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

  • Thread starter Thread starter PumpkinCookie
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
PumpkinCookie said:
Yes I realize that is your assessment of me, that’s great.
Click to expand...
I find the “that’s great” to be puzzling. And not true.

Reason tells me you do not think my assessment of you is “great”. At all.
None of us are ever disinterested judges
Click to expand...
You should be, if you are coming to a forum to discuss religion and claiming you want to be informed.
We are both rational and animal, it’s not possible to escape our natures and become totally either.
Click to expand...
This sounds like the excuse a philandering husband makes: hey, I’m both rational and animal.

Except the wife just has to say: well, subjugate that stupid animal and let your rational mind take over.
To respond to your earlier post, no, something like the trinity is not accessible to reason, and that’s not the God in which I believe
Click to expand...
Yes. You are like the millions of folks who reject the “hard sayings” and try to re-create a god that conforms to your own views.
 
PumpkinCookie said:
The literature of the ancient world is full of fantastic miracles. Not only in religious texts, but the foundational narratives of all civilizations contain references to many miraculous and wondrous events. Humans turning into animals, witches, spells, griffins, centaurs, resurrections, healings, angels, giants, trolls, magic, nymphs, and all manner of supernatural and magical creatures and events fill our ancient texts. In various religious traditions we have numerous accounts of miracles attributed to saints, Jesus, Mary, the 12 Imams, various avatars of Krishna, etc.

So…why did all of these fantastic things just…stop? There are billions of people walking around with HD video cameras in their pockets (phones). At any moment, anywhere in the world, there is a high probability that an event can be captured on video and uploaded to the internet within minutes. Not only do billions of people have cameras, but we have cameras orbiting our planet taking pictures of it continuously. Not only that, but there are security cameras all over the developed world.

This has revolutionized criminal justice, international relations, and the entire world economy. If miracles happened at all, it seems likely that at least some would be recorded in real time and uploaded to the internet, doesn’t it?

Imagine if Fatima happened today! If the same events happened today, our satellites could capture it, and the thousands of witnesses would have video from thousands of angles. People across the world would see the video and immediately convert to Catholicism. Imagine if just one person were able to speak “in tongues” on video and everyone in the world understood that person in their native languages simultaneously and miraculously.

So…where are these miracles? Why the total silence?
Click to expand...
So, there are two main points here: 1) you claim that miracles haven’t been recorded on video, 2) you claim that miracles could have been expected to be recorded on video. Both points are false.

First, it is trivially easy to find a video showing a miracle. Just look for any recording of Mass. It will include one miracle (transubstantiation).

Also, you can find a video showing, let’s say, miracle of St. Januarius blood. Let’s say:
That’s just a small sample. You might note that even this sample includes one video that, most likely, is an extract of news shown on Italian TV, and two videos showing the same thing from different angles.

Those videos were not hard to find. So, why haven’t you found them? Have you even tried to do any investigation at all before making wild claims?

Your second point was that you claim that miracles could have been expected to be recorded on video. That’s also false: if something unexpected happens (and miracles are not always expected), just taking the camera or smartphone out of the pocket takes too much time. And one also has to turn the camera on, point it just right…
PumpkinCookie said:
Now, in my mind anyway, miracles are different from merely improbable or unexplained events. I want to see something actually impossible. I want to see someone rise from the grave after being dead and buried for 3 full days. I want to see water literally turn into wine in real time. I want to see bread and fish multiply, and fig trees wither suddenly upon command, etc. I want to SEE that Marian apparition make a specific prophecy that is fulfilled unambiguously. Imagine if Jesus had appeared to Faustina today instead of the early 20th century. Instead of recording the miraculous apparition in a diary, she could have recorded it on her phone.

NO excuses. NO BS. Real-time bona-fide impossibilities on camera, preferably from several cameras and angles. A kid and his grandma surviving a freak car accident is not good enough. A woman surviving her car going down in 10 feet of water is not good enough (automatic windows shut themselves sometimes, or she could have hit the button with her foot on the way out). Waxy incorruptible bodies are not good enough.
Click to expand...
So, now the requirements have changed and a video is no longer sufficient? How predictable.

It would make just as much sense to refuse to believe that atoms exist, demanding that “Why aren’t atoms the size of billiard balls, so that they could be touched?”. And yet you do believe atoms exist without such evidence, right? And why?

In fact you seem to act as if it was not your job to investigate, but someone else had a duty to persuade you. Once again - why?
PumpkinCookie said:
Let me put it this way: if you could show me verified, authentic (un-edited) video of an amputee re-growing a full arm or leg within a few minutes at the request of a Roman Catholic clergy who prays something like this:

“Oh Trinity, as defined by the Catholic Church, please heal this person’s limb through the intercession of Mary and all the officially canonized saints. By healing this limb, you endorse the One Holy Apostolic Roman Catholic Church as the one and exclusive true church and your official spokesmen on earth, and affirm that all creatures must be subject to the Roman Pontiff and generally approve of this same church’s infallible authority in all matters of faith and morals”

I will publicly repent, convert to Catholicism, and become an evangelist.
Click to expand...
That’s an interesting claim. Are you certain that you would? And (if you are) why are you certain? And, of course, what makes you think that it would be reasonable?

Also, let’s note how the requirements have risen once again. And I see no reason why that wouldn’t continue.
 
PRmerger said:
That’s not 100% certainty, LT.

Those are arguments which state: it’s more likely than not likely that God exists.

But definitely not 100% certainty.
Click to expand...
My friend, it is indeed 100% certainty. Please read the links, and consider buying the book (or looking for it in a library, they very well may have it). We can demonstratively prove, through a chain of philosophical, logical reasoning, not only that God does exist, but that He must exist. In fact, the link to the website “Strange Notions” actually makes clear at the conclusion of the proof that it is not a probabilistic argument for the existence of God, but a 100% certain proof. Not only is this a fact of philosophy, but it is infallible Catholic teaching. The First Vatican Council tells us: “The same Holy mother Church holds and teaches that God, the source and end of all things, can be known with certainty from the consideration of created things, by the natural power of human reason” and “anyone says that the one, true God, our creator and lord, cannot be known with certainty from the things that have been made, by the natural light of human reason: let him be anathema.”
May God bless you my friend! Be well always!
 
MPat said:
So, there are two main points here: 1) you claim that miracles haven’t been recorded on video, 2) you claim that miracles could have been expected to be recorded on video. Both points are false.

First, it is trivially easy to find a video showing a miracle. Just look for any recording of Mass. It will include one miracle (transubstantiation).

Also, you can find a video showing, let’s say, miracle of St. Januarius blood. Let’s say:
That’s just a small sample. You might note that even this sample includes one video that, most likely, is an extract of news shown on Italian TV, and two videos showing the same thing from different angles.

Those videos were not hard to find. So, why haven’t you found them? Have you even tried to do any investigation at all before making wild claims?
Click to expand...
The Januarius spectacle could be easily faked. I am familiar with it. Mark Twain wrote about it:

ebooks.adelaide.edu.au/t/twain/mark/innocents/chapter29.html
MPat said:
Your second point was that you claim that miracles could have been expected to be recorded on video. That’s also false: if something unexpected happens (and miracles are not always expected), just taking the camera or smartphone out of the pocket takes too much time. And one also has to turn the camera on, point it just right…
Click to expand...
Oh come now, it shouldn’t be that difficult! People catch all kinds of things on camera. Why shouldn’t we expect miracles from various people who claim to be holy?
MPat said:
So, now the requirements have changed and a video is no longer sufficient? How predictable.

It would make just as much sense to refuse to believe that atoms exist, demanding that “Why aren’t atoms the size of billiard balls, so that they could be touched?”. And yet you do believe atoms exist without such evidence, right? And why?

In fact you seem to act as if it was not your job to investigate, but someone else had a duty to persuade you. Once again - why?
Click to expand...
No, video is quite good enough. It would be great to have more than one so it couldn’t be said to be a fake. It would also be essential to verify that the video hadn’t been edited or tampered with.

I’m not sure I “believe” in atoms. It seems to be a working hypothesis for now. I suppose physicists will change their model when they have new evidence to suggest this.

Believers of particular religious are making an outrageous claim: to speak for God. Surely they must offer some kind of proof right?
MPat said:
That’s an interesting claim. Are you certain that you would? And (if you are) why are you certain? And, of course, what makes you think that it would be reasonable?

Also, let’s note how the requirements have risen once again. And I see no reason why that wouldn’t continue.
Click to expand...
You’re right, it could be a post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy. I suppose it isn’t 100% reasonable to believe a religious preacher just because they seem to perform a miracle on video. But, I think it would be more likely to be a miraculous endorsement of Catholicism than a coincidence, and so I stand by my statement.
 
PumpkinCookie said:
The Januarius spectacle could be easily faked.
Click to expand...
Annnnnd here it is, folks. Exactly why the “I’ll believe when a miracle occurs in front of me” is just a smokescreen.

It’s a setup.

There is no situation which couldn’t be construed as a fake by someone who is adamantine that the Church is wrong.
 
PRmerger said:
http://media.tumblr.com/c0569ea4b1d95d1133a9d9c861572681/tumblr_inline_mhf45fEQkh1qz4rgp.gif

As William Lane Craig says (paraphrasing): we don’t have 100% certainty, but then again, there’s almost nothing that we have 100% certainty on.
Click to expand...
Dear friend,
We do indeed have 100% certitude. While Dr. Craig is a powerful opponent of the “new atheism” and its absurdities, as well as a very intelligent man, he is straightforwardly incorrect here. Remember, the infallible Church, which speaks with the voice of Christ, has defined infallibly that we can indeed know God’s existence with certainty through human reason alone. Not only that, but the links I posted actually philosophically demonstrate the necessity of God’s existence. Not only does He exist, He can’t not exist, to employ a double-negative. I also would re-recommend the Aquinas book by Dr. Feser, a great Catholic philosopher (he also has a blog which I would recommend). Moreover, I would highly suggest reading Reasons for Hope, an apologetics book edited by Dr. Jeffrey Mirus, president of Trinity Communications and co-founder of Christendom College (he has a Ph.D. in intellectual history from Princeton which, although it has nothing to do with the truthfulness of his beliefs, I simply find cool :D:cool:). Hold on while I check for the authors, I’m not sure I recall their names. Also, you should try (if you like) Tim Staples’ DVD “Why Be Catholic,” in which he examines this topic.
As always, I wish you well, and may God bless you!
 
Here are the authors of the Dr. Mirus book: Warren H. Marshner and William H. Carroll.
Be well!
 
Little_Tiger said:
Dear friend,
We do indeed have 100% certitude.
Click to expand...
Nope.
While Dr. Craig is a powerful opponent of the “new atheism” and its absurdities, as well as a very intelligent man, he is straightforwardly incorrect here. Remember, the infallible Church, which speaks with the voice of Christ, has defined infallibly that we can indeed know God’s existence with certainty through human reason alone.
Click to expand...
Yes, of course. That is correct that we can know God’s existence through reason alone.

But that is NOT THE SAME THING as saying that we have 100% certainty because we have used our reason.

There’s a whole lot of things we can know with our reason, but we don’t know with 100% certainty.

To wit: I can know that you exist, you speak English, and that you are interested in religion—and I know this through using my reason alone.

But I don’t have 100% certainty of this.

I certainly wouldn’t risk my life or my children’s life on this–“If you’re not 100% certain that Little Tiger exists, speaks English and is interested in religion, I will kill your child!”–em…yep. I’d say, “Yes, I’m not going to risk my life on that.”

Now, there are a few things we can be 100% certain about. For example, the existence of a square triangle.

If someone said, “Do you risk your life that a square triangle might exist” I would say, “I am willing to bet my life that a square triangle doesn’t exist.”.

Why? Because I have 100% certainty of this…

Pretty much. 😉
 
PRmerger said:
As William Lane Craig says (paraphrasing): we don’t have 100% certainty, but then again, there’s almost nothing that we have 100% certainty on.
Click to expand...
William Lane Craig is an Evangelical. So, he may not care much about the following… But you probably will…

First Vatican Council, Chapter 2, Section1:
The same Holy Mother Church holds and teaches that God, the source and end of all things, can be known with certainty from the consideration of created things, by the natural power of human reason… “Ever since the creation of the world, his invisible nature has been clearly perceived in the things that have been made.”
Click to expand...
It is “de fide” that the existence of God is 100% certain, and that He can be known to exist by the light of natural reason with such perfect certainty.
 
PRmerger said:
Nope.

Yes, of course. That is correct that we can know God’s existence through reason alone.

But that is NOT THE SAME THING as saying that we have 100% certainty because we have used our reason.

There’s a whole lot of things we can know with our reason, but we don’t know with 100% certainty.

To wit: I can know that you exist, you speak English, and that you are interested in religion—and I know this through using my reason alone.

But I don’t have 100% certainty of this.

I certainly wouldn’t risk my life or my children’s life on this–“If you’re not 100% certain that Little Tiger exists, speaks English and is interested in religion, I will kill your child!”–em…yep. I’d say, “Yes, I’m not going to risk my life on that.”

Now, there are a few things we can be 100% certain about. For example, the existence of a square triangle.

If someone said, “Do you risk your life that a square triangle might exist” I would say, “I am willing to bet my life that a square triangle doesn’t exist.”.

Why? Because I have 100% certainty of this…

Pretty much. 😉
Click to expand...
Let’s call certain knowledge “justified true belief formed virtuously in a favorable environment.”

We don’t evaluate the “truth” element, since that is to beg the question.

It is justified - we have many reasons of different kinds.

It is a belief.

It is formed virtuously - through careful study and consideration.

It is formed in a favorable environment (the universe “in itself”).
 
e_c said:
William Lane Craig is an Evangelical. So, he may not care much about the following… But you probably will…

First Vatican Council, Chapter 2, Section1:

It is “de fide” that the existence of God is 100% certain, and that He can be known to exist by the light of natural reason with such perfect certainty.
Click to expand...
Thank you e_c, you hit the nail on the head!
God bless you, my friend!
 
Little_Tiger said:
Thank you e_c, you hit the nail on the head!
God bless you, my friend!
Click to expand...
Again, knowing something by reason alone IS NOT THE SAME thing as having 100% certitude.

I can know some things about you by using my intellect and powers of reason and deduction, but I DO NOT HAVE 100% certainty of these things.
 
PumpkinCookie said:
This has revolutionized criminal justice, international relations, and the entire world economy. If miracles happened at all, it seems likely that at least some would be recorded in real time and uploaded to the internet, doesn’t it?
Click to expand...
God does not necessarily indulge in selfies. Maybe for Moses and Jesus, but not for cynics.

Moreover, if he performed like a magician what would be the point?

Anyone who denies miracles would find a way to posit how the rabbit came out of the hat.
 
PRmerger said:
Nope.

Yes, of course. That is correct that we can know God’s existence through reason alone.

But that is NOT THE SAME THING as saying that we have 100% certainty because we have used our reason.

There’s a whole lot of things we can know with our reason, but we don’t know with 100% certainty.

To wit: I can know that you exist, you speak English, and that you are interested in religion—and I know this through using my reason alone.

But I don’t have 100% certainty of this.

I certainly wouldn’t risk my life or my children’s life on this–“If you’re not 100% certain that Little Tiger exists, speaks English and is interested in religion, I will kill your child!”–em…yep. I’d say, “Yes, I’m not going to risk my life on that.”

Now, there are a few things we can be 100% certain about. For example, the existence of a square triangle.

If someone said, “Do you risk your life that a square triangle might exist” I would say, “I am willing to bet my life that a square triangle doesn’t exist.”.

Why? Because I have 100% certainty of this…

Pretty much. 😉
Click to expand...
The existence of God is one of those things. Keep in mind firstly, as e_c has reminded us, the Vatican Council did not merely define that we can know the existence of God through reason, it defined that we can know it with certainty through reason. By the way, in the face of the appeal to Dr. Craig, an Evangelical as e_c pointed out, I will appeal to Dr. Edward Feser (as I have) and Dr. Peter Kreeft (author of the First Cause link which I recommend reading and re-reading, since it demonstrates how we can know with perfect, absolute, and 100% certainty the existence of God), both philosophers, both Catholics, and both in opposition to the fallacy sadly espoused by a man as intelligent as Dr. Craig. As well as, of course, the infallible Magisterium, protected from error in its infallible declarations by the Holy Spirit, and St. Thomas Aquinas :). Again my friend I most highly recommend the links and books I cited :).
 
PRmerger said:
Again, knowing something by reason alone IS NOT THE SAME thing as having 100% certitude.

I can know some things about you by using my intellect and powers of reason and deduction, but I DO NOT HAVE 100% certainty of these things.
Click to expand...
Again my friend, the Vatican Council did not merely say that we can know through reason alone, but that we can know with certainty through reason alone :). This is definitive Catholic doctrine, and therefore, definitive objective truth.
God bless you!
 
Little_Tiger said:
Thank you e_c, you hit the nail on the head!
God bless you, my friend!
Click to expand...
Incidentally, if you can offer something from the magisterium that speaks of “100% certitude” regarding knowledge of God’s existence, could you post it here?

Otherwise, we can assume that what I have proposed is correct: we can know that God exists through the use of our reason and intellect alone, but that does not give us 100% certitude. Faith, too is required.

See* Fides et Ratio.*
 
Little_Tiger said:
Again my friend, the Vatican Council did not merely say that we can know through reason alone, but that we can know with certainty through reason alone :). This is definitive Catholic doctrine, and therefore, definitive objective truth.
God bless you!
Click to expand...
Yes. We have certainty. But not 100% certainty.

There is almost nothing in our human epistemology that we can know with 100% certitude.
 
Little_Tiger said:
The existence of God is one of those things. Keep in mind firstly, as e_c has reminded us, the Vatican Council did not merely define that we can know the existence of God through reason, it defined that we can know it with certainty through reason. By the way, in the face of the appeal to Dr. Craig, an Evangelical as e_c pointed out, I will appeal to Dr. Edward Feser (as I have) and Dr. Peter Kreeft (author of the First Cause link which I recommend reading and re-reading, since it demonstrates how we can know with perfect, absolute, and 100% certainty the existence of God), both philosophers, both Catholics, and both in opposition to the fallacy sadly espoused by a man as intelligent as Dr. Craig. As well as, of course, the infallible Magisterium, protected from error in its infallible declarations by the Holy Spirit, and St. Thomas Aquinas :). Again my friend I most highly recommend the links and books I cited :).
Click to expand...
Can you please cite where Dr. Kreeft uses “100% certainty” in any of his arguments?

Thanks.
 
PRmerger said:
Incidentally, if you can offer something from the magisterium that speaks of “100% certitude” regarding knowledge of God’s existence, could you post it here?

Otherwise, we can assume that what I have proposed is correct: we can know that God exists through the use of our reason and intellect alone, but that does not give us 100% certitude. Faith, too is required.

See* Fides et Ratio.*
Click to expand...
My friend, the Vatican Council did in fact say “certainty”. Do you expect an Ecumenical Council from the 19th century to use the terminology “100%”. No, they simply did not speak that way, particularly in Church documents. So, the Council was very clear on this subject. But there are other Magisterial documents, hold on 🙂
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top