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

[MPat]

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

Your original post said nothing about faking (look yourself if you don’t believe it). It only demanded a video of a miracle. Any video (and that’s what you have been given).

This new requirement doesn’t work with your whole argument in the original post: while lots of people can record a video, I know no one who can record a video that couldn’t be faked.

If you can, explain how.

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?

People also fail to catch all kinds of things on camera. Especially things that are unexpected and short.

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.

Oh, but “video” and “video for which it has been proved that it hasn’t been tampered with” are very different. One is possible and existing, another one is impossible. For how do you expect to prove that a video hasn’t been edited?

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.

And you think that it is not enough to accept Catholicism as such “working hypothesis”, because…?

Believers of particular religious are making an outrageous claim: to speak for God. Surely they must offer some kind of proof right?

Why don’t you start with a proof that the claim is outrageous?

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.

Oh, but such statements “could be easily faked”. You think it’s OK to dismiss a miracle because of that - isn’t it OK to dismiss your claim that you would believe under certain conditions using this same standard?

In fact, you have claimed that a miracle “could be easily faked” without explaining how that could be done, but I can explain how your statement could be faked: either by lying or by failure to predict how you would act in circumstances that have never happened before.

By the way, if we took a weaker claim (that you think you would convert), it could be proved with a martyrdom - but I hope you will be able to see why giving such a proof would be a bad idea… Which would further show that sometimes one shouldn’t give a stronger proof, even if that was possible.

 

[Little_Tiger]

PRmerger-
Here’s the video my friend. This is part one, there is part two, three, and four also, which you can find on the site. Below the video is a link to part two
karlobroussard.com/proof-for-god-pt-i-why-there-must-be-at-least-one-unconditioned-reality/

 

[Little_Tiger]

PR, of course.

DaddyGirl - A lot of people don’t get advanced math either. It doesn’t make it untrue. The difference here is that there is a challenge to a person’s whole way of life.

Thank you

 

[PRmerger]

Dear friend,
We do indeed have 100% certitude. !

Just so we are clear: the original assertion by LT was that we can know of God’s existence with 100% certainty.

I disagreed. We don’t know most things with “100% certainty”.

Again my friend, the Vatican Council did not merely say that we can know through reason alone, but that we can know with certainty

Now, however, the assertion has morphed to: we can know with certainty of God’s existence.

And that, of course, is very Catholic.

So the new assertion by LT is what we can agree is correct.

 

[PRmerger]

Philosophy and thoughts are not *demonstrative *proof. They’re, like, the opposite of demonstrative.

Yep. Egg-zactly.

 

[MPat]

Philosophy and thoughts are not *demonstrative *proof. They’re, like, the opposite of demonstrative.

Don’t you think htat if %100 percent proof existed, everyone would be theists?

Of course not. Look at en.wikipedia.org/wiki/0.999… for just one area with many proofs that fails to persuade numerous men. There are more.

 

[Little_Tiger]

Just so we are clear: the original assertion by LT was that we can know of God’s existence with 100% certainty.

I disagreed. We don’t know most things with “100% certainty”.

Now, however, the assertion has morphed to: we can know with certainty of God’s existence.

And that, of course, is very Catholic.

So the new assertion by LT is what we can agree is correct.

We may not know most things with absolute certainty, but we do know God’s existence with absolute certainty. And I have provided a multitude of resources that show this, including the Strange Notions one, the Peter Kreeft one, the Catholic Answers one (which e_c did me the favor of quoting exactly where it says “100 % certainty”), the series of videos, and three books. Friend, you have not addressed any of them, all of which prove the existence of God, but merely continue to assert your opinion. I have proven my assertion with a plethora of resources. I would like to mention that I don’t care about winning arguments, I simply care about defending and spreading the truths of the Catholic Faith. And that necessarily entails clear and unrelenting argumentation.
Also, as for the post in which you agreed with DaddyGirl’s assertion regarding demonstration, no, that is simply untrue. Please see my response to DG in which I explain what demonstration is. And, please see the quotation of Pope Pius XII from Humani Generis I posted earlier which uses the word exactly as I am. Surely, you will believe the Successor of Peter guided by the Holy Spirit more than a guy named Little Tiger .
As always, God bless you!

 

[ThePoorInSpirit]

Problem: only a handful of people claim to have witnessed these miracles 2,000 years ago. The ancient literature of humanity reports fantastic miracles all over the place, and yet you reject them as fact (so do I). I believe we reject these things because they seem unlikely, and the texts are not reliable reports about reality.

An HD video can of course be manipulated. But, what if a small crowd witnessed the miracle I described, and recorded it from different angles? It would be difficult to deny the facts of the matter in that case!

NO, you repeatedly misunderstand. I believe God exists. I don’t believe the Catholic Church speaks with the voice of God. I think they’re mistaken, and I need a miracle to prove to me they aren’t.

If you want a miracle to boost your faith then pray and ask God to boost your faith and to boost your faith in His Church on Earth. He is the one who regulates who will experience a miracle and who won’t. Do you want to see a miracle? Ask your Father in Heaven.

 

[PRmerger]

We may not know most things with absolute certainty, but we do know God’s existence with absolute certainty.

Nope.

Not a single resource you provided has stated that.

All your resources have supported my assertion: we can know with certitude.

Just not absolute certitude.

There are very few things in our knowledge base that we can know with absolute certainty.

And God’s existence is not one of them.

(which e_c did me the favor of quoting exactly where it says “100 % certainty”)

I do not see e_c’s posts.

 

[ThePoorInSpirit]

Hello there,

'Twasn’t a claim I was making, tho. It was a perhaps.

I can’t see much evidence for miracles in the links you posted.
The first two links seem to be more about whether the gospels and the books in the Christian canon are mythical or not.
The first one makes a passing reference to miracles and the second one lists some people who believe in the Jesus story. The only specific miracle I see mentioned in the first two is the disciples seeing Jesus after he was crucified.
But the evidence provided in the blogs for this does not seem solid at all. IMO the testimony isn’t clear and certain as you feel it is.

People in the past believing what others before them wrote about what others before them say they saw…that is problematic and still very iffy.
If seeing Jesus in front of them is the main evidence, the difficulty with that is we know much more today about visions than people did 2000 years ago.
We know that 1 out of every 8 people has had some kind of visionary experience–the most common being deceased loved ones and revered religious figures.
So we can’t rely on writers we don’t know writing stories that have been passed along verbally for decades.
I spent years as a fact checker and…well, my boss would have had a field day with those quotes, lemme tell ya.

Unless of course…do we consider the thousands of visions people have had in recent years of loved ones/religious figures as bodily resurrections and miracles as well?
We can say that, I suppose.

The third link lead to a dead end.
The fourth Tim Staples link I couldn’t open without some sort of special app.

I can’t see where any of the first two links mention medical science as support of miracles.
Is this information in the links I cannot open?

I’ll get back to you on the Lourdes book. I have it somewhere and have read it and made notes.

.

As I mentioned to your other unbelieving friend, pumpkincookie(?) if YOU want to experience a miracle pray and ask God for faith. If you really want to have a stronger faith in God, He will touch your heart and mind and give you the faith. He knows whether you genuinely want your faith to grow or whether your blowing smoke in the air. Pray and experience His peace and love.

 

[Pat_Albertson]

Well, I think the camera question is a good one. I don’t have an answer, but that does not mean I’m giving up on belief either. It’s something to think about though . . .

 

[Little_Tiger]

Nope.

Not a single resource you provided has stated that.

All your resources have supported my assertion: we can know with certitude.

Just not absolute certitude.

There are very few things in our knowledge base that we can know with absolute certainty.

And God’s existence is not one of them.

I do not see e_c’s posts.

The Catholic Answers source explicitly stated it. And the Strange Notions source was very clear in that regard, also. And the book I mentioned, Reasons for Hope edited by Dr. Jeffrey Mirus also explicitly states it.
I must reiterate that you continue to say “no” and assert your position, but you have provided no evidence to support it, whereas I have provided numerous websites and books, infallible Church teaching, the Catechism, etc…please take a look at that Catechism quotation again, it is important - “more certain than all human knowledge”. Since you acknowledge that we know some things with 100% certainty, you implicitly acknowledge that we know the truths of the Faith with 100% certainty, since the Church tells us we know the truths of the Faith with a greater certainty than all human knowledge, given the infallible authority of God, to Whom we give our assent.
God bless, as always dear friend!

 

[Little_Tiger]

Oh, I’m sorry, I will quote what e_c quoted. How come you didn’t see his posts my friend? Sorry about that.

 

[Little_Tiger]

"But the Church has never offered an actual proof of God; it has left that to the philosophers. Although many have attempted to prove God’s existence, what they end up with is mere arguments. They may be quite persuasive, but they lack the metaphysical certitude of a mathematical proof. They may presuppose some bit of knowledge, or they may leave room for possible doubt.

But the medieval understanding of God, which St. Thomas Aquinas espoused, does not allow for doubting his existence. The proof that follows is a paraphrasing of the Angelic Doctor’s many writings that dealt with this subject. It proves the existence of a being that is one, immutable, eternal, infinite, omniscient, and omnipotent…

**We have thus proven the existence of a being (esse) that not only does exist but must exist and is one, unchanging, eternal, infinite, omniscient, and omnipotent. This matches our definition of God that we stated at the beginning.
**
We can conclude, then, that even if all of your sense perceptions are false, even if you are nothing but a brain in a vat being manipulated by scientists into believing that you are reading this article right now when in fact you are not, there are two things you can know with absolute, 100 percent certainty: (1) You exist, and (2) God exists."

 

[Little_Tiger]

That is from this source, here at CA - catholic.com/magazine/articles/a-proof-of-the-existence-of-god

 

[PRmerger]

The Catholic Answers source explicitly stated it.

Really? It said 100% certainty or 100% certitude or absolute certitude?

I didn’t see that.

Could you please point me to that?

Thanks.

 

[PRmerger]

Oh, I’m sorry, I will quote what e_c quoted. How come you didn’t see his posts my friend? Sorry about that.

I have him on ignore.

 

[PRmerger]

"But the Church has never offered an actual proof of God; it has left that to the philosophers. Although many have attempted to prove God’s existence, what they end up with is mere arguments. They may be quite persuasive, but they lack the metaphysical certitude of a mathematical proof. They may presuppose some bit of knowledge, or they may leave room for possible doubt.

But the medieval understanding of God, which St. Thomas Aquinas espoused, does not allow for doubting his existence. The proof that follows is a paraphrasing of the Angelic Doctor’s many writings that dealt with this subject. It proves the existence of a being that is one, immutable, eternal, infinite, omniscient, and omnipotent…

**We have thus proven the existence of a being (esse) that not only does exist but must exist and is one, unchanging, eternal, infinite, omniscient, and omnipotent. This matches our definition of God that we stated at the beginning.
**
We can conclude, then, that even if all of your sense perceptions are false, even if you are nothing but a brain in a vat being manipulated by scientists into believing that you are reading this article right now when in fact you are not, there are two things you can know with absolute, 100 percent certainty: (1) You exist, and (2) God exists."

Ah. Ok. Thank you.

I do not agree with James Kidd.

 

[Little_Tiger]

Ah. Ok. Thank you.

I do not agree with James Kidd.

I’m sorry my friend, but I find your conclusion hard to understand. Why do you disagree? Did you carefully read the Peter Kreeft source, the James Kidd source, the Strange Notions source, and watch the Karlo Broussard videos? This is a philosophical fact my friend, a truth.
God bless!

 

[PRmerger]

I’m sorry my friend, but I find your conclusion hard to understand. Why do you disagree?

Because it’s not possible to have 100% certainty of almost anything, including God’s existence.

Did you carefully read the Peter Kreeft source, the James Kidd source, the Strange Notions source, and watch the Karlo Broussard videos? This is a philosophical fact my friend, a truth.
God bless!

God’s existence is, indeed, a philosophical truth.

That we can know it with absolute certainty–no.

And that the Church teaches this–no.

Does the Church teach that we can have certainty of God’s existence? Absolutely.

But absolute certitude, not so much.