P
PRmerger
Guest
Right.
But if a miracle occurred, it would prove God’s existence.
You say no.
So my question: what would be the cause of the miracle?
Billions of people have HD video cameras in their pockets: why aren't we seeing lots of miracles on video?
- Status
But if a miracle occurred, it would prove God’s existence.
You say no.
So my question: what would be the cause of the miracle?
P
PRmerger
Guest
Well, only 1 seeing it would prove God’s existence, yes?
And wasn’t it thousands who saw him resurrected?
Now, it’s true no one actually saw The Moment, the actual “He’s dead. Now he’s alive” moment. But the miracle is that he was alive again.
And didn’t thousands see that?
L
Little_Tiger
Guest
Thank you for the compliment, it’s the nickname my father gave me when I was small and I
cherish it
.Keep in mind, truth is only objective. There is no such thing as something equaling truth for me, but not equaling truth for you. Truth is truth, objective, universal, and immutable. To know why the Catholic Faith is objectively true, I suggest reading two (or three) books in conjunction, all of which are in my signature below:
Laying the Foundation: A Handbook of Catholic Apologetics and Fundamental Theology by Fr; Joseph Fenton, S.T.D., and the book we discussed earlier, The Miracle of Lourdes by Ruth Cranston. The third is Faith and Certitude by Fr. Thomas Dubay. I also recommend highly Tim Staples’ DVD “Why Be Catholic” which addresses the topic well. Other good resources on the subject are College Apologetics: Proof of the Truth of the Catholic Faith by Fr. Anthony Alexander, The Belief of Catholics by Msgr. Ronald Knox, Reasons for Hope by Marshner and Carroll, edited by Dr. Mirus, and Catholic Apologetics Today by Fr. William Most, which is available for free online at CatholicCulture.org.
Also, keep in mind, that as someone who thankfully has come to the knowledge of the objective truth, for me to not acknowledge it as such would be straightforwardly dishonest and deceitful. If I know something is true, I cannot help but acknowledge it as such.
God bless you!
M
mikekle
Guest
Thats why I always believed when the antichrist does come, alot of people are going to be easily convinced he really is Jesus returned, I mean, seeing ANYONE that has supernatural abilities would be enough in itself to convince majority of people, that the person is probably what they claim to be, I mean, how many other people that display supernatural powers have been seen…NONE YET, its not like its a common thing.
L
LethalMouse
Guest
But why would God need to? In I forget the movie regarding either aliens or supernatural beings… someone asks why and the other human says “do you ever explain yourself to a cockroach?”
So, in a sense and the best analogy available is say kids and dogs. We show/explain certain things to them but in some cases not all.
But why? Because we either know better or know they won’t understand.
In the case of dogs more than kids, it is not even relevant to “prove” ourselves right.
What God does is give us what we need and we choose to take or leave it. To say He “needs” to prove something or even to approach it with that mentality is laughable when you think about it.
A dog doesn’t comprhend why it can’t poop in a particular spot as deemed by its human… but a good dog listens anyway. A bad dog keeps pooping there and probably in its crazy dog head demands a proven reason that satisifies its greatness to warrant any poop cessation.
So when we bark orders at heaven and demand more, we are kind of acting like that dog who always poops where it shouldn’t
But in all seriousness, why do people have events and still not believe?
I mean forget proving to me or you or Joe down the block.
Why do some athesits have serious undeniable events that to them alone occured. They show not a single sign of mental issue and have just seen “something” in some miracle form. And they tell the story but proceed to be atheist?
I have quite a few atheist friends who report some serious events in their past and I don’t mean human type ones.
But yet they all approach God as clearly not proving Himself. With at best a half a maybe the events prove… but IDK maybe not.
Maybe not?
So when and where would they believe? I know atheists who have seen more supernatural things than any believer I ever met… and yet they do not believe.
So what, when, where would my athesits ever believe.
Not saying any here fit the bill, but as solid evangelical athesits, why would an athesit who has witnessed these things you all seek still maintain a solid atheism or at the very least agnosticism.
L
Little_Tiger
Guest
With all due respect, this is a baseless assertion with no evidence, whereas I provided a plethora of evidence my friend. If we assert something unequivocally to be a philosophical truth, we imply absolute certainty.Because it’s not possible to have 100% certainty of almost anything, including God’s existence.
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.
L
Little_Tiger
Guest
That we can know with absolute certainty - yesBecause it’s not possible to have 100% certainty of almost anything, including God’s existence.
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.
And the Church teaches this - yes, see the Humani Generis quotation that refers to demonstrative certainty.
God bless you friend!
P
Pat_Albertson
Guest
As often happens to me during prayer and mass, my mind wandered a bit, and I may have come up with an answer of sorts. Perhaps miracles occurred back then but don’t occur now because they do not occur at a constant rate per unit of time as millennia pass. Perhaps, though, some other things have come to take their place.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 . . .
As some have already noted, many present day miracles are healings. One thing that is different today is the certainty of medicine as compared to the past. When doctors are baffled now, it is much more likely to be the case that there is something truly odd going on than in the past.
Which brings me to my next point: we have more people now coming close to death’s door and then coming back than ever before, and as a consequence, NDE accounts have virtually exploded in number. The first recorded NDE was by a warrior named Er in the year 380 BC, mentioned by Plato in his book,The Republic, but they weren’t exactly common in literature. A French medical record from Paris in 1740 was found to include the oldest known reference to a NDE in a patient. The book (In the Kingdom of the Blessed) was written by military physician Pierre-Jean du Monchaux. That is not a particularly long time ago.
Now, I’m not saying that all NDEs are from either heaven or hell, or that the ones from heaven are not actually inspired by demons. Nor am I saying that some of the reported phenomena could not come from certain drugs (particularly DMT), but I don’t think there is a perfect overlap between DMT experiences and NDEs, which leaves us with the open question of whether or not there is anything about the spiritual nature of NDEs that is real.
In summary, perhaps strange healings taking place in the face of modern medicine where modern medicine says no, and reports of NDEs, have taken the place of more the more physical sorts of miracles. Perhaps there is no empirical substitute for thought and belief.
Anyway, it’s an interesting thought . . .
L
Little_Tiger
Guest
I should have posted this earlier when the topic was being discussed, but I will so so now. It was claimed that miracles are not necessarily connected with God, if I recall correctly. But, miracles properly so-called are in fact necessarily connected with God, the infinite divine power. If they are not, they must be called something other than miracles - karlobroussard.com/what-constitutes-a-miracle/
May Almighty God bless all!
May Almighty God bless all!
P
Peebo
Guest
God is not a showman…“step right up folks…be amazed…see me perform a miracle before your very eyes”…he gave everyone a free will to either believe or not believe…millions of Christians believe and have never seen a miracle…those who don’t believe because they haven’t seen a miracle have the same free will to accept or reject God…it’s no good complaining or blaming God…we all have the same opportunuty
P
Pat_Albertson
Guest
Perhaps then, the healings we see nowadays are really by angels and saints with God’s permission, and are preternatural in nature rather than supernatural. If the saints are in heaven, then perhaps they now have vast infused knowledge like the angels.
P
PRmerger
Guest
L
Little_Tiger
Guest
Hello,
Good thought, but what we must note is that, whenever the Church approves a miracle, whether it is at Lourdes or for the process of beatification and canonization, two things must be absolutely proved - first, scientists must prove that the event is completely beyond the powers of nature (not merely inexplicable, but definitively beyond natural causation, including some unknown natural cause), and then, theologians must investigate the event to determine definitively that it could not be wrought by the angelic nature, but only by infinite Divine power. Karlo Broussard made a good point on Catholic Answers Live recently - a demon (or angel) has the power to effect things such as levitation (the specific example Karlo used), but not the power to create out of nothing, miraculously generate human tissue and bone, etc…This page sheds light on this very topic -
ewtn.com/johnpaul2/cause/process.asp
“While the scientific commission rules that the cure is without natural explanation, the theological commission must rule whether the cure was a miracle in the strict sense, that is, by its nature can only be attributed to God. To avoid any question of remission due to unknown natural causation, or even unrecognized therapeutic causation, theologians prefer cures of diseases judged beyond hope by medicine, and which occur more or less instantaneously. The disappearance of a malignancy from one moment to another, or the instantaneous regeneration of diseased, even destroyed, tissue excludes natural processes, all of which take time. Such cases also exclude the operation of the angelic nature. While the enemy could provoke a disease by his oppression and simulate a cure by withdrawing his action, the cure could not be instantaneous, even one day to the next. Much less can he regenerate tissue from nothing. These are, therefore, the preferred kinds of cases since they unequivocally point to a divine cause.”
And, on an entirely unrelated note, I must say that, as a cat owner (currently with a new kitten) I love your signature my friend
. I have seen it said - “Dogs have owners, cats have staff.” Lol!May God bless you dear friend!
L
Little_Tiger
Guest
My friend, I truly hope my comments do not come off as rude, but I must say- the difference between our assertions is that I have continually and consistently backed mine up with a multitude of sources, including noted Catholic philosophers, James Kidd and Karlo Broussard from right here at CA, Magisterial documents, and the Catechism of the Catholic Church, whereas your assertions (as always, with all due respect and brotherly charity) are mere assertions with no rational base or evidence.
God bless you dear friend! You are in my prayers, as are all those I have been conversing with on this thread!
P
PRmerger
Guest
Yes, we can demonstrate with certainty God’s existence.
- yes, see the Humani Generis quotation that refers to demonstrative certainty.
God bless you friend!
We just don’t have 100% certainty.
And the Magisterium NEVER says this.
P
PRmerger
Guest
[SIGN1]You haven’t shown anything from the Magisterium.[/SIGN1]
And I believe Kidd to be wrong.
Karlo Broussard and Peter Kreeft are my heroes, and I’ve not read or heard a single thing from them that says God’s existence can be known with 100% certainty.
P
PRmerger
Guest
And I have William Lane Craig on my side.
L
Little_Tiger
Guest
My friend, in philosophy, there is no such thing as a demonstration that is not 100% certain unless, of course, that demonstration is unsound (in which case we would simply have a failed proof and no certainty whatsoever). A philosophical demonstration, by its very definition, implies 100% certitude. And Pope Pius XII makes it clear that we can demonstrate God’s existence.
L
Little_Tiger
Guest
Watch the videos of Karlo Broussard’s my friend, please. Or, actually, since I have been in email contact with him recently, would you like me to ask him personally? That would be fine also.
P
PRmerger
Guest
Yes, that would be great. You can direct him to my wall here on the CAFs.
- Status