Miracles to convince me, a non-believer

  • Thread starter Thread starter FiveLinden
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
fide said:
Such faith is called “acquired”, or "natural’, rooted in physical observations and reasoning. Such faith is lifeless - dead - empty of what is needed for eternal and beatific life : divine grace . That kind of faith - which is given by grace - is not acquired, but is called “infused” - supernatural - a gift from God - given with grace, which is a participation in His very life.
Click to expand...
Why does God infuse faith in other Gods depending on what culture people are born into? The faith experience seems identical, just hugely different beliefs.
 
MIRACLE. A sensibly perceptible effect, surpassing at least the powers of visible nature, produced by God to witness to some truth or testify to someone’s sanctity. (Etym. Latin miraculum, miracle, marvel; from mirari, to wonder.)

And, in more detail: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10338a.htm

However, it is clear that these definitions pertain to something outside of, and superior to (i.e. “above”) your requirements and experiences. Thus, I believe that focusing on the miraculous has no chance of convincing you one way or the other. You might be trying to run before you can walk.

Transcendence. Look into it.
 
Last edited:
IN any culture, two radically different kinds of faith are possible:
  1. acquired faith, the result of human conclusion, observation, reasoning - this is a natural work in man, and has only natural effects in him.
  2. infused faith, the result of the supernatural gift from God to man of His grace to believe. This is the supernatural work of God in the man, and has supernatural effects in him.
A person can have true faith in the true God, not knowing His Name and knowing little about Him, yet knowing He is real, and true, and divine - and is NOT what others may say of think of Him in his culture. When the One True God does reveal Himself to such a man, the man then recognizes Him as the God He came to know, before he knew anything about Him. (Read Jn 9 as an example of this.)
 
While I believe in miracles, I agree the so-called charismatic healings are not convincing. I would focus on the major miracles first as mentioned previously.

As for someone being cured of “being dead”, Scripture mentions St. Peter raised Tabitha from the dead. There is also a book on the lives of the Saints called something like, “Saints that raised people from the dead” or something like that. The book might not be convincing to you, but just to let you know there are many Catholic Saints recorded to have raised others from the dead.

As for miracles regarding the prevention of the decay of bodies, that would be the incorruptibles, which are fascinating. They are on display all over Europe and you can go see them yourself. Body examination testimonies exist as well.

You might also check out the official listing of healings confirmed miraculous at Lourdes. Examples confirm people arriving with deadly diseases like cancer, tuberculosis, etc., entering the water associated with the miracle there, and walking out completely cured. This confirmed by doctors on the Lourdes medical Bureau, which is open to doctors of any belief. Here is a link:

http://www.miraclehunter.com/marian...paritions/lourdes/downloads/lourdes_cures.pdf
 
FiveLinden said:
This is not the view held by the majority of biblical scholars about the evidence. Suggest having a look at Bart Herman’s works. They are very convincing.
Click to expand...
Bart Ehrman is a bad word around these parts…or so I’ve been led to believe. I agree with you. He is the most unbiased scholar I have read and listened to.
 
FiveLinden said:
I am not talking about non-material experiences. These may exist but I don’t know. I am talking about experiences in which matter (bodies, the sun, etc.) is claimed to have been changed in ways that could not occur naturally.
Click to expand...
But you are asking for “material” proof for an immaterial reality, which you have not even defined, and seem to deny exists.
FiveLinden said:
My standard of proof is the same we apply to medicine, bridge-building and car manufacture.
Click to expand...
This is my point. Which of these areas of inquiry explore that which is intangible?
FiveLinden said:
We observe how matter behaves and draw conclusions.
Click to expand...
Those of us that know that all reality is not contained in matter that behaves also observe and draw conclusions. 😁
FiveLinden said:
‘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.
Click to expand...
You have confirmed that your cognitive bias is even more severe than you did at the outset!

Acupuncture, homeopathy, and other interventions have been in use and effectively treating health problems for millenia. Your mind has been significantly narrowed by Western materialism.

The fact that placebos work (which also has been scientifically documented), has to do with those same non-material elements of human persons that you are denying exist, such as expectations, attitudes, values, and beliefs. None of these are materially measurable, but significantly influence human behavior.
FiveLinden said:
The same standard we would apply to any scientific claim of an observation.
Click to expand...
Your “science” is much too narrow to apply to any human experiences beyond the physical. If you believe that humanity is limited to only physical things that can be observed and measured, then you cannot rationally explore any human experiences that cannot be determined while a person is in a coma.

In fact, the vast majority of human experience lies beyond the narrow confines of the parameters you have selected.
 
Eddie18 said:
I don’t need anything to make the miracle at Fatima “more or less credible” - it already is completely credible as it stands.
Click to expand...
I am not sure that the OP is even willing to look into the evidence. “Waiting to hear” rather than investing in some research bespeaks a passive approach to the material. There is also the insurmountable blockages of nonsensical parameters.
wkj_123 said:
The inclination to believe in things that have no evidence or are logically not sound is actually a bad thing.
Click to expand...
I am amazed that people think that this is actually being advocated by the Catholic Church, which is a seat of knowledge. The CC invented the scientific method, preserved literacy in the West through monasteries during the dark ages, and invented universities. How anyone could think that the CC does not expect people to use every ounce of reason God has given us is absurd.
wkj_123 said:
For the most part it is. You may not think it’s blind but it is. I have been there, done that.
Click to expand...
If you did not apply your reason to your faith, you have no one to blame but yourself. Assuming that everyone else is “blind” in this way is not accurate.
FiveLinden said:
This is not the view held by the majority of biblical scholars about the evidence.
Click to expand...
And which scholarly biblical majority is that?
FiveLinden said:
Suggest having a look at Bart Herman’s works. They are very convincing.
Click to expand...
Indeed, he has more faith in the testimony of those who were present than you!
FiveLinden said:
Why does God do only healing miracles that could occur naturally?
Click to expand...
Why do you discount miracles that could have a natural cause? How are they less miracles because they happened supernaturally rather than naturally?
FiveLinden said:
Why does God infuse faith in other Gods depending on what culture people are born into? The faith experience seems identical, just hugely different beliefs.
Click to expand...
Faith is a human capacity. We have choices where we place our faith. Yours seems to be placed in physical science. Some people put theirs into money, or power.

People make these decisions upon where to place their faith based on their experiences, which are yet another human phenomenon that cannot be measured by your narrow parameters, so will not meet your standards of existing.
 
Today my seven year old daughter asked my wife if white peacocks exist, my wife said yes and my daughter said “but I haven’t seen any”, my wife replied just because you haven’t seen any it doesn’t mean they exist, I immediately thought of God.
 
FiveLinden said:
It would also need to be performed in conditions that prevent fraud, such a supervision by expert conjurors and multiple cameras. This would exclude, for example, all ‘eucharistic miracles’ I have heard of.

And then, it would need to be repeated, just as repeated results are required for scientific findings.

Evidence for the miracle would need to be published and subject to peer review.

Something like that would be pretty convincing to me. Please let me know when it happens.
Click to expand...
Actually, Eucharist Miracles are indeed miracles, e.g., Lanciano, and have stood up well to scientific examination. Ditto on non-Eucharistic miracles like St. Juan Diego’s Tilma. Stay open and your might be surprised.
 
We are commanded not to put our God to the test.

Deuteronomy chapter 6, Luke 4, Matthew 4
 
Have you ever looked at the healings of Fatima?

I recall one instance of a woman with flesh eating bacteria, her face was almost completely eaten away. She stepped into the waters and stepped out with a completely regrown face. The bacteria were gone and her face was perfectly restored.

There is photographic evidence of both the before and the after.

There are many healings coming out of Fatima, though this is probably the most “miraculous” of them. You should look into it. There have been several thousand reports of miracles since the apparitions, though only 61(or 62) of them have been approved by the Church. That’s how rigorous the testing standards are.
 
Last edited:
You said provide evidence.

I provided evidence.

and actually if you read the accounts of the saints there are many accounts of medically approved miracles of limbs being restored such as through the intercession of Saint Padre Pio when he was alive, and at catholic charismatic healing events yes limbs have been restored to people and in the lives of the saints eye witness accounts have happened of people being brought back people from the dead.
 
Last edited:
Eddie18 said:
I’m still not sure where you’re going with this. Much evidence has been presented for the miracle at Fatima. Do you believe the evidence, why or why not?
Click to expand...
The question that needs to be asked is why I should when so-called miracles with greater evidence are rejected.
 
Your evidence is;
Why should I believe option A because option B was false.

Option A has nothing to do with option B.

The Bible says: there are many false prophets, and we have to discern them.
Name one Apparition with LOADS of evidence that the vatican said was a false apparition? My bet is that the supernatural ‘evidence’ in whatever apparition you are thinking of: was demonic. The catholic church knows the signs of a demonic apparition; namely there are subtleties of things that only satan would say or do (according to biblical discernment). Because the bible says: satan can pretend to be an angel of light. He can imitate God with temporary miracles, but there are always tell tale demonic signs that it is satan behind it all…

If B is false.

And A is real.

Then A is still real no matter what.

If option A is real it means the Catholic God is real, which means you need to change your perspective dude.
 
Last edited:
Name one Apparition with greater evidence that the Vatican rejected.

You provide no evidence for any of your ‘opinions.’

No links, no sources, no websites, no quotes.
 
Last edited:
YoungCatholicGuy said:
Your evidence is;
Why should I believe option A because option B was false.
Click to expand...
You are not reading what I am writing. Dude.

I didn’t say either option was false. Your church did that. The question then becomes: why did the church reject one miracle and accept another that had less evidence?

And if you say: ‘Because it must have been true’ then I shall gently bang my head against the wall.
 
Again just stating your opinion,

No sources of evidence, no websites, no quotes,

Name one Apparition the Vatican said was false?
Any apparition declared as false was because:
  1. it was faked and proven to be faked.
    Or
  2. it was demonic. Satan can imitate God temporarily to do supernatural acts to lead people astray. And the church will have proven there were demonic signs in the apparitions.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top