Science, miracles, and divine intervention

  • Thread starter Thread starter Johnpeter073
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Looks like nothing will ever satisfy the sceptic. No use in debating anymore.

That’s no different to someone who claims nothing is real and we cannot know it. You cannot have a reasonable debate with someone who thinks they live in the matrix.
 
Last edited:
Lillypilly said:
You seem to miss the point.
You likely believe the angles of a triangle must always add to 180 degrees also.
If that is how you define a triangle of course you are right.

But if we question that as part of the definition of a triangle we may well discover that there are cases when triangle angles do not add to 180 - yet they are still triangles.

Likewise with inexplicable events. lets call them “wonders” (the english meaning of “miracle” is a very recent narrowing of the original meaning which was until recently more like “wonder”).

If a wonder has a spiritual causality must it be God?
I do not believe so. The same causality could be from a good angel, a bad angel, or from human nature itself (preternatural gift).

It seems to me we ascribe the agency to God whenever it serves the purposes of the Church. If the person is in any way not pro Catholic it gets described as Satanic, witch, magic, trick.

Yet often enough it is exactly the same inexplicable “gift” being displayed each time (eg prophecy versus fortune telling).
Click to expand...
The only definition of miracle that matters is the Church one.

A miracle is produced only by God and not by Satan or any other demon, person or thing.

If anyone thinks miracles happen other than through God they are wrong.
 
Lillypilly said:
You are suggesting we only trust panels of Catholic doctors or their carefully chosen acquaintances and a token “devil’s advocate” rather than peer reviews or greater non-Catholic medical representation.

Most would find that still a somewhat medieval approach to discerning objective truth
Click to expand...
Not really. Many scientists are atheists and would reject the cause on principle. Even Protestants reject the saints on principle. No amount of proof would convince them and the end result would be that we would have no accepted saints whatsoever. So no thanks, the canonization process is fine as is.
 
You mean doc 7 in this book here:?

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
 
I will @KevinK, first @Lillypilly cited a post with an incomplete reference “Armada and Fernandes, p. 190” which should be:

ARMADA,F. and FERNANDES,J.(1982). “Intervenção extraterrestre em Fátima – as aparições e o fenómeno O.V.N.I.” Amadora, Livraria Bertrand.

Which translates as:

ARMADA,F. and FERNANDES,J.(1982). “Extraterrestrial intervention at Fátima – the apparitions and the phenomenon U.F.O.” Amadora, Livraria Bertrand.

The year 1982 places the book just 8 years after the 1974 “carnation revolution” (ending 41 years of fascism in Portugal) when the country lived the wake of both revolution and fascism. Both authors taught at 2 “private universities” founded short afterwards, and of little scientific relevance, at a time when only a few privileged had PhD’s.

Fina d’Armada was the pseudonym of a lady poetist/historian that wrote on “Imaginary” and “feminine” topics and had 3 books trying to establish a esoteric relation between Nostradamus/UFO’s/Fátima. Not much more to say there, except: It did garner some book sales, headlines, and confusion among some Catholics abroad.

Joaquim Fernandes, was apparently one of the first authors to publish an academic thesis on UFO’s and “popular imagination”. He kept writing on the subject up until recently aligning himself with other anti-Fátima authors who try to discredit Marian apparitions with all sorts of esoteric explanations.

Merit goes, also, to certain CAF’ers who in the past had to refute such ridiculous accusations.
 
Last edited:
Lillypilly said:
Do you refute the following words
Click to expand...
CAf’ers in the post you linked (and in other posts addressing the same calumny and purposed misquote) have already done so sufficiently (and with plenty of merit since they hacked through the literature without speaking the language. NOW THAT IS MERIT!)
 
Last edited:
You haven’t read the supposed quote. I have, and it’s completely different. Has absolutely nothing to do with what you are saying.
 
Lillypilly said:
By all means provide the original documentation.
As an engineer, when people over exaggerate the scientific assertions like this I smell bias not objectivity.

Do they have non Catholic/Christian scientists on these panels and are their conclusions unanimous?
Click to expand...
I too am an Engineer, Electrical if it matters. I’m not sure if you are demanding rigorous documentation of miracles as part of your faith or as an Agnostic/Atheist; but you seem to be a bit aggressive when it’s not really required.

Maybe it’s me but I don’t get too worked up on miracles, it may be important to some peoples faith, but not mine. I find more than enough wonder in the science around us and the mere fact that we can understand it as well as we do. You are talking about dust and random atoms combining over time and eventually being able become sentient and actually understand where it came from; a creation myth if there ever was one. This is a miracle beyond all others and we have as much proof of it as science allows. Why you think this happened is up to your faith or lack there of. But if you have no faith at all, then by definition you know less about the world around you.

Now to your point about miracles and science. I’m sure that there are more than a few “miracles” of yore that would easily be explainable with modern science. This is in part why I don’t get too worked up about them.
 
Lillypilly said:
I am saddened by the uncritical tendancies exhibited by some thinking here which can make us ripe for cult type thinking and a journey into religious lala land or manipulation by unscrupulous authorities.
Click to expand...
We are definitely on the same page.
 
@Roseeurekacross a brief note on the anti-Fátima detraction that has been brought up in this thread.

Saint Jacinta said:

“A dress until middle of the shin, with a long cape covering the head.”

Semantics are misleading in this, since cape and dress are addressed spontaneously in the same sentence. The child confused dress and cape when spontaneously saying length. Cape obviously being shorter than dress.

Let us not be confused by a pretensions “skeptic” who’s only intent is actually “ill will” in “bad faith”.

Rules of discernment in apparitions give room for a seer not being rigorously “accurate” due to agitation or exhaustion during the interrogations or because during the apparition itself the focus and attention of the seer was on other aspects and details. Or because they innocently mix up the order of two nouns in a sentence.
 
Engineers are not scientists . Some scientists take entire units at university to learn to communicate with engineers. Those were the days!

However, Engineers are not Theologians or Philosophers either. Nor are they the Magisterium. The body of the Church that is the final word on miracles and supernatural events.
Although I have met quite a few who think they are the final word
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top