MIRACLES (proving God's existence)

[ribozyme]

The “Bubble Universe” or “Multiverse” hypothesis states that our universe is simply one of millions, like bubbles in a glass of champagne. Again, this does not answer the objection as it also relies on an infinite string of dependent causes, in addition to being unprovable, contrary to Occam’s Razor and rejected by most modern cosmologists.

Who rejects it?

I will give you names of people who have embraced that idea. Lee Smolin, Andrei Linde, Alan Guth, Alexander Vilenkin, Max Tegmark, Sean Carroll, Arvind Borde, Leonard Susskind.

And for people who advocate the bouncing big bang model, although I think it requires a beginning.

Paul Steinhardt and Neil Turok.

That is all I can name on top of my head. Name me all the cosmologists who rejects their ideas.

 

[Ammonius_Saccus]

Moreover, if the universe is eternal (as you propose),

I never proposed anything such thing I only said it was possible.

 

[Ammonius_Saccus]

Speaking of logic and actual existence, do you believe in the Trinity?

 

[RyanL]

Speaking of logic and actual existence, do you believe in the Trinity?

Of course I do. Properly understood, it’s the foundational predicate for the existence of the universe. But that’s a different thread, and it’s late. I didn’t mean to cause such a ruckus so close to bed time. I’ll check in again tomorrow.

Good night, and God Bless,
RyanL

 

[davidmammola]

Ammonius, I hope you are not about to tell us how 3 cannot equal 1, because Christians don’t believe 3=1 (that would violate the principle of non-contradiction). The Trinity is not three and one in the same time in the same way. It is three divine persons, one divine nature. Therefore, there is no logical contradiction.
The Trinity is a truth of faith available to us only because of divine revelation. You can’t wrap your brain around it. If you’re an atheist or a skeptic, let’s stick with the question of whether God exists or not. You won’t even get near the Trinity without faith in a god of some sort first.

 

[Ammonius_Saccus]

Ammonius, I hope you are not about to tell us how 3 cannot equal 1, because Christians don’t believe 3=1 (that would violate the principle of non-contradiction). The Trinity is not three and one in the same time in the same way. It is three divine persons, one divine nature. Therefore, there is no logical contradiction.
The Trinity is a truth of faith available to us only because of divine revelation. You can’t wrap your brain around it. If you’re an atheist or a skeptic, let’s stick with the question of whether God exists or not. You won’t even get near the Trinity without faith in a god of some sort first.

It violates the basic rule of logic that idenity is transitive.

 

[cheddarsox]

Personally, I think miracles are a weak and misguided way to “prove” God’s existence. With all of the amazing universe at hand, why choose the rare often senseless “miracle” to show what God is like? Frankly, they make God appear rather like a child vying for attention by doing “tricks” than a caring, all powerful creator.

I see a Divine worth worshipping in the astounding order and complexity of the universe, much more so than in a being that chooses to keep certain dead bodies from rotting, or turns a piece of bread into heart tissue, or other weird things that people trot out to prove how mighty God is. If God has the power to make a statue cry…why not use that awesome power for something more loving and useful?

I don’t doubt the power of the Divine, I question the faith and intention of those whose faith is based on miracles, who can only, or would rather, see God in the weird than recognize “him” in the wonderful.

I find miracles to be more of a test of faith than a proof of God.

cheddar

 

[dafalax]

It violates the basic rule of logic that idenity is transitive.

So you find it easier to believe in an eternal self-creating universe than God?
Regarding the original poster’s question, sometimes you just can’t convince some people. Jesus could come down from the Heavens and they would be looking for the hologram projector. Sometimes you just have to make it known that you disagree with scientific explanations that may never exist and leave them be after that.

 

[RyanL]

Who rejects it?

There are many. Here are the basic arguments against it, according to Answers.com:

It’s not science.
Critics claim that there is a lack of empirical correlation and testability in these theories and thus they are without hard physical evidence and must therefore be considered unfalsifiable, currently outside the methodology of scientific investigation to confirm or disprove, and therefore more mathematically theoretical and metaphysical than scientific in nature…

It’s bad science.
Some have argued that the job of the scientist is to provide fundamental explanations for observed phenomena, without making reference to observers. Resorting to anthropic principles constitutes a “lazy way out” of accounting for features such as the apparent fine-tuning of parameters in relation to the existence of life…

Alternate universes violate Occam’s Razor.
To postulate an infinity of unseen and unseeable universes just to explain the one we do see seems like a case of excess baggage carried to the extreme…[A]ccording to Tegmark, paradoxically the multiverse scenario is more parsimonious than that of a single universe.

There is only one possible universe.
It is occasionally argued that the observed universe is the unique possible universe, so that talk of “other” universes is ipso facto meaningless. Einstein raised this possibility when he wondered whether the universe could have been otherwise, or non-existent altogether…

Multiverses merely shift the problem up one level.
Multiverse proponents are often vague about how the parameter values are selected across the defined ensemble. If there is a “law of laws” or meta-law describing how parameter values are assigned from one universe to the next, then we have only shifted the central problems of cosmology up one level, because we need to explain where the meta-law comes from. Moreover, the set of such meta-laws is infinite, so we have merely replaced the question “why this universe?” with “why this meta-law?”. There would seem to be little point in invoking an infinity of universes when it would be simpler to postulate a single universe with a single principle…

Why stop there?
The last objection to the existing multiverse theories is a challenge to the criteria for defining universes. In most multiverse theories, universes are labeled by laws of physics and initial conditions. It might be objected that these terms are narrow and chauvinistic; there may be criteria for categorization that lie completely beyond the scope of human comprehension.

Obviously, I didn’t come up with this. The critiques are out there, but for some reason I suspect you’re not that interested in them.

Name me all the cosmologists who rejects their ideas.

No. Do your own homework.

God Bless,
RyanL

 

[ribozyme]

There are many. Here are the basic arguments against it, according to Answers.com:

Obviously, I didn’t come up with this. The critiques are out there, but for some reason I suspect you’re not that interested in them.

No. Do your own homework.

God Bless,
RyanL

Oh, I forgot about Martin Rees and Steven Weinberg from my own list.

Now, you said that there are cosmologists who do not believe in the multiverse. Can you name me two of them? If you can’t, then you haven’t done YOUR homework.

 

[RyanL]

I never proposed anything such thing I only said it was possible.

Actually, you proposed it as a possibility. But that’s not important.

What is important is this – it’s not possible.

Here’s an example I heard a couple of days ago which might help you see why not:

Say you go to the deli counter to purchase a pound of turkey. Before you can buy the turkey, you have to take a number. But before you can take that number, you have to take the number prior to that. And before you can take this prior number, you have to take yet another third number – this one simply one prior. Now continue taking numbers back to infinity.

When will you buy your pound of turkey?

You won’t. Ever. And that’s a problem.

The common deficiency in thought on this is that we fail to grasp exactly how BIG infinity is. When you say that something has always existed, that means it never began. As long as time is involved, this means it can’t exist. This applies to the universe because time is merely another dimension of space, which is integral to the universe. The universe cannot have *always *existed, because always necessitates time. If time goes back infinitely, it can have no beginning and therefore cannot extend to the present.

Another way of looking at it would be to ask you to count to 2007, but start at negative infinity. When will you get to 2007? Never. But we are at 2007, so therefore the count could not start at negative infinity. It’s logically impossible.

This same logic applies to an infinite bouncing universe. It just can’t happen.

God is not implicated in this in the same manner because God is not *within *time or constrained/bound by it; thus the word “always” doesn’t really apply. This is why it is not surprising that God reveals His name as “I AM WHO AM”. God is eternally in the present, being outside of time. All time is present to Him as an eternal now. This is why/how God can say, “I AM the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob,” despite the fact that they weren’t alive at the same time. They are all eternally present to Him.

Does that make sense?

God Bless,
RyanL

 

[RyanL]

Can you name me two of them? If you can’t, then you haven’t done YOUR homework.

Grow up. Your pet idea is far from accepted. Deal with it. Here’s a paper to help you get started.

God Bless,
RyanL

 

[ribozyme]

Grow up. Your pet idea is far from accepted. Deal with it. Here’s a paper to help you get started.

God Bless,
RyanL

You’re right, I haven’t done my homework as I did not do my research because I missed this important piece of information that I recently found on wikipedia (on the article "Multiverse (science):

[edit] Criticisms of multiverse theories

[edit] It’s not science.
Critics claim that these theories lack empirical correlation and testability, and without hard physical evidence are unfalsifiable; outside the methodology of scientific investigation to confirm or disprove; and therefore more mathematically theoretical and metaphysical than scientific in nature.

Tegmark notes that improved measurements of the microwave background radiation and of the large-scale distribution of matter may fortify or knock down two pillars of the multiverse – the infinitude of space and the theory of chaotic inflation – so at least part of the theory may be testable. However, it seems that chaotic inflation is ruled out by the cosmic microwave background radiation, and does not seem inflation is eternal. [5]

Wow!! Inflation is* NOT *eternal. I am sure that would make Andrei Linde very angry.

 

[Askin]

In a religion class, I mentioned that if we could prove a single miracle, then that would be enough to prove the existence of God, or at least a supernatural being greater than ourselves.

In response, many students argued that apparent miracles are not really miracles at all. According to these students, events that seem like miracles are really just rare physical phenomenon not yet classified by scientists.

From a philosophical point of view, how do I argue that certain events, if true, would indeed constitute miracles, no matter how many new scientific laws we discover?

In other words, can we ever really be sure something is a miracle, when it might just be explained by scientists down the line?

---

First one must resolve the question if there is God or not.
There is God, as this unexplainable mysterium of universe and life
can not be a result of coincidences- irrelevant if science has explained them or not or will explain them or not…
The accent in thought is: Is life and universe a series of phenomena of coincidents - an unplanned, undesigned disorder or
is it a planned, designed order?
We have scientific evidence that it is a planned, designed order…
In each scientific law, a new order is expressed.
Well then, it is apparent that there is certain wisdom, power, creator behind all this “order” in nature. We know there is an “order”, although we do not know why. We do not know the reason for this order and for our existence, for the existence of life and the universe.​

Sciences prove, in each step of discovery, in each proof of a hypothesis,that there is God.
As this is so, the next question is: Is God capable of doing anything? If the universe and nature and its wonders are not enough, then miracles or small miracles in the lives of the human beings help to prove.
Indeed, some miracles can be physical facts which are not yet
explained by the science. But, science and God are not contrary
to one another. God causes phenomena and the science explains. Now or perhaps later. One is a creator (The God) the other is the explaining instrument.​

SMALL MIRACLES by Askin Ozcan
ISBN 1598001000 Outskirts Press
outskirtspress.com/smallmiracles

tells the story of thirty very stunning incidents of small and big miracles the author has experienced in his life in many countries.
The book also has a chapter on bringing various religions of God closer. This aspect has been complimented on in a recent competition of Writer’s Digest as a step towards world peace.​

SMALL MIRACLES has been sent to His Holiness The Pope
Benedictus XVI in the Christmas of 2006 and was well received.​

Available on major internet bookshops incl.: www.bn.com
www.amazon.com (and on all amazons throughout the world)
www.adlibris.se (in Scandinavia) , www.ibs.it​

for wholesale : www.outskirtspress.com/buybooks

Excellent addition to libraries.​

Author Askin Ozcan has been for 10 years, the Associate Secretary of I.A.E.W.P. (Intern. Assoc. of Educators for World Peace) active in 104 countries, an NGO with U.N.
and is author of five books.

 

[cranster]

I love this thread.
It got me thinking about a couple of things. Take Padre Pio and Gemma. Padre Pio we know for a fact had 5 gaping wounds in his hands, feet and side for 50 some odd years. At some point well before he died those wounds should have healed which they didn’t. He laid his wounded hands on top of a 12 year old girls head named Gemma. Gemma was born without pupils but after he laid his hands on her head she still had no pupils but gained 20/20 vision from total blindness. It’s not physiologically possible to see without pupils.

If you take the argument that science simply hasn’t discovered the reason yet, then isn’t that assuming scientists have an unlimited amount of time and brain capacity to discover the reason. If the universe is finite and it takes one day after the end of the universe to discover the cause of that as of yet undiscovered scientific phenomena then how can you logically conclude that it can be discovered? Or how would you know that it wouldn’t actually take 500 billions more neurons of gray matter to comprehend it? Are our brains big enough to actually understand everything there is to understand about it?

I love the name of God “I AM WHO AM” and the concept of Him being in an eternal now. If all points in time are always present to God that raises an interesting idea, is not the sacrifice of the Cross and all the inherent agony and suffering not also eternally present to God? Thus making it an eternal sacrifice?

 

[cranster]

(Ignorant) people (who can’t think properly)

That statement makes total sense in the respect that the further one is from God the more distorted reason becomes. Unrepentant sin distorts our ability to reason and see reality for what it is.

 

[joze]

In a religion class, I mentioned that if we could prove a single miracle, then that would be enough to prove the existence of God, or at least a supernatural being greater than ourselves.

In response, many students argued that apparent miracles are not really miracles at all. According to these students, events that seem like miracles are really just rare physical phenomenon not yet classified by scientists.

From a philosophical point of view, how do I argue that certain events, if true, would indeed constitute miracles, no matter how many new scientific laws we discover?

In other words, can we ever really be sure something is a miracle, when it might just be explained by scientists down the line?

Prelude: people have attempted to explain away Eucharistic miracles; I have tried to pin down the major logical objections. Can someone please be devil’s advocate looking for holes in the argument? (I haven’t yet included objections of “chance”, insufficient evidence; evil spirits/the devil did it). Also help to improve it would be nice (though part B and C I have not included yet). Also this post (on Part A) is nearly 2000 words, I wanted 1500 but didn’t know what to cut (is it too long as it is?)

TITLE: Eucharistic miracles, specifically the first recorded one in Lanciano
Parts: (parts A & C are primarily an appeal to our minds)
A) EUCHARISTIC (and other) MIRACLES
B) OUR RESPONSE TO GOD’S LOVING REVELATION (unfinished and the shortest part)- a powerful and relevant appeal to our hearts
C) Fatal logical errors of atheism, supplemental info, further replies to objections (unfinished).

 

[joze]

PART A
I am excited to have proved beyond reasonable doubt that God exists. The proof is conclusive but not coercive. To reject it would be unreasonable. It must be accepted by the impartial reader. This is the first part of the proof.

Eucharistic miracles: Our Lord issued a stunning declaration when he taught in the synagogue in Capernaum. He said: “I am the living bread which came down from Heaven; if anyone eats of this bread, he will live for ever; and the bread which I shall give for the life of the world is My flesh.” (Jn 6:51) He had previously worked the miracle of the multiplication of the loaves of bread in confirmation of his claim. Throughout the history of the Church, God has been pleased to demonstrate the truthfulness of these words, that the Holy Eucharist is no mere symbol, but Jesus’ body and blood (the Real Presence). More than 30 Eucharistic miracles have been documented, studied and venerated since they occurred.

The first recorded of these occurred in the 8th century in Lanciano, Italy. Mass was being said by a Basilian monk tormented by doubts about the Real Presence. When he consecrated the bread and wine they changed visibly into human flesh and blood before his eyes. Scientific tests ordered by the Holy See in 1970 produced the following results: the flesh is real human flesh consisting of the muscular tissue of the heart; the blood is real human blood, with the properties and constitution of freshly shed blood; both the flesh and blood have the same blood type AB; their preservation exposed to nature for 1300 years without preservative is inexplicable to science. These results were verified by the World Health Organization over a period of 15 months, starting in 1973. The flesh and the blood, and the documents of scientific recognition, are both on permanent display in the church.

Other occurrences include hosts (Holy communion bread) bleeding and leaving permanent stains, stolen hosts changing appearance stunning their thieves and leading them to repentance, hosts removing themselves from harm, and hosts preserved intact for centuries after their robbery. Each occurrence illustrates the Real Presence of Jesus Christ in the Eucharist, the treasure of treasures of the Catholic Church.
(J.C. Cruz, “Eucharistic Miracles”, TAN Books, Illinois 1987; R. & P. Lord, “This is My Body, This is My Blood, Miracles of the Eucharist”, Journeys of Faith, USA 1986).

Links: therealpresence.org/eucha…/lanciano.html
trosch.org/inx/lanciano.html
zenit.org/article-12933?l=english
acfp2000.com/Miracles/eucharistic.html
miraclerosarymission.org/lanciano.html
zenit.org/article-11468?l=english
michaeljournal.org/eucharist3.htm

 

[joze]

Part A
For further definitive proof: The incorrupt bodies of the saints, Juan Diego’s cloak in Mexico City, the blood of St. Januarius and the various Eucharistic miracles have been examined by the Church and outside investigators.

The pigments in the cloak of Juan Diego were analysed and determined to have characteristics not available until modern times, even though the cloak is over 400 years old. Extreme magnification of the Blessed Mother’s eyes shows a reflection of the saint in minute detail, recognised from the likeness to the early portraits of him.

If this were a court of law in a murder trial, I would say you have proof beyond a shadow of a doubt. These are items that you can touch and examine scientifically. I would guess that efforts are being made to get the DNA signature of the Eucharistic miracles to show that the DNA is identical in all items.

DNA is conclusive evidence for murder and rape trials. A DNA investigation would show that the same blood shows up for miracles that happened hundreds of years apart. The same blood type, AB is present in all samples; the same DNA would be undeniable proof that the blood is that of the One and Only Jesus Christ. Also the Shroud of Turin and the Sudarium of Oviedo (burial cloths of Jesus) both have the same blood type AB.
Taken together just the few miracles mentioned so far allows for no other explanation beyond having come from the Almighty.

Brief note on criteria for miracles (for the more advanced reader): Under the following conditions the evidence that a miracle took place can be so thoroughly tested and controlled as to indicate their occurrence and its confirmation of a teaching.
a) If there is sufficient evidence of its occurrence.
b) That the event is positively outside of the ability of nature. We know for instance that nature cannot heal a great wound in a moment of time or cause a person to come back to life. When we find such things to have taken place, their occurrence can only be attributed to God’s intervention. God, when he wills, can produce effects independently of the laws of nature.
c) That the miracle clearly supports a teaching.

 

[joze]

What is the case here? (1-2 are two common objections)
• 1. The Church is lying.
• 2. Science simply hasn’t discovered the reason yet.
• 3. If these miracles are true, it validates the Catholic faith and proves God’s existence.
• 4. Other?

I will argue the reasons why the first two explanations are unsatisfactory, specifically focusing our discussion upon the Eucharistic miracle of Lanciano.

1. (Lying Church):
   The church openly and publicly proclaims the miracle.

The enmity against the Church, a witness to her truth:
The Church, like her Divine Founder, is a sign of contradiction (Lk 2:34). Even very religiously illiterate people know that it is only the Pope and the Catholic Church that speaks with coherency and authority on the burning issues of the day. The very dissent whipped up against the Pope when he speaks proves he speaks with a voice that disturbs consciences with the authority of Christ himself. Nothing arouses the fury of the modern enemies of Jesus Christ like the Vicar of Christ, the Pope. “One thing in this world is different from all other. It has a personality and a force. It is recognised, and (when recognised) most violently loved or hated. It is the Catholic Church. Within that household the human spirit has roof and hearth.” Hilaire Belloc (1870-1953) Essays of a Catholic, Ch. Xv, p.305

With this in mind, the church doesn’t control the highly secular media found particularly in the U.S.A. and Europe. If one of the many enemies of the Church could prove the Church is engaged in a fraud, we would expect this to be published by the media. Recently Prince Harry was forced to leave military duty in Afghanistan after the media leaked that he was there, even though measures were taken to prevent this from happening. Many people would vote with their feet and leave the Church if they were found to be lying about these miracles and the evidence they have. The Church is extremely cautious in approving physical miracles. We know that attempts at fraud or insufficient evidence for an approved miracle can cast the Church in a bad light.
Not only that, but the church openly declares that the World Health Organisation confirmed these claims, confirming science’s inability to explain the phenomenon and yet no one from the World Health Organisation has refuted this claim. Don’t you think that they would? Or are they in on a conspiracy as well? If they are, prove it.