How many Vatican approved miracles has science disproved?

[SonOfMan]

Again I’m going to press the issue which all critics seem unwilling or unable to respond to. To quote from Wikipedia that you already provided the link for.

This is simply one person’s account. The part in which I quoted states that not all obersvers witnessed the same things that day, some not seeing or experiencing anything.

If you want to discredit this miracle as a miracle than someone needs to explain the dry ground.

Someone needs to establish that it rained, first of all. The pictures do not show this and neither do individual accounts of witnesses that contradict other individual accounts of other witnesses.

Secondly, it needs to be proven that the clothes and ground dried as miraculously as what is being alleged. Pictures cannot prove this, as they do not account for date, time, and the amount of time it took for the ground and clothes to dry. In summer months, the ground dries very quickly where I am from, too, even after making a wet mess after emerging from a swim.

As I previously stated, it can’t really be proven or disproven that people saw something that appeared like the sun dancing in the sky.

I am willing to give these people the benefit of the doubt that they actually saw something that day just as I am willing to give other people who have seen ghosts, UFOs, Bigfoot the benefit that they saw something. What this something is, however, never occurs in reality. The one plausible explanation for these citings and visions is “hallucination” by definition.

Whether the literal sun danced or whether people saw something that looked like the sun or something else is always open to debate.

There is not much debate as to whether the literal sun danced in reality: It is well-established that it did not. Whether people saw something that looked like the sun or something else, I refer you to the defintion of “hallucination”:

hal·lu·ci·na·tion/həˌlo͞osəˈnāSH(ə)n/
noun
an experience involving the apparent perception of something not present.

 

[Natural_Numbers]

How many miracles approved by the Vatican are falsifiable? Does anyone have any examples?

 

[AnimalSpirits]

How many miracles approved by the Vatican are falsifiable? Does anyone have any examples?

Or just a list of all approved miracles. The one posted earlier, and the framework that go with it, refers specifically to Lourdes.

 

[Ignatius]

Or just a list of all approved miracles. The one posted earlier, and the framework that go with it, refers specifically to Lourdes.

That’s a good place to start if you are finally willing to start doing some serious scholarship.

 

[Ignatius]

How many miracles approved by the Vatican a. . . . /QUOTE]

If you read post #30, there is a short list of Approved Miracles (i.e. those that were vetted through the rigorous process described in the post) that can be found by if you’re willing to do the work. That’d be a good place to start.

 

[sennincatholic]

You ask about “any.” Surely there have been false or dubious claims which have been either disproved or discredited.

But there are some claims for which science cannot offer a plausible alternate explanation. Of course, those who are not disposed to accept miracles would claim that science has not YET offered an alternate explanation, as science is always developing.

Of course, doctrine is always developing. It seems to be a stalemate.

 

[PRmerger]

Of course, those who are not disposed to accept miracles would claim that science has not YET offered an alternate explanation, as science is always developing.

That sounds like a statement of great FAITH, doesn’t it?

 

[Stylteralmaldo]

Regarding the miracle of the sun, it is well documented and more than the people in the immediate area witnessed it, so mass hysteria would be ruled out.

Wth that said, just because an unexplained event happened, doesn’t mean it was a miracle. For example, it could have been something other than the sun (perhaps a freak solar flare of some kind that would only have been witneesed in that part of the world…although my understanding is that some people in China saw something unusual with the sun about that time).

What makes it miraculous is that so many things came together and the event still happened (many people showed up, people saw it outside the local area with no knowledge of the events to take place, and it was accurately predicted). I suppose the skeptics can always claim that the children got lucky…which of course is always a possibility.

 

[spiderweb]

This is simply one person’s account. The part in which I quoted states that not all obersvers witnessed the same things that day, some not seeing or experiencing anything.

Someone needs to establish that it rained, first of all. The pictures do not show this and neither do individual accounts of witnesses that contradict other individual accounts of other witnesses.

The newspapers reported that it had rained and was muddy. overcomeproblems.com/fatima.htm

O Seculo (a pro-government, anti-clerical, Lisbon paper): From the road, where the vehicles were parked and where hundreds of people who had not dared to brave the mud were congregated…

O Dia (another Lisbon daily, edition of 17 October 1917): "At one o’clock in the afternoon, midday by the sun, the rain stopped.

At least two newspapers at that time report that it indeed was raining and photographs show many people with umbrellas. If it was sunny, a few people may have used umbrellas to stay in the shade, but not nearly the number of umbrellas as shown in the photographs. Even in a light rain, the shear number of people could quickly turn ground into mud. People who were actually there attest that it indeed had been raining and was muddy, not just one person. Fact established by witnesses, photography, and by newspaper at that time that it had been raining and was muddy.

Secondly, it needs to be proven that the clothes and ground dried as miraculously as what is being alleged. Pictures cannot prove this, as they do not account for date, time, and the amount of time it took for the ground and clothes to dry. In summer months, the ground dries very quickly where I am from, too, even after making a wet mess after emerging from a swim.

True pictures cannot show this. But scientifically we know that the sun is always moving, and still photography can’t show that either. Nevertheless witnesses do claim that the ground as well as their clothing was dried. No one today can prove or disprove that their clothes dried unusually fast scientifically. However the people at that time could have easily known if the ground was indeed dry beyond normal drying. I personally have never been to Fatima. I would assume that any critic (especially one that lives in Portugal) would go to the actual site, study the ground, scientifically come to some conclusion on what would happen with rain, thousands of people, etc, and come to some conclusion. When has this type of scientific investigation taken place? I cannot find any evidence from critics or non believers that it has or what the results were.

I assume that you have access to the same information that I have, which is limited to the internet. Therefor we have no access to the number of witness testimonies that reported the ground to be dry. Although when sources claim that many people reported that in their testimony I think it’s at least safe to assume that many testimonies actually exist even if I can’t personally verify that. Normally when people mention the conflicting testimonies they are referring to their descriptions of the “sun”, and not to the ground. It seems to me that many don’t mention the ground being wet or dry at all. Where is the testimony that says “I walked away through the mud…” or some other such thing. Again if there was such a testimony, then why haven’t critics mentioned it?

I am willing to give these people the benefit of the doubt that they actually saw something that day just as I am willing to give other people who have seen ghosts, UFOs, Bigfoot the benefit that they saw something. What this something is, however, never occurs in reality. The one plausible explanation for these citings and visions is “hallucination” by definition.

There is not much debate as to whether the literal sun danced in reality: It is well-established that it did not. Whether people saw something that looked like the sun or something else, I refer you to the defintion of “hallucination”:

In order for hallucination to actually be a plausible explanation it has to satisfy all aspects of the recorded events. Hallucination doesn’t take into account the dry ground.

Established as fact, it had been raining, and most likely the ground was muddy. At least some accounts (how many is unknown to me) mention the ground being miraculously dry after the event. Where is the evidence that contradicts this? Hallucination is no longer a plausible explanation unless there is evidence that contradicts the muddy/dry ground.

From the information available to me, I have to conclude that science hasn’t even come close to disproving the “Miracle of Fatima”.

 

[PoorKnight]

Not sure if it’s “Vatican-approved”, and not exactly a miracle, but the Shroud of Turin has been more or less proven to not be old enough to be something Jesus would have been associated with during his life. And I think I heard some sort of reverence for it on EWTN radio earlier this week or last week.

Though not widely reported, the samples tested by Carbon dating were taken from a section of the shroud repaired in the 16th century. It has been shown that the weave of the samples tested is completely different then the weave of the main part of the cloth with the image.

In an interview with the photographer that took the pictures of the shroud in the 1978 study, he stated that it has also been shown that many of the testing procedures for Carbon 14 dating were violated in this test. The 1988 Carbon 14 test of the Shroud of Turin was flawed in many ways.

Ray Rogers, lead chemist for the 1978 study of the shroud, did the chemical analysis of the sample - that was suposed to have been done by each of the 3 labs in 1988 but none of them did it - and published the results in the peer reviewed Thermochimica Acta in Jan 20th 2005. The sample used by the 3 labs was NOT the material the image was on. Using other methods he estimates the cloth’s age to be between 1300 and 3000 years old.

Here’s a news link: telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/5137163/Turin-Shroud-could-be-genuine-as-carbon-dating-was-flawed.html

Again this was not widely publicised for obvious implications… Hope this helps.

Note, I did not, nor does the Catholic Church, say the Shroud is real or fake. Simply look at all the scientific evidence and ponder…

God Bless,
Poor Knight for Christ and His Church

 

[AnimalSpirits]

Incorrect, it would be impossible to issue condemnations of the hundreds of thousands of claimed miracles. I posted that actual, official process used in post #30.

That procedure and that list are specific to Lourdes. Indeed, the title of the document is actually “How Lourdes Cures are Recognized as Miraculous.”

miraclehunter.com/marian_apparitions/approved_apparitions/lourdes/downloads/how_lourdes_cures_recognized.pdf

On the subject of Mother Teresa, I came upon this:

vatican.va/archive/aas/documents/2003/luglio%202003.pdf

You know the Vatican must approve one miracle for a Beatification and two for sainthood, yes?

 

[AnimalSpirits]

Though not widely reported, the samples tested by Carbon dating were taken from a section of the shroud repaired in the 16th century. It has been shown that the weave of the samples tested is completely different then the weave of the main part of the cloth with the image.

In an interview with the photographer that took the pictures of the shroud in the 1978 study, he stated that it has also been shown that many of the testing procedures for Carbon 14 dating were violated in this test. The 1988 Carbon 14 test of the Shroud of Turin was flawed in many ways.

Ray Rogers, lead chemist for the 1978 study of the shroud, did the chemical analysis of the sample - that was suposed to have been done by each of the 3 labs in 1988 but none of them did it - and published the results in the peer reviewed Thermochimica Acta in Jan 20th 2005. The sample used by the 3 labs was NOT the material the image was on. Using other methods he estimates the cloth’s age to be between 1300 and 3000 years old.

Here’s a news link: telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/5137163/Turin-Shroud-could-be-genuine-as-carbon-dating-was-flawed.html

Again this was not widely publicised for obvious implications… Hope this helps.

Note, I did not, nor does the Catholic Church, say the Shroud is real or fake. Simply look at all the scientific evidence and ponder…

God Bless,
Poor Knight for Christ and His Church

This claim was examined specifically here: digitalcommons.library.arizona.edu/objectviewer?o=http%3A%2F%2Fradiocarbon.library.arizona.edu%2FVolume52%2FNumber4%2F33737617-d6e4-4797-ba23-fb8e0f303abe

“We present a photomicrographic investigation of a sample of the Shroud of Turin, split from one used in the radiocarbon dating study of 1988 at Arizona. In contrast to other reports on less-documented material, we find no evidence to contradict the idea that the sample studied was taken from the main part of the shroud, as reported by Damon et al. (1989). We also find no evidence for either coatings or dyes, and only minor contaminants.”

 

[thistle]

That procedure and that list are specific to Lourdes. Indeed, the title of the document is actually “How Lourdes Cures are Recognized as Miraculous.”

miraclehunter.com/marian_apparitions/approved_apparitions/lourdes/downloads/how_lourdes_cures_recognized.pdf

On the subject of Mother Teresa, I came upon this:

vatican.va/archive/aas/documents/2003/luglio%202003.pdf

You know the Vatican must approve one miracle for a Beatification and two for sainthood, yes?

That is not a hard and fast rule. For example, John Paul II was canonized based on only one miracle.

 

[Ignatius]

That procedure and that list are specific to Lourdes.

You asked for a list, I posted the actual, official process used in post #30. They are the most completely documented Vatican approved miracles. The detail makes it easier to determine what actually happened while eliminating hear say and other unsubstantiated information that could confuse the issue. Clarity is the scientists friend. Why are you hesitant to address these? Let’s start with the clearest ones and see how far we can get with those.

.

 

[AnimalSpirits]

You asked for a list, I posted the actual, official process used in post #30. They are the most completely documented Vatican approved miracles. The detail makes it easier to determine what actually happened while eliminating hear say and other unsubstantiated information that could confuse the issue. Clarity is the scientists friend. Why are you hesitant to address these? Let’s start with the clearest ones and see how far we can get with those.

.

They are a subset of vatican approved miracles- the subset that occurred specifically at lourdes. I don’t feel obliged to provide evidence against those particular cases- this thread is not about Lourdes and I do not claim that secular means give definitive answers for every supposed miracle. However, the headling of Monica Besra is Vatican approved and it is the subject on controversy. Post 30 is irrelevant to that fact.

In principle, it’s hardly surprising that a few dozen pilgrims have gotten lucky out of millions of attempts.

 

[Ignatius]

They are a subset of vatican approved miracles-.

Yes and that set is an actual list of official Vatican approved miracles (see post #30 ). They are the most completely documented Vatican approved miracles.

The detail makes it easier to determine what actually happened while eliminating hear say and other unsubstantiated information that could confuse the issue so you will get the most accurate results from them. Clarity is the scientists friend.

You didn’t answer the question, what is your objection to starting with these since they are the clearest ones and there is the least unsubstantiated information?

A simple Statistical Chi-Square Test (www2.lv.psu.edu/jxm57/irp/chisquar.html) will tell if the occurrences are the result, as you suggest, of normal statistical variation frequencies.

 

[AnimalSpirits]

You didn’t answer the question, what is your objection to starting with these since they are the clearest ones and there is the least unsubstantiated information?

A simple Statistical Chi-Square Test (www2.lv.psu.edu/jxm57/irp/chisquar.html) will tell if the occurrences are the result, as you suggest, of normal statistical variation frequencies.

Because it could very well be true that the review of those cases was sufficient to identify truly exceptional cases. If my goal was to show that all Vatican approved miracles were easily explained, then it makes sense to look at the strongest cases first. But such is not my goal- I want to show that some of them are. So, I begin with weak examples.

A chi squared test would not be the way I’d approach the subject, but the bigger constraint is data. The question is, do people who visit Lourdes improve their chances of being cured. Medical science is imperfect and can’t offer a satisfying explanation for everything. Spontaneous remission of cancer, for example, is a real but rare occurrence.

To discern whether or not Lourdes had any effect, I’d need the recovery rate of your average Lourdes pilgrim and the comparable rate for the illness they had- neither of these are either to get an objective estimate of. But the fact is we have dozens of quick cures from amount hundreds of millions of attempts. Hardly a good batting average.

Ideally we’d do a double blind test, where some sick folks get real Lourdes water and the rest get tap (both think they’re getting the same thing).

I recall that Carl Sagan examined the issue in one of his books-I’ll see if I can dig this up.

 

[Ignatius]

Ignatius;12740241:

Yes and that set is an actual list of official Vatican approved miracles (see post #30 ). They are the most completely documented Vatican approved miracles.

The detail makes it easier to determine what actually happened while eliminating hear say and other unsubstantiated information that could confuse the issue so you will get the most accurate results from them. Clarity is the scientists friend.

You didn’t answer the question, what is your objection to starting with these since they are the clearest ones and there is the least unsubstantiated information?

A simple Statistical Chi-Square Test (www2.lv.psu.edu/jxm57/irp/chisquar.html

) will tell if the occurrences are the result, as you suggest, of normal statistical variation frequencies.

Because it could very well be true that the review of those cases was sufficient to identify truly exceptional cases. .

Actually, the question is how many of those Vatican approved miracles in that actual list of official Vatican approved miracles (see post #30 ) has science disproved.

They are the most completely documented of Vatican approved miracles.

The detail makes it easier to determine what actually happened while eliminating hear say and other unsubstantiated information that could confuse the issue so you will get the most accurate results from them. Clarity is the scientists friend.

You haven’t even presented any scientific evidence against them. Do you concede that you can’t disprove them? If not, will you present some scientific evidence?

 

[AnimalSpirits]

Actually, the question is how many of those Vatican approved miracles in that actual list of official Vatican approved miracles (see post #30 ) has science disproved.

You don’t get to unilaterally redefine what the thread is about. My first post in this thread was providing an example of a highly questionable Vatican approved miracle. You appeared to deny the fact that Ms. Besra’s case was approved as miraculous by the Vatican, despite the wide and unanimous view of all reports on the subject- not to mention the fact that is justified a beatification. Do you persist in that denial?

They are the most completely documented of Vatican approved miracles.

The detail makes it easier to determine what actually happened while eliminating hear say and other unsubstantiated information that could confuse the issue so you will get the most accurate results from them. Clarity is the scientists friend.

You haven’t even presented any scientific evidence against them. Do you concede that you can’t disprove them? If not, will you present some scientific evidence?

I have not looked at any specific cases on that list, nor do I have any plans to do so. If there comes a time when I want to specifically examine how many of the Vatican approved miracles of Lourdes that science has disproved, then I suppose I’ll take a look. But that’s not a question I’m seeking to answer now. It could very well be that the cures were purely spontaneous- a few dozen lucky tries out of millions of attempts seems reasonable.

The purpose of this thread is not “Ignatius chooses some miracles and everyone else has to examine them.”

 

[thistle]

You don’t get to unilaterally redefine what the thread is about. My first post in this thread was providing an example of a highly questionable Vatican approved miracle. You appeared to deny the fact that Ms. Besra’s case was approved as miraculous by the Vatican, despite the wide and unanimous view of all reports on the subject- not to mention the fact that is justified a beatification. Do you persist in that denial?

I have not looked at any specific cases on that list, nor do I have any plans to do so. If there comes a time when I want to specifically examine how many of the Vatican approved miracles of Lourdes that science has disproved, then I suppose I’ll take a look. But that’s not a question I’m seeking to answer now. It could very well be that the cures were purely spontaneous- a few dozen lucky tries out of millions of attempts seems reasonable.

The purpose of this thread is not “Ignatius chooses some miracles and everyone else has to examine them.”

Ignatius is correct. The thread title is “how many Vatican approved miracles has science disproved”.
The answer is none.
If you know of a Vatican approved miracle that science has disproved then tell us which one it is.