"Proving" Miracles

[GUYMAN]

I have heard of miracles where wine turned to blood, bread turned to human flesh etc - I mean in modern times. Is there some way to “prove” these things happened, in a way that average (non-believing) folks would buy into?

 

[Raxus]

Looking up information on the miracles themselves will talk about whether they have been proven true or false. Scientific testing of the appropriate type(s) is done to ascertain the truth in these cases, and the Church is very careful in pronouncing anything to be an authentic miracle until all other explanations have been exhausted.

Relatively few cases are decreed to be authentic, as far as I know, compared to the number that are reported.

 

[Vonsalza]

I have heard of miracles where wine turned to blood, bread turned to human flesh etc - I mean in modern times. Is there some way to “prove” these things happened, in a way that average (non-believing) folks would buy into?

No. If they could be rationally explained, then they wouldn’t be miracles. Testimony can be dismissed as can any other form of evidence that cannot be independently recreated on whim.

 

[GUYMAN]

I’m not saying they can be “rationally” explained - I’m talking about proving that it happened - not how or why…

 

[Vonsalza]

I’m not saying they can be “rationally” explained - I’m talking about proving that it happened - not how or why…

You’re still stuck with the problems inherent to information that the beholder didn’t primarily observe. People might say the miracle happened, but you don’t have to believe them. We might have a sample of the water and wine from the same jug both before and after transformation, but you can still dismiss the testimony that insists they were the same substance.

The video that just-so-happened to be rolling when the miracle happened might be dismissed as an effect of lighting or an error in the recording system. It goes on and on.

So no. You can’t prove that a miracle happened in a way that a skeptic would find irrefutable.

 

[ProdglArchitect]

GUYMAN:

I’m not saying they can be “rationally” explained - I’m talking about proving that it happened - not how or why…

You’re still stuck with the problems inherent to information that the beholder didn’t primarily observe. People might say the miracle happened, but you don’t have to believe them. We might have a sample of the water and wine from the same jug both before and after transformation, but you can still dismiss the testimony that insists they were the same substance.

The video that just-so-happened to be rolling when the miracle happened might be dismissed as an effect of lighting or an error in the recording system. It goes on and on.

So no. You can’t prove that a miracle happened in a way that a skeptic would find irrefutable.

Pretty much this.

For someone dead set on not believing, Jesus could descend from the clouds in front of them, convert the ocean into wine, and raise the dead, and they would still try to rationalize it away.

I personally find the strongest evidence to be those cases where there was a documented medical condition beforehand and a miraculous healing cured it. In these cases there’s clear documentation on both sides of the event. However, even this isn’t enough to convince people, because the non-believer will say that we simply don’t know what healed the person, but we’ll figure it out eventually.