M
mrsdizzyd
Guest
Upon what do you base this determination? Poorly attested? By what standard?
And, why is your standard the correct standard?
- Status
And, why is your standard the correct standard?
F
FiveLinden
Guest
My standard of proof is the same we apply to medicine, bridge-building and car manufacture. We observe how matter behaves and draw conclusions. ‘Faith’ in rejecting these standards of proof is very common and goes beyond religion into things like belief in acupuncture, homeopathy etc, all of which can be shown to not work better than placebo but this fact does not stop many people spending money on them.
The same standard we would apply to any scientific claim of an observation.
E
Eddie18
Guest
Not sure what you are referring to when you say, “the second miracle”?
When the miracle at Fatima occurred is irrelevant. If it happened 100 years ago, 50, or 10 doesn’t change anything. Thousands of testimonials were submitted to the Catholic Church, each and every one investigated, all unanimous in stating the sun danced in the sky, and though the people had been standing in pouring rain for hours, their clothes and the ground were dried instantly. The only reason the 70,000 people were there to see it in a remote field was because 3 children predicted the miracle to the exact location and time 3 months beforehand.
When the miracle at Fatima occurred is irrelevant. If it happened 100 years ago, 50, or 10 doesn’t change anything. Thousands of testimonials were submitted to the Catholic Church, each and every one investigated, all unanimous in stating the sun danced in the sky, and though the people had been standing in pouring rain for hours, their clothes and the ground were dried instantly. The only reason the 70,000 people were there to see it in a remote field was because 3 children predicted the miracle to the exact location and time 3 months beforehand.
Z
Zaccheus
Guest
God is not going to perform on command to satisfy your conditions.
And then some people would cry ‘faked video!’ or claim witnesses or journalists had been bribed, evidence manufactured.Bradskii said:
In 50 years people would be saying the event was a legend, that there was no positive proof it really happened, that the video records were faked or edited or misleading.
When Christ was there among them performing miracles of healing, some said He was possessed by the Devil, and some said it was sorcery, and in the end they had Him murdered.
When He rose from the dead they concocted a lie that HIs followers stole the body and made up the Resurrection.
There is room for the honest skeptic; but there are dis honest skeptics as well, and none are so blind as those who refuse to see.
Last edited:
C
Curious11
Guest
How exactly did he make himself known?
D
DeepDeepTrouble3
Guest
Read about the life and miracles of Padre Pio.
M
mrsdizzyd
Guest
The standards of Scientific inquiry have been met.
You misunderstand what we are dealing with here. Science tells us whether there is some reasonable explanation of the events as they occurred (materially). When science determines that there is no reasonable explanation for the event the inquiry moves to the next stage. It moves from science to theology.
Science only tells us what is reasonable from a material standpoint. Science cannot tell us what is reasonable from a spiritual standpoint.
You misunderstand what we are dealing with here. Science tells us whether there is some reasonable explanation of the events as they occurred (materially). When science determines that there is no reasonable explanation for the event the inquiry moves to the next stage. It moves from science to theology.
Science only tells us what is reasonable from a material standpoint. Science cannot tell us what is reasonable from a spiritual standpoint.
T
Theo2
Guest
That is a great question. Let’s look at one miracle the transfiguration. From Matthew chapter 17: After six days Jesus took with him Peter, James and John the brother of James, and led them up a high mountain by themselves. 2 There he was transfigured before them. His face shone like the sun, and his clothes became as white as the light. 3 Just then there appeared before them Moses and Elijah, talking with Jesus.
So you ask why? Well he took the three leaders maybe to do something special for them. He wanted to show them that he was united with the Jewish law, Moses, and the prophets, Elijah. He wanted to strengthen there faith as he knew they would be very confused when He was crucified.
It is the same reason God answers prayers. He wants to build our faith and make it stronger.
I hope this helps, if you ask the Lord he will teach you these things step by step.
So you ask why? Well he took the three leaders maybe to do something special for them. He wanted to show them that he was united with the Jewish law, Moses, and the prophets, Elijah. He wanted to strengthen there faith as he knew they would be very confused when He was crucified.
It is the same reason God answers prayers. He wants to build our faith and make it stronger.
I hope this helps, if you ask the Lord he will teach you these things step by step.
B
Bradskii
Guest
Nothwithstanding that let’s try this…
If Fatima occured within living memory so that we have the ability today to interview people who actually saw it, would that make it more or less credible?
If Fatima was seen by very many more people, some whose character and credentials could be descibed as being impeccable, would that it make it more or less credible?
If Fatima, rather than relying on eye witness acounts was actually photographed, would that make it more or less credible?
If Fatima, rather than occuring as a one off event, happened very many times over a period of months, would that make it more or less credible?
If Fatima was examined at the time it was happening by church and government officials and declared to be a miravle with no apparent natural cause, would that make it more or less credible?
Now I would suggest that any reasonable person would be in no doubt whatsoever that the miracle, in the conditions I have just given, would be much more credible. And if indeed those conditions had been met, you would be more than happy to use them in any argument to show that the miracle had definitely happened.
Would you not agree?
B
Bradskii
Guest
And there’s me thinking that if science had no answer to a particular problem it simply said: ‘We don’t know yet’.
M
mrsdizzyd
Guest
Not so for the one who understands that the existence of God is reasonable.mrsdizzyd:
And there’s me thinking that if science had no answer to a particular problem it simply said: ‘We don’t know yet’.
If the existence of God is reasonable you owe it to yourself to investigate whether or not the existence of God can explain that which science cannot explain.
G
Gorgias
Guest
No… it means simply that it’s evidence which you choose to reject. The fact that you reject it does not impugn the evidence, but merely reveals your subjective point of view.
You’re talking about the Gospels? They were written (or dictated) by eyewitnesses. There are no reports that they contradicted what had been being preached since the beginning of the Church (since they were accepted by those who had heard them being preached orally). They were written in the language commonly used for written texts in that time and place.
In other words: they’re eyewitness reports that were accepted by those who had lived in the time of the events being reported.
Of course, I get it – you’ll look at them, shrug, and say, “meh. just stories.” Again, though, this says more about you and your viewpoint than it says about the texts.
This, by the way, really is the answer to your question: what makes a miracle a miracle is not only the lack of ability to explain by normal means, but also the assent of the individual who observes the facts. In other words, it’s a subjective consideration – and if you’re of a mind to say “nope. not a miracle.”, then you will never find a miracle. And, honestly… that’s on you.
G
Gorgias
Guest
Neither. People would still be able to say, “that guy I just talked to? boy, what a nutjob!”
Neither. People could still say, “nope; their character and credentials don’t meet my standards.”
Neither. People would still say, “the photos have been doctored.”
Neither. Unless an occurrence could be predicted in advance, there would still be those who would say, “it’s gotta be repeatable” and those who would say, “I don’t see any measurements, so it’s not believable.”
I’m sorry – are you suggesting that secular authorities should weigh in on the miraculous nature of an event?
I disagree. Those who wish to doubt would still remain skeptical.
We would. But, that would not mean that it would be accepted by those who wish not to believe. As you say, they would simply say, “well, it’s not explainable yet.”
E
Eddie18
Guest
I’m not sure where you’re going with this. I don’t need anything to make the miracle at Fatima “more or less credible” - it already is completely credible as it stands. It appeared in the newspapers the following day. Thousands of written testimonials were submitted to the Catholic Church. If you think about it, the court systems in just about any country accept testimonials from just a few witnesses to decide whether someone is incarcerated for life, or set free. Now consider thousands of testimonials! No one would have seen it had the children not predicted the time and location. Where did they get that information? They claim it was a lady from heaven, who at the same time gave them a Catholic message to deliver to the world. Such a prediction can only be supernatural.
Have you seen the book, “Meet the Witnesses” that contains testimonials of people living not that long ago (the 1960s) who saw the miracle? Note this includes testimonials from nonbelievers who went to mock the incident and left as believers. Here is a link to the book:
http://johnhaffert.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/Meet-the-Witnesses-91511.pdf
Have you seen the book, “Meet the Witnesses” that contains testimonials of people living not that long ago (the 1960s) who saw the miracle? Note this includes testimonials from nonbelievers who went to mock the incident and left as believers. Here is a link to the book:
http://johnhaffert.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/Meet-the-Witnesses-91511.pdf
Last edited:
V
Vanny
Guest
Yes I agree with this-to the OP- Read the book of John. Our faith is not supposed to be based on miracles, the Catholic Church teaches that you can believe in the approved miracles if you want, but our Faith is based on the dogmas of the Church. Other Christian churches(and even other religions) may have miracles, too, but Jesus Christ became flesh,-the incarnation, lived a life without sin for us and died on the Cross for us sinful humans.
Last edited:
B
Bradskii
Guest
I’m not interested in what any given atheist might think. I just want to know if you personally would think it more credible. And apparently you do. You’d be more than happy to cite those cicumstances as proof. Over and above that provided for in the Fatima example.
Now where do you imagine that this is going?
Well…let’s say we have two proposals you’d like people to believe: A and B. Now B has a greater weight of evidence than A. But B is rejected by an authority to which you would defer. How does that affect the proposal for A which has lesser evidence?
You’d look pretty foolish trying to claim that the weight of evidence for A is sufficient when the greater evidence for B has been rejected.
It wouldn’t make any sense, would it.
Now where do you imagine that this is going?
Well…let’s say we have two proposals you’d like people to believe: A and B. Now B has a greater weight of evidence than A. But B is rejected by an authority to which you would defer. How does that affect the proposal for A which has lesser evidence?
You’d look pretty foolish trying to claim that the weight of evidence for A is sufficient when the greater evidence for B has been rejected.
It wouldn’t make any sense, would it.
JoeFreedom
New member
@Peebo. BINGO!
B
Bradskii
Guest
If’s not that we are looking for evidence to make Fatima more credible. We are looking at what might happen if there was greater evidence for another miracle and that particular miracle was rejected.
Wouldn’t it cast doubt in any reasonable person’s mind about the credibility of the first miracle?
I say without any shadow of doubt that it would. If the first is accepted, then the second, with stronger evidence, must also be accepted. If there is doubt about the second then there must be greater doubt about the first which has less evidence.
Wouldn’t it cast doubt in any reasonable person’s mind about the credibility of the first miracle?
I say without any shadow of doubt that it would. If the first is accepted, then the second, with stronger evidence, must also be accepted. If there is doubt about the second then there must be greater doubt about the first which has less evidence.
Last edited:
E
Eddie18
Guest
What other miracle do you have in mind?
M
MCH1
Guest
Do you believe in the miracle of the sun at Fatima? That was seen by many atheists, who converted. Not miracles, but who may find this helpful: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five_Ways_(Aquinas)
- Status