorded in the New Testament? If not do you have any reason for believing there have **never ***been any answers to prayer by anyone else in the world, let alone Christians.

Seriously?

*Jesus answered, “It is said: ‘Do not put the Lord your God to the test.’”

When the devil had finished all this tempting, he left him until an opportune time. - Luke 4*

By your support for that joke remote retroactive prayer paper, you presumably feel God is now up for testing. But you have no support from your Church on the paper, so please don’t ask me questions as if I’m the one who is out of line, and please don’t try to tempt me or others into following you.

 

[inocente]

Oh, I have repeated the same arguments many times. I’m afraid you did not really answer them. Just like you gave no actual argument concerning “Moral outrage”.

Arguments.

Is that what they were.

*Do you expect me to send you my CV or what?

Seriously, how would one even try to prove some sort of “qualifications” here?*

You’re the one making the claim. It’s highly unusual for anyone to claim that a single statistical result is significant.

Every day there’s a study which statistically “proves” beer (say) is good for the health, only to be followed tomorrow by one which statistically “proves” the opposite. We all know that we ought to see many independent studies before we can take statistical claims seriously.

But you made a claim from a single paper, short-cutting all the corroborating studies normally required. so either you’re a world-class expert on medical statistics. Or you’re not.

*They have?

What would that mean? “Work” - as in “automatically”?

No, that’s only what you are hearing.

People are saying that God can take “retroactive” prayers into account - just like any other prayers.*

I think that’s a weaker claim than what some have been making, but if it involves God doing the bidding of a computer, as per the BMJ paper, then it’s still a joke.

Um, at best, it would mean that Church doesn’t preach that retroactive prayer “works” (and it doesn’t - if “works” is to be understood in the sense of “automatically”).

In fact, the one thing we know about prayers is that they “work” in ways that are unpredictable to us. By your example of Holocaust you have suggested that prayers should “work” when the thing being asked for is very good, just, important, being asked by many men… But is that hypothesis confirmed by, let’s say, Bible? Prayer of Jesus before crucifixion did not prevent crucifixion, although the thing being asked for would seem to be important. Mary’s request for wine for wedding feast would seem to be less important, but it was granted…

That’s not what I’ve been arguing. I’m being told that due to someone of unknown faith saying a few words over a computer listing, God retroactively had those the computer randomly picked get well sooner several years previously.

Now to me that procedure seems designed to make a joke of religion. If God paid so much attention to a computer then there would be no point whatsoever in your Church existing.

I think you guys leaped before you looked. You thought the paper was evidence for your beliefs, when if you’d only been a bit more skeptical, and on your guard against confirmation bias, you would have seen it for what it is, a neat little bit of festive humor.

 

[tonyrey]

“This is the operative statement. The other statements are now inoperable.” - Nixon’s press secretary during Watergate
Seriously?

Your have failed to refute my statements:

It should be obvious I didn’t mean the Pope and cardinals were directly involved in the investigation because **it is the local bishop who makes the decision **about whether a miracle has occurred after consultation with the International Medical Committee of Lourdes. If there were any doubt about the authenticity of the miracle they would ask for further evidence especially in a case of canonisation because they are the ones who are ultimately responsible for the reputation of the Church.

*Jesus answered, “It is said: ‘Do not put the Lord your God to the test.’”

When the devil had finished all this tempting, he left him until an opportune time. - Luke 4*

By your support for that joke remote retroactive prayer paper, you presumably feel God is now up for testing. But you have no support from your Church on the paper, so please don’t ask me questions as if I’m the one who is out of line, and please don’t try to tempt me or others into following you.

You have ignored my statements:

God exists in the eternal present. He knows what we pray for** regardless of when we pray.**

You have still failed to answer my questions about miracles:

Does your scepticism about miracles apply to Jesus and His Apostles even though they are recorded in the New Testament? If not **do you have any reason for believing there have never been any answers to prayer **by anyone else in the world, let alone Christians?

 

[tonyrey]

:twocents:

Your kid is abducted, there is a terrible earthquake in the area where much of your family lives, a bomb has exploded in the market your spouse has gone shopping, you peek out the window and see the military police jumping out of their vehicles moving in the direction of the home in which you are hiding. The odds are pretty close to one that something very bad has happened and it is only a matter of time before it manifests itself in its full severity.

What people do in such situations is pray. Atheist too, in that case the exhortation going out to blind luck. “Come on Mama, baby needs a new pair of shoes.”

The words in themselves, may be useful as a catharsis or simply to verbalized one’s thoughts and feelings to oneself, but regardless of how earnestly they are expressed they do not magically cause an event to happen. And, they are not going to change what has happened because what has happened is in accordance with God’s will. In such cases, the motivation behind the words likely includes difficulty in accepting His will. All the more reason to continue praying. But we do pray for His intercession, especially more so, when things seem hopeless knowing that it is in His power to bring about an outcome different from the horror that seems inevitable. At that point, it is important to maintain the dialogue with God, renew our faith in His goodness, connecting with the source of the hope, strength and courage required to bear our crosses.

Jesus Christ in the Garden of Gethsemane, knowing what is about to happen, makes His will known to the Father, reaffirming His consent and demonstrating the Love that is God.

God exists in eternity. Praying now for the victims of natural disasters, war and sickness not only expresses our sense of powerlessness, our concerns, fears and hopes, it demonstrates our faith and the hope we have in God. Again, as Creator, it is in God’s power to bring about any rational, beneficent outcome to any situation, evolving in time. The parable of the judge and the widow reveals how He does listen. Persistence with prayer, however, is not to cajole Him, but for our benefit in our journey to become more loving, faithfully committed persons.

In a sense, from our limited perspective as beings in time, we might consider that it all has been already done. God’s will is done, now and forever. In that case, it may seem pointless to pray. However, a more accurate vision is one that sees that all transpires in God’s one moment, eternity, all time and place being brought into existence, with God as its cause. He does not change what has been brought into existence in the relative past, but makes it so in its moment.

We should not forget that we can participate in the expression of His goodness; doing His will, having faith, we can move mountains.

:clapping: Irrefutable. God created time and space. It is anthropomorphic to think He is restricted by our concept of causality.