How to prove the supernatural?

[Ridgerunner]

I actually have posted about a lot of recorded miracles (both photo and video) on this forum.

Keep it up.

 

[Pattylt]

It too me two minutes to debunk this…from Wikipedia

Archbishop Gerason Theofanis states that the Holy Fire does not light up in a miraculous, but in a natural way, and it is then blessed by the Patriarch. He adds: “we deceive the believers letting them believe that it is a miracle. This is unacceptable, and does not reflect well on us”.[1]:86According to Theofanis, the fraud of the “miracle” was invented by catholic crusaders a few centuries ago, and unfortunately was later continued by the Greek Orthodox Patriarchate.[31][32

Phosphorus exposed to air will ignite. The trick has been known since Ancient Greece. Please, try not to be so gullible and investigate these claims. Pious fraud has been around for millennia!

 

[Servant31]

If the new arrangement would display some legible text, that would qualify as a bona-fide miracle.

Now the actually displayed text might be “confusing”… if it would be the Bible, the Talmud, or any of the so-called sacred texts, it would be a very serious evidence for the validity of those texts. But some mathematical formulae would lead to some supernatural origin.

I’m sorry I’m not following you here. Your saying you want the Bible to have supernatural text?

What about bodies that are incorruptible? Or medically unexplained miracles? Or the host bleeding whiccis typed as a human heart ?

 

[ReaderT]

It too me two minutes to debunk this…from Wikipedia

Archbishop Gerason Theofanis states that the Holy Fire does not light up in a miraculous, but in a natural way, and it is then blessed by the Patriarch.

This is the issue of the skeptic mindset I mentioned above: “It can’t possibly be real, so let’s find evidence why not.” Wikipedia cites a book by a (maybe reliable?) “journalist Dimitris Alikakos” where he interviews a (maybe not even firsthand witness?) cleric to discredit the miracle. At the same time, the video was overlooked where a woman held the fire under her shirt for minutes without it blackening or singeing a single part of it, or anything catching.

 

[FiveLinden]

Many miracles have been tested throughly by scientific means. What type of proof would you like to see? What evidence would be meaningful to those who may not be sure as of yet?

Essentially the same sort of ‘proof’ used in science.

First of all the event would need to have no other plausible explanation. Events that always have plausible other explanations such as spontaneous remission of cancer or improvements in blood pressure would be excluded from the start. Very few Catholic miracle claims fall outside this. Events that have no possible natural explanation such as walking on water, multiplying loaves and fishes, raising a decomposing corpse and similar New testament miracles would meet this criteria.

they would also add to the plausibility of the ‘miracle’ hypothesis since these are the sort of miracles Catholics believe God carried out when he was on earth as a human.

Secondly there would need to be precautions against fraud as there are in scientific investigations of things Catholics don’t believe in like homeopathy, astrology, healing touch, spells, fortune-telling, and astral travel.

And there would need to be some sort of replicability - a single result is not enough.

these are the very tests that are being applied in the development of a vaccine for COVID-19. to hte extent that they are applied, we can believe the results. Same for miracles.

 

[Servant31]

Secondly there would need to be precautions against fraud as there are in scientific investigations of things Catholics don’t believe in like homeopathy, astrology, healing touch, spells, fortune-telling, and astral travel.

And there would need to be some sort of replicability - a single result is not enough.

The Catholic Church does these things currently.

Further though if there were replicicability then it wouldn’t be a miracle of divine origin, that would be human origin. If I can reproduce the miracle in a controlled environment when I want to test it then it’s not a miracle.

But scientific tests were done on certain events currently under investigation for miracle status. And they were not explained by science even though witnessed by many.

 

[FiveLinden]

The Catholic Church does these things currently.

Does it? Can you point to a full report including methodology on any ‘miracle’ published in an appropriate peer-reviewed journal? Not that that would be ‘proof’. But it would be a start.

 

[FiveLinden]

if there were replicicability then it wouldn’t be a miracle of divine origin

that is why I said ‘some sort of’ replicability’. Protocols would need to be developed to take account of the ‘divine’ hypothesis. the fact that this is so difficult underlines the problem with the original post - proof of the unprovable is not available.

 

[Servant31]

appropriate peer-reviewed journal?

No scientific peer reviewed journal would publish this anyway so…?

And what journal would you accept?

proof of the unprovable is not available.

I think this is the ultimate problem. If one can test something repeatably and explain it…then it is repeatable and thus natural. If it can’t be explained naturally then it isn’t repeatable and thus “unproven”. So there is no way to establish this type of proof.

Edit: and just to clarify. SScientifc journals require the Use of the scientific method. A viable hypothesis of “the phenomenon is of divine origin” isn’t a testable hypothesis. So it just Isn’t really a scientifically approachable type of problem.

 

[lelinator]

It would seem that ReaderT has provided us with a means of testing for the existence of the supernatural, which is both measurable and repeatable.

As long as we’re talking about supernatural things and honeycombs, there have been several monks on Mount Athos (Greece) who put icons into their beehives, and the bees build their honeycombs over the holy image but never cover the face of the holy person.

So it should be a simple matter of repeating this process, confirming that it is in fact true, and then attempting the same thing with images of non-saints such as Adolf Hitler and Pol Pot.

If the bees build their honeycombs such that they cover the faces of Hitler and Pol Pot, but not the faces of the saints, then this would seem to be a credible argument for their miraculous nature.

If however the bees show no preference for one type of image over the other, then it would simply be further proof that some people are just extremely gullible.

I say, let’s put those bees to the test.

 

[FiveLinden]

And what journal would you accept?

Lancet would be one.

 

[ReaderT]

So it should be a simple matter of repeating this process

This step has already been done; the monk tried it with 3 separate images (above); then it was done 4 more times: (The last image is a little darker, but in the middle space one can clearly see Christ’s face with halo)

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

So we have 7 occurrences. It has therefore been repeatable. And I’d like to stress that this happens despite scientific explanation and contrary to the well-established/expected norms of comb-building process.

If the bees build their honeycombs such that they cover the faces of Hitler and Pol Pot, but not the faces of the saints, then this would seem to be a credible argument for their miraculous nature.

If however the bees show no preference for one type of image over the other, then it would simply be further proof that some people are just extremely gullible.

I say, let’s put those bees to the test.

I don’t know anyone who keeps bees - @Ridgerunner, you have experience with them. Do you have a hive or know a keeper? Would they be willing to put 7 images of Hitler or Pol Pot in a hive?

 

[Pattylt]

Would they be willing to put 7 images of Hitler or Pol Pot in a hive?

Not quite how the experiment needs to work. The monks would have to do it and be honest with any pretreatment they use on any photos. It doesn’t have to be objectionable people, photos of ordinary people would be fine but, if they pretreat the saints and Jesus picture, they must do the same to the ordinary ones. If they do not pretreat any of them, that too, would show the miraculous nature if only religious icons stayed uncovered. And there must be witnesses to the entire process to keep everyone honest. Those are the results I want to see!

 

[Michaelangelo]

Here’s another video of the Holy Fire in Jerusalem, a miracle that happens every year on Good Friday. The fire is known not to burn people. This woman waves the fire over her shirt without so much as a singe. But I can already hear people say “It’s not real, she had special flame-retardant clothing”…

Do you know what substance is actually burning? There are several substances burning with a very low temperature flame. I have done the same trick on many occasions. I’d love to run a spectral analysis of that flame. The size and shape of that flame tells me that it not an ordinary candle. Furthermore, she’s not keeping the flame still under her arm but constantly waving it around. If the flame does not burn people, then keep it still under the arm for ten minutes or so.

If the myth is correct then everything lit on fire by this miraculous fire has the same properties and will therefore not burn people. So every candle or torch lit on fire, regardless how far in the chain from the original flame from the crypt, would behave the same. There are plenty of churches having the eternal flame and altar candles lit by a fire originating from this crypt. So why no fire miracles during the rest of the year and from vastly different places?

 

[John10]

Well, because we know inmaterial things also exist, like love, good, evil, envy, anger, etc.

I do not think anyone, even atheist, deny those, so from a purely material viewpoint how do you justify them ?

God Bless

 

[Pattylt]

Anyone looking into this “miracle” from secular sources realizes it’s a pious fraud. It’s even admitted by the archbishop! They even explain how it’s done, how they time it to light up, etc. This is probably one of the poorest examples of a miracle possible as it’s so easily apparent that it’s just a magicians trick. If someone wants to believe in it, fine. They are free to believe. But, to expect anyone else of accepting it? No.

 

[White_Tree]

This step has already been done; the monk tried it with 3 separate images (above); then it was done 4 more times: (The last image is a little darker, but in the middle space one can clearly see Christ’s face with halo)

Ideally, the experiment should be done by someone other than the monk. The way replication usually works in science is that one team publishes the initial results, and then someone else, unaffiliated with the original team, performs the replication.

The first explanation that came to mind when I saw those photos is that there might have been some sort of chemical coating applied to a certain section of the pictures that makes the bees want to avoid it. That explanation could be ruled out by using images that were procured and handled by someone else, preferably made in a lab, so their provenance could be verified.

A second potential explanation is that the color combinations at certain parts of the pictures make the bees believe it is something else, like a flower, and thus reluctant to build over it. That could be ruled out by creating non-holy images with the same general arrangements of color, and in the same areas of the picture, as the holy ones. Human faces are similar enough that creating images of non-saints that look “enough” like the saint images should be too difficult.

 

[AlNg]

The speed of light in vacuum is so well established (Michelson-Morely experiment) that no SANE person can deny it.

Yes. i agree. But there are the geocentrists. According to geocentrism, the earth is stationary and the center of the universe. Since the earth is not moving, you are going to get the same speed of light regardless of which direction you choose. That is why (according to geocentrists) the MM experiment did not detect and difference in the speed of light as measured in different directions.

Geocentric model - Wikipedia

Others just say that the speed of light may not be constant.

Speed of Light May Not Be Constant, Physicists Say | Live Science

 

[ReaderT]

Not quite how the experiment needs to work. The monks would have to do it and be honest with any pretreatment they use on any photos. It doesn’t have to be objectionable people, photos of ordinary people would be fine but, if they pretreat the saints and Jesus picture, they must do the same to the ordinary ones. If they do not pretreat any of them, that too, would show the miraculous nature if only religious icons stayed uncovered. And there must be witnesses to the entire process to keep everyone honest. Those are the results I want to see!

The first explanation that came to mind when I saw those photos is that there might have been some sort of chemical coating applied to a certain section of the pictures that makes the bees want to avoid it.

As Ridgerunner said above, there is no way to pretreat the image / keep the bees out of a certain portion without sickening the bees. But to someone unwilling to believe in miracles, they will always just say “The Monks must have some secret formula; it can’t just be a miracle, right?”

A second potential explanation is that the color combinations at certain parts of the pictures make the bees believe it is something else, like a flower, and thus reluctant to build over it. That could be ruled out by creating non-holy images with the same general arrangements of color, and in the same areas of the picture, as the holy ones. Human faces are similar enough that creating images of non-saints that look “enough” like the saint images should be too difficult.

I asked Ridgerunner if he has a hive above and would be willing to stick similar images in his hives.

The size and shape of that flame tells me that it not an ordinary candle.

The candle is beeswax. Perhaps it’s the flame that’s not ordinary (but you’re not inclined to consider that!)

Furthermore, she’s not keeping the flame still under her arm but constantly waving it around.

There are several times when she keeps it under the same spot for several seconds, and no smoke or blackening. 1:25 - 1:29 is an example on the lower left arm. A white sweater should at least blacken if not entirely catch.

Anyone looking into this “miracle” from secular sources realizes it’s a pious fraud. It’s even admitted by the archbishop!

An* archbishop who never even witnessed the event - the Patriarch of Jerusalem goes into the tomb, never a random Bishop. You were looking for a refutation and found a (flimsy) idea on Wikipedia - also, that same article cited other people who said the fire came from “a candle” or “a lamp that has kept been burning for 1,500 years” or “matches” - those all contradict.

 

[Michaelangelo]

Using white phosphorous dissolved in carbon disulfide is an old trick to cause self ignition. The problem with that combo is that phosphorous is seriously nasty, highly toxic and having it in solution gives it a freeway into the body. Burning phosphrous also produce a surprising amount of smoke. So that would not be a suitable choice. Burning carbon disulfide would produce sulfur dioxide in detectable amounts. More likely would be some alkylated metal in a suitable ether. It would be easy to make a very effective and punctual source of ignition using such a combo.