How do atheists explain Eucharistic Miracles

[Pattylt]

The one I remember was much better layedout and ummm… a bit more professional looking! . IMHO, much better than this one…though still pretty biting!

 

[MPat]

Thank you for your reply. Your argument, whatever it was, seems to have disappeared up its own convolutions.

Oh, it is easy to fail to understand something one does not want to understand all that badly.

For that matter why should any of us believe you have good knowledge of what you’re thinking? Why should we believe you’re honest?

I would strongly recommend you not to believe that.

That’s fake respect, I do not want to give it nor to get it.

Also, let’s face it: it does not look very sincere either. It looks like you happily believe I am dishonest and foolish, and say so whenever convenient anyway. For example:

It’s starting to sound like trolling.

Still, I suppose I prefer sincere insults and accusations to insincere flattery.

And how would you go about establishing that?

How would I go about establishing my honesty and competence? I wouldn’t.

I am happy with them not being established. I am happy with you being unsure about them. I am happy with you suspending your judgement.

After all, I prefer to make arguments that do not rely on my trustworthiness.

It is a bad idea to put oneself in position where one has to establish things like that about oneself.

 

[MPat]

But, yes…WLC would refuse his own eye witness as to the resurrection

Um, you do not know that.

You only know what he says he thinks would happen.

But how can he himself know?

In fact, in many cases atheists act as if those were the same question:

1. What would X do in case of Y?
2. What does X expect to do in case of Y?
3. What does X say he would do in case of Y?
4. What does X think he should do in case of Y?
5. What does X say he should do in case of Y?

But those are very different questions. And it is likely that they have very different answers.

Even if one is not lying (or speaking imprecisely), knowing answer to question 3 does not in itself lead to knowing answer to question 1 and question 4 (or question 5).

So, it is unfair to judge one based on such confusion of questions.

Or do you imagine that your guess what you would do in an implausible hypothetical situation (or even plausible one) is going to be correct all the time? And that it would always match what you should have done (in your present and past opinion)?

Atheists don’t have a burden of proof to explain these. They are not the ones that are claiming they have an explanation for them. The burden of proof lies on the people that say they have an explanation for X. Okay then demonstrate your claimed explanation is actually the case. If I don’t believe your explanation, I am under no obligation or requirement to provide my own. I am just pointing out why your explanation is just completely redictulous.

That looks like a nice set of claims. Since in them you claim the ones who make claims have burden of proof, OK, you have it.

Show us how it is met.

And we’ll be happy to be “just pointing out why your explanation is just completely redictulous”.

 

[MPat]

I’m not the one claiming the supernatural is part of reality. So i’m under no obligation to give a definition of what the supernatural is or how to prove it exists in reality.

Oh, you have made enough “non-supernatural” claims to keep you busy.

For example:

1. " So i’m under no obligation to give a definition of what the supernatural is or how to prove it exists in reality."
2. “[to give a definition of what the supernatural is or how to prove it exists in reality is] the job of the person claiming the supernatural exists.”
3. “Atheists don’t have a burden of proof to explain these [miracles?].”
4. “They [atheists] are not the ones that are claiming they have an explanation for them [miracles?].”
5. “The burden of proof lies on the people that say they have an explanation for X.”
6. “If I don’t believe your explanation, I am under no obligation or requirement to provide my own.”.

Given the claim number 6, “Burden of proof” seems to be some sort of obligation, so you’d better hurry.

Or did you imagine you will smuggle those claims in for free, while demanding everyone else prove their claims?

No, you believe in burden of proof, you prove all that.

 

[Neithan]

In other words, you’d be lying. Someone can be in denial because they really don’t want something to be true, but that’s still a lie, because they actually do think it is true (or false). That’s also the essential character of “unbelief” in the Catholic sense.

I’m not sure that’s what Dr. Craig meant. If Smith reported his comments accurately (a big If), I’d give Craig the charitable interpretation that he was skeptical about the authenticity of the vision, not conceding that he was actually witnessing the historical event.

On the other hand, if Craig is stating that nothing could ever cause him to doubt the faith, because of some subjective a priori certainty based on his own interpretation of scripture, there is a critical epistemological issue with that; but I would say that about Protestantism generally.

 

[Freddy]

In other words, you’d be lying.

On the other hand, if Craig is stating that nothing could ever cause him to doubt the faith, because of some subjective a priori certainty based on his own interpretation of scripture, there is a critical epistemological issue with that; but I would say that about Protestantism generally.

Exaxtly. I’d be lying. And I have no reason to doubt that Craig said exactly what has been reported. It’s not exactly the first time I have come across such comments.

 

[HolyWarrior]

 

[Freddy]

Link…

A forum is a place where ideas are shared and discussed. If you can’t be bothered to put forward your ideas I am definitely not going to be bothered watching and listening to random Youtube videos.

 

[Chris-D]

Most atheists I know don’t need to “explain” Eucharistic miracles because they cannot be confirmed to have actually occurred objectively. Isn’t it interesting that Catholics don’t recognize Hindu miracles or vice versa? The reason is simple. If it can be tested scientifically to eliminate bias, each time it has been, the reason for the “miracle” was not supernatural. However, when the miracle can be confirmed objectively, it would be reasonable to accept it, but unfortunately until a demonstration/repeatable miracle can occur there are an infinite number of post hoc explanations for any event.

In addition, the definition of miracle is a catch-all. By definition a miracle requires divine intervention so to claim something is a miracle requires first the demonstration that the supernatural exists, then a demonstration that God is real, then a demonstration that of all the infinite religions Catholicism is true. …so far to my knowledge this has not been done.

 

[AlNg]

They can start with the relics of St. Alexander of Svir, which I have mentioned 4 times in this thread now, and nobody has commented on it. He died in 1533 (almost 500 years ago - half a millenium ago ) and it looks like he’s just come in from some gardening:

Nothing can account for Alexander’s pristine body.

Does that then prove that the Russian Orthodox Church is the true Church?

 

[ReaderT]

Does that then prove that the Russian Orthodox Church is the true Church?

I’d say it’s pretty darn good evidence of God’s involvement

 

[Neithan]

Isn’t it interesting that Catholics don’t recognize Hindu miracles or vice versa? The reason is simple. If it can be tested scientifically to eliminate bias, each time it has been, the reason for the “miracle” was not supernatural.

The Hindu milk miracle? There’s no reason for me, as a Catholic, to rule out that something preternatural happened. I’m not a naturalist. As far as I’m aware though, capillary action is a natural explanation for that event.

Why do you reject Eucharistic miracles that have been scientifically tested, with double-blind controls, and have no natural explanation?

Naturalists must accept that your own cognitive biases affect your judgment, and dispense with the self-affirming pretensions of superior adherence to some scientific ideal. It only spreads more inaccurate misinformation.

 

[Buzzard3]

How do you explain “miracles” that happen in other religions, especially Hinduism which has a history of such events that are often similar to and just as impressive as Catholic ones?

You must be joking - Hinduism has a history of charlatans who perpetrate cheap frauds and then try and pass them off as “miracles” to very gullible and superstitious people.

 

[Chris-D]

Please name the best double-blind eucharistic miracle that has convinced you that eucharistic miracles have occurred. Logically, if this miracle has a natural explanation the rest (which are less convincing to you would follow suit).

 

[Neithan]

Buenos Aires in 1996. Here’s a Catholic article on it:

A Eucharistic miracle when Bergoglio was an auxiliary bishop | Catholic Culture

 

[Freddy]

Buenos Aires in 1996. Here’s a Catholic article on it:

A Eucharistic miracle when Bergoglio was an auxiliary bishop | Catholic Culture

Can we see the results of the tests please?

 

[Chris-D]

Neithan, to ensure we are making theological progress here. If it were to be shown to your satisfaction that this was a hoax and/or very likely to have been fabricated. Would you give up your belief in Catholicism and/or lower your confidence that Catholicism is true?

Otherwise even if I didn’t explain this “miracle” naturalistically it doesn’t sound like it would move your theological needle.

If the answer is no, can I ask what would lower your confidence in the truth of Catholicism?

 

[Neithan]

Would you give up your belief in Catholicism and/or lower your confidence that Catholicism is true?

You would remove a motive of credibility, lowering my confidence that Catholicism is true.

What would move your “theological needle” towards the truth of Catholicism?

 

[AlNg]

Some events which appear to be miraculous, on further investigation are shown to have had a natural explanation. It is known that there have been cases where people are given placebos for their illness, and a cure occurs. The cure was not at all due to the placebo but was a natural psychosomatic effect. Similarly prayer may have a beneficial effect on an illness, but the beneficial effect may be due to a natural psychosomatic process. To convince an atheist you must have a situation which rules out any possibility of a cure from natural causes. Take for example, the case of a soldier, returning from the war and his two legs have been cut off above the knee because of a bomb blast. Pictures are taken, doctors have examined this, witnesses have verified this and further there are videos of the tragedy which has hit this soldier. The soldier is completely crippled for life. However, one night he and his wife say a rosary asking Our blessed mother to intercede for a cure. When he wakes up the next morning, his two legs are completely restored and he has full use of them. He is examined by several different medical teams and it is verified that his legs are genuinely his. His teeth and fingerprints and DNA match those of the crippled soldier who came home from the war. It is the same person. In such a case, there is no doubt that a miracle occurred. The evidence and the documentation is there for anyone to examine.

 

[Freddy]

The evidence and the documentation is there for anyone to examine.

Not so with the Buenos Aires investigation. Which was performed by someone who had written a number of books about the validity of miracles. Hardly an unbiased choice…