Challenge from a Skeptic re: Miracles

[juhothenero]

doxa.ws/other/Miracles4.html

Thanks for this but is not going to cut it over here since these are not academia sources… Isambard is overly limiting his own perception of the world without giving a shred of evidence that his might actually be good enough… he just throws sentences here and there with not too much logic behind them…

But thanks for this, I be interested to read…

 

[PRmerger]

Please, do define truth as you seem to operating outside the dictionary definition.

What is Truth? Ok, Pontius Pilate , Truth is that which corresponds with reality.

 

[buffalo]

Lets get something straight. For something to be a scientific fact, it **has to be **published in a scientific journal and gain acceptance among other scientists.

So the sun doesn’t shine unless the scientists agree it does?

 

[Isambard]

Objectivity is both an important and very difficult concept to pin down in philosophy. While there is no universally accepted articulation of objectivity, a proposition is generally considered to be objectively true when its truth conditions are “mind-independent”—that is, not the result of any judgments made by a conscious entity. Put another way, objective truths are those which are discovered rather than created. While such formulations capture the basic intuitive idea of objectivity, neither is without controversy.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objectivity_(philosophy

objective truth seems to be a controversial issue, it seems to be that you defining your self was it Deconstruction-Nietzsche should know this kind of basic philosophy…

Odd, I could’ve sworn we were talking about objectivity in reality, not thought concepts.

“”[A]n objective account is one which attempts to capture the nature of the object studied in a way that does not depend on any features of the particular subject who studies it. An objective account is, in this sense, impartial, one which could ideally be accepted by any subject, because it does not draw on any assumptions, prejudices, or values of particular subjects. This feature of objective accounts means that disputes can be contained to the object studied." (Gaukroger, 2001, p. 10785).

Science is mostly regarded objective in this sense and this objectivity in science is often attributed with the property of scientific measurement that can be tested independent from the individual scientist (the subject) who proposes them. It is thus intimately related to the aim of testability and reproducibility. To be properly considered objective, the results of measurement must be communicated from person-to-person, and then demonstrated for third parties, as an advance in understanding of the objective world. Such demonstrable knowledge would ordinarily confer demonstrable powers of prediction or technological construction."
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objectivity_%28science%29

You also fail at your ad hominem as you dont seem to grasp what either being a deconstructionist or a Nietzschean means *which is obvious by your earlier assertion that they somehow contradict each other lol).

[by the way you still making a lot of assertions without a single shred of proof, one good one being reading me to have said something i most clearly didn’t, it is a getting a bit tiring can you explain to how your definition of objective is better then mine?

Yours is based on special pleading.

You have yet to show which relevant question Ive yet to answer.

[remember this: *While there is no universally accepted articulation of objectivity

You forgot this “a proposition is generally considered to be objectively true when its truth conditions are “mind-independent”—that is, not the result of any judgments made by a conscious entity. Put another way, objective truths are those which are discovered rather than created. While such formulations capture the basic intuitive idea of objectivity, neither is without controversy.”

Quote mining ftl.
[/quote]

 

[Isambard]

are you that guy who said deconstruction and Nietzsche together in one term? I was just wondering because your trust in dictionaries is overwhelming especially if you know something about philosophy… maybe that was Ateista who defined him/herself according to those words

OOps. I see youve danced around the question.

 

[Isambard]

Now i will show you your fallacy:

I said: words objective and scientific don’t mean the same thing..

note i used this to refute this:
Weather something is considered a miracal or not is not being debated. If miracals are based on objective and/or scientific evidence is.

Which you respond:

Yes, scientific evidence deals with the natural world, objective evidence can be scientific, as well as historical, sociological, etc etc.

Nice attempt at a quote mine. Shame you read over the “and/or”.

I Said:* you disprove those Vatican sources in something else then your screaming for scientific evidence, in post 299 i refuted your argument against them quite well and i will continue with this evidence:

cut out a small portion

Refute that please*

I did. Go back and re-read my posts. Your selective reading is getting tiring.

And later you said:

Explain to me how this is not a fallacy

What fallacy? You cheery-picking what Ive written is your problem not mine.

When you make scientific not same as objective, but scientific defines objective, objectivity defined in scientific terms…

Nom I said scientific evidence is a form of objective evidence, but not all objective evidence is scientific. Way to fail reading comprehension.

This is a clear fallacy, you are limiting a word overly and making your own definition out of it…

Or you failing to understand word concepts.

My definition would be:

objective = world without human interaction

Scientific method studies objective

Faith shows objective

Subjective = Limiting objective

Umm no. Nowhere in what **you quoted **does it say that faith is objective.

According to this definition your objective is to me subjective

How about your definition of objective?

Mine is the one above, dealing with what we are actually talking about. Stop trying to make up your own definitions.

 

[juhothenero]

Objectivism, or metaphysical objectivism, is the view that there is a reality or realm of objects and facts existing wholly independent of the mind. Stronger versions of this claim might hold that there is only one correct description of this reality; they may or may not hold that we have any knowledge of it. If it is true that reality is independent of the mind, the reality of objectivism is thus inclusive of objects which one may not know about and are not the intended objects of mental acts. Objectivity in referring requires a definition of what is true, and is distinct from the objects themselves which cannot be said to be true or false. An object may truthfully be said to have this or that attribute, such as the statement “This object exists”, whereas the statement “This object is true” or “false” is meaningless. Thus, only references, or the statements one makes about objects without assigning truth value to the object itself, are true or false. Essentially, the terms “objectivity” and “objectivism” are not synonymous, with objectivism being an ontological theory to which a method of objectivity would apply.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objectivity_(philosophy

this is mine, I am done debating with you since you are overly dishonest in your methods of debating… At least i gave you grounds on something… Go with Gods peace…

Isambard, dont cheat yourself to think you won, you cannot win in a debate where you dont debate the same issue with the other person, My objectivity definition is the real definition, yours is quoted from science, which proofs my point again and again. i think any peer/review would prove me right on this issue… as long as you hold your subjective views it is impossible to debate you, if your heart is not open to truth there is nothing i can do…

Sorry Jesus N Cherie but i think I will do better praying for him then trying to debate his closed up mind, he is not much better then some evangelical Christians… you maybe better of doing that do and only debating some other people, i think only prayer can turn his mind… Thanks for your fantastic support though, Hope we can talk in some more useful debate sometime later…

 

[juhothenero]

Nom I said scientific evidence is a form of objective evidence, but not all objective evidence is scientific. Way to fail reading comprehension.
.

O finally you made my point… Miracles are facts… YAY

 

[Isambard]

O finally you made my point… Miracles are facts… YAY

No they arnt. Go back to discussion over the definition of facts.

 

[Lisdogan]

Many (Catholic) Christians believe (or know) that God directly intervenes in both the material world and in the social world. That is, because God is believed to be omnipotent, he is capable of directing the forces of both nature and the interactions of humankind.

*Prayer *is one way of drawing God’s love and compassion towards earthbound creatures: asking for success in examinations, a safe journey, a cure for cancer, a peaceful death, salvation afterwards. God (‘seeing the sparrow fall’) has a vested interest in answering such prayers directly, and is perceived to do so.

*Miracles *may also occur that interrupt the flow of the laws of nature and social interaction to achieve God’s intent, or that of the supplicant. The Catholic Church subscribes to the ‘truth’ that about 10 million miracles are performed daily around the world, as bread and wine are transubstantiated.

For other Christians, including some Catholics certainly, alternative assumptions are made that:

(1) *Immutable natural laws *have been established within the realm of our knowledge (we may not know much outside our own galaxy): Newton’s observations suggest that apples will not fall up, Einstein’s take on relativity eg are, thus far, deemed to be immutable. If natural law were changeable and unpredictable, our life would be random and truly brutish.

(2) *Social interaction and the well-being of the global community *and its individuals lies in the hands of intelligent human beings in two ways: (a) undoing the damage caused by natural disasters (tsunamis, earthquakes, avalanches, volcanoes, extremely resistant TB and HIV/AIDS) so as to mitigate human suffering; and (b) working together, using the skills which humans have developed for equitable quality of life, for the good of all.

Looks to me as if human brains evolved in part to work through problems inflicted on the human species. Difficulty is that it is clear that the brain has not evolved sufficiently in its 50,000 year history to deal with the natural and social disasters visited upon humankind. We are not doing a good job.

(There is evidence however that the evolution of the human brain has speeded up in recent times. There is a need for speed. I keep remembering that the dinosaurs ruled earth for 160 million years (where was God during that period?); intelligent human life is not even on the time map in a world that is already 4 billion years old.)

Where is this taking me? I am convinced that an omnipotent god, the God of the Christians and Muslims for example, *could *of course intervene in the natural and social order of Planet Earth. For some reason, God has *chosen *not to do so.

There is no scientific evidence of *prayers *answered, except as they may have a placebo effect on the supplicant. (We find what we look for.) *Miracles *are becoming less and less fashionable: it is hard to find one or two performed in the 20th century by Mother Theresa (who was perhaps herself a ‘miracle‘). *Disasters *happen inevitably, given a clash of natural causes, and we know again and again that God has apparently done nothing to prevent them.

So, no answer to prayers: and no evidence of God’s love in that direction. No miracles, and no evidence of God’s love in that direction either. *No prevention of natural disasters *and no evidence of God’s love in that direction.

Why do I continue to be a Catholic? What proof have I of God’s love and the goodness which must follow from it? Miracles, answers to prayer, and disasters undone are not my route to God Creator, Abba Father, Jesus of Nazareth, the Christ, Son of God and Man, Holy Spirit Paraclete.

First, although my intellect tells me that many tenets of the Christian faith are impossible to believe, prove or accept in a scientific sense, it also tells me that I am surrounded by loving compassion when I put myself in the presence of God, Abba Father. This is a tangible presence, and it has had tangible effects on my psyche, my emotional well-being, and my strength and courage to continue when to do so was self-destructive. This is not a miracle, not an answer to prayer, but experiential.

Second, I see that goodness survives in the face of dire evil in the world. (I have lived through five civil wars, one genocide, the slaughter of HIV and AIDS - and now drug resistant TB - with the wretched of the earth, those who live only to survive.)

Goodness itself survives in the character of individuals like Nelson Mandela, Mother Theresa, Mahatma Ghandi, Buddha; in communities, organisations and countless individuals committed to assisting and supporting others at almost altruistic levels.

Above all, Jesus of Nazareth, whether or not he was divine (what does divine mean?) exemplified goodness to a sublime degree.

In Christ

 

[Philthy]

I recently watched a debate online between skeptic Michael Shermer and Dinesh D’souza (who’s been a guest on Catholic Answers Live). (see here)

One question the skeptic asked which I don’t feel was answered adequately by D’souza was this:

Believers pray for miraculous cures, but these cures probably would happen anyway. So, why don’t believers ever pray that a limb might grow back?? There are many, many amputees that would love to be “made whole” again. Why don’t we ever hear about prayers for a miraculous cure in this fashion?

In other words: believers don’t pray that a limb might grow back because we know it’s IMPOSSIBLE. Yet when someone is healed from, let’s say, cancer, it may appear miraculous, yet there’s probably a natural explanation for that.

Any rebuttals to this skeptic’s challenge?

• Limbs grow but once in a lifetime. When one is cut off, there is no “cure”, there is simply no limb. Amputees are not in a state of active disease which gets “cured”, they are not sick, they are maimed. There is a difference.
• There is no recorded replacement of a missing body part in Scripture. The faithful look to “cures” of illness in analogous fashion to the cures which Jesus made.

 

[Jesus_N_Cherie]

Originally Posted by Isambard
Lets get something straight. For something to be a scientific fact, it has to be published in a scientific journal and gain acceptance among other scientists.

What an odd and false definition of a scientific fact.

I wonder if God knows that it can’t be scientific fact unless He publishes it in these journals. I wonder what He did with His creation before He created those who write in these journals.

 

[Isambard]

Originally Posted by Isambard
Lets get something straight. For something to be a scientific fact, it has to be published in a scientific journal and gain acceptance among other scientists.

What an odd and false definition of a scientific fact.

“Science (from the Latin scientia, meaning “knowledge” or “to know”) is the effort to discover, and increase human understanding of how the physical world works. Through controlled methods, scientists use observable physical evidence of natural phenomena to collect data, and analyze this information to explain what and how things work. Such methods include experimentation that tries to simulate natural phenomena under controlled conditions and thought experiments”
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific

Generally, a fact is defined as something that is true, something that actually exists, or something that can be verified according to an established standard of evaluation.[1][2] There is a range of other uses, depending on the context. For example, fact may be argued under authority of a specific pedagogy, such as scientific facts or historical facts
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fact

I wonder if God knows that it can’t be scientific fact unless He publishes it in these journals. I wonder what He did with His creation before He created those who write in these journals.

Its one thing to lie to defend your position (like you just did), its quite another to pressume you know the mind of God. You now have plenty to ask for forgiveness come confession on friday.

 

[Jesus_N_Cherie]

“Science (from the Latin scientia, meaning “knowledge” or “to know”) is the effort to discover, and increase human understanding of how the physical world works. Through controlled methods, scientists use observable physical evidence of natural phenomena to collect data, and analyze this information to explain what and how things work. Such methods include experimentation that tries to simulate natural phenomena under controlled conditions and thought experiments”
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific

Generally, a fact is defined as something that is true, something that actually exists, or something that can be verified according to an established standard of evaluation.[1][2] There is a range of other uses, depending on the context. For example, fact may be argued under authority of a specific pedagogy, such as scientific facts or historical facts
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fact

Its one thing to lie to defend your position (like you just did), its quite another to pressume you know the mind of God. You now have plenty to ask for forgiveness come confession on friday.

How in the world can you get a lie out of anything I said? Your statement that it couldn’t be a scientific fact unless it was published in one of your journals is what I had a problem with. And I simply stated that I wonder if God realizes that nothing that He created or does is scientific unless He publishes it in a journal. How do you get me lying about something in those statements? Do you know what a lie is?

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Have any specific examples? Actually, let’s save some time on this one. Do you know of any instances where a crucifix, under controlled conditions, has spontaneously acted strangely under observation?

Constantine is an interesting example. Both Constantine and his competitor had policies that were tolerant of Christianity. No matter who won that battle, it would have been good for Christians.

How is that miraculous?

The argument from Constantine is unsound, because it implies that it can be known that C’s victory was better for the Church than the other’s. And it can very readily be argued that C’s victory was in fact a disaster for the Church: that the Church was “killed with kindness”, or at least, was “spoilt rotten”.​

Tolerance can be bad for the Church, while suffering sometimes brings out the best in it. A Church threatened with death is not likely to be suffocated with wealth, power, & ease, all of which have had ruinous effects on it.

Prove it.

More generally, miracles cannot happen. They are impossible. That is what makes them miraculous when they do happen ​

One of the reasons for disbelieving in alleged miracles is that they are so numerous; they are like the prizes in “Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland”: everyone must have one. One day, seeing apparitions will feature on a game show: miracles ditto. They are no longer numinous - the currency has been devalued by excess of such things, real or alleged or fake

 

[AveSantaMaria]

God Does Heal Amputees!

We know only that he has been a fantastic intercessor – stories of his miracles, both during and subsequent to his death, are absolutely legion – and after his canonization, that intercession will grow. Of all Padre Pio’s healings, one of the most remarkable may have been a blind girl from the Palermo area named Gemma DiGiorgio. “I had no pupils in my eyes,” said Gemma in 1971, several years after Padre Pio’s death. “I had no sight at all. When I was three months old, my mother took me to a very famous eye doctor in Palermo. He told her that, without pupils, I would never be able to see.”

Some claimed that she may have had pupils, but that her birth defect was so severe they were not recognized as such. Whatever the case, in 1946, when the girl was seven, a nun took it upon herself to write Padre Pio on her behalf and received a note saying that the girl should be brought to Padre Pio in San Giovanni Rotundo. That’s exactly what Gemma’s grandmother did: brought the girl to see the famous monk, who heard the child’s first Confession and gave her first Communion – then made the sign of the Cross on her eyes.

After the blessing, Gemma was able to see. It’s a fact that is beyond question, confirmed by amazed doctors. Did she really lack pupils? Or was her entire eye one large pupil (making it seem that way)? We know only that there was a severe defect and that although the physical defect remained unchanged, afterward Gemma was able to see normally.

More astounding still may be the thoroughly-documented cure of a construction worker named Giovanni Savino, who was severely injured on February 15, 1949, in a dynamie mishap. When Dr. Guglielmo Sanguinetti, a physician, and Padre Raffaele, another Capuchin, and Father Dominic Meyer rushed to the injured man’s side, "all three men noted that among Savino’s numerous injuries, his right eye was gone entirely. They agreed that “the socket was empty” reports biographer Bernard Ruffin in Padre Pio: The True Story.

Other doctors confirmed that they eye was completely annihilated and the other one badly damaged.

It looked like Savino was also going to be totally blind.

For three days the worker lay on a hospital bed with his head and face bandaged. When a surgeon entered the room three days later, Savino reported that Padre Pio had visited him – something Savino recognized because he had detected the beautiful aroma so often reported around the priest.

A week later, at about one a.m. on February 25, 1949, Savino feld a slap on the right side of his face – the side where the eye was completely gone.

“I asked, 'Who touched me?” testified Savino. “There was nobody. Again I smelled the aroma of Padre Pio. It was beautiful.”

When later the opthalmologist – an atheist – came to examine the remaining eye, there was shock. “To their amazement,” writes Ruffin, “the doctors found that his shattered face was fully healed and covered with new skin. Savino, however, was most delighted at the fact that he could see. ‘I can see you!’ he said excitedly to the eye specialist.”

As indeed, as is medically documented, the doctor saw to his ‘utter astonishment’ that Savino had his right eye back. Somehow the eye had materialized. (“Now I believe too,” exclaimed the doctor, “because of what my own hands have touched!”)

As Ruffin notes, it’s one thing when diseases disappear, this is exciting. It’s tremendous to hear of diabetes or arthritis or even cancer leaving a person. “For a missing part of the body to be restored; however, is another matter,” noted the expert biographer.

spiritdaily.net/AmazingPio_cures.htm

St. Padre Pio, who said, “The Rosary is The WEAPON”, said as many as 90 rosaries a day in a special form for which he received ecclesiastical permission. Father Thomas Euteneur, President of Human Life International, cites this in The Rosary Batters the Gates of Hell hli.org/sl_2008-10-03.html
St. Padre Pio had Stigmata, the wounds of Christ on his hands, feet, and side did not sleep, almost did not eat, and was beaten daily by the devil. Perhaps God doesn’t heal more amputees in this world because of our lack of faith. We aren’t willing to give up our lives for the sake of the kingdom of Heaven to the extent that people such as St. Padre Pio did.
mostholyfamilymonastery.com/padre_pio.php

 

[AveSantaMaria]

Information on devoting oneself to the Sacred Heart of Jesus through the Immaculate Heart of Mary:
Online Adoration of the Sacred Heart of Jesus in the Blessed Sacrament louisville-catholic.net/WebCameras/AdorationChapel/tabid/825/Default.aspx
True Devotion to the Blessed Virgin fisheaters.com/totalconsecrationmontfort.html
**Secret of the Rosary ** montfort.org.uk/Writings/Rosary.html
Reflections on True Devotion to Mary by His Holiness Pope John Paul II http://www.michaeljournal.org/montfort.htm
**The Glories of Mary, ** by St. Alphonsus de Liguori, one of the 33 Doctors of the Catholic Church, explains Hail Holy Queen http://www.catholictradition.org/Mary/glories.htm
On the Dolors of Mary by St. Alphonsus de Liguori, one of the 33 Doctors of the Catholic Church, explains the sufferings of Our Lady http://writer.zoho.com/public/immaculate/Seven-dolors
Marialis Cultus (Apostolic Exhortation for the Right Ordering and Development of Devotion to the Blessed Virgin Mary of His Holiness, February 2, 1974 by His Holiness Pope Paul VI ewtn.com/library/PAPALDOC/P6MARIAL.HTM
Devotion to the Sacred Heart of Jesus en.wikisource.org/wiki/Devotion_to_the_Sacred_Heart_of_Jesus#FIRST_POINT._.E2.80.94_The_ardent_desire_Jesus_Christ_feels_to_be_with_us.
Divine Mercy Chaplet ewtn.com/Devotionals/mercy/dmmap.htm
Rosary Confraternity Enrollment rosary-center.org/nconform.htm (As Pope Leo XIII said in his encyclical on the Confraternity, *“Whenever a person fulfills his obligation of reciting the Rosary according to the rule of the Confraternity, he includes in his intentions all its members and they render him the same service many times over.” * Each member includes deceased fellow members as well; and thus he knows that in turn he will be included in the prayers of hundreds of thousands both now and hereafter.
Cathechism of the Catholic Church vatican.va/archive/catechism/ccc_toc.htm
Litany of Humility ewtn.com/Devotionals/prayers/humility.htm
**Litany of the Blessed Virgin ** intermirifica.org/Mary/marylitany.htm
**Cathechis of the Popes on Mary, Mother of God, ** catechesisofthepopes.wikispaces.com/Mary
Mystical City of God themostholyrosary.com/mystical-city.htm
In Defense of The City of God Mystica Civitate Dei: dailycatholic.org/issue/05Jun/jun10tim.htm - to summarize the research of three priests on the official decision of the Holy Roman Catholic Church regarding The Mystical City of God by Venerable Mary of Jesus of Agreda and to ascertain thereby whether it is permitted for anyone of any authority whatsoever to forbid the reading of this extraordinary book.
The Way of the Cross by St. Josemaria Escriva escrivaworks.org/book/the_way_of_the_cross-point-4.htm
**Rosarium Virginis Mariae ** by His Holiness Pope John Paul II: To the Bishops, Clergy, and Faithful on the Most Holy Rosary vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/apost_letters/documents/hf_jp-ii_apl_20021016_rosarium-virginis-mariae_en.html
The Violence of Love by Archbishop Oscar Romero plough.com/ebooks/ViolenceOfLove.html

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

OK… I have been doingj ust this type of search for the last several months and all the studies I have found show that the people who have had spontaneous healings of cancer have been when these people have pryed for a cure. Of half people who’s cancer went into remission (cancer still there) they attribute it to prayer, and the other half are unsure since many prayed but were in Chemo at the same time.

Peace!

That implies a flawed method - it implies that God is merely a bigger & better human being, Who can be tested just as men can; but such theology makes him into anything but God. If God is testable in that way, He’s not God. Which makes the results of that study theologically worthless.​