The question of miracles - Are there convincing miracle cases?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Blindseeker04
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Blindseeker04 said:
To have Faith I need first to know that Jesus is the Son of God so that I can have Faith in him.
Click to expand...
Circles back to what I’ve said.

Your same-same argument - demanding “evidence” - continues to be refuted/ ignored

You sound exactly like those of the days of yore - who demand SIGNS

That action is virtually PROOF that such demanders do not have the foggiest notion of what FAITH is.

Learn all you can ABOUT JESUS - before engaging any others
in such futile efforts of attempting to tell any why you refuse to accept Him…
 
As I said before, the Catholic Church condemns fideism. Do you even understand that you’re arguing for fideism now?
 
Blindseeker04 said:
As I said before, the Catholic Church condemns fideism. Do you even understand that you’re arguing for fideism now?
Click to expand...
Nope…

All I know is … is that you owe to it yourself to educate yourself about Jesus
before overspending your time in futile and false arguments.

Faith is what separates those whom in the day of Jesus - rejected or accepted Him

Get to KNow Jesus very very well What He’s said and done, . And then we’ll talk
 
Last edited:
EndTimes and everybody, please don’t feed the troll. He only wants to play with us. I was dumb enough to feed the troll. Don 't repeat my mistake. Peace.
 
Fideism is the notion that you can’t arrive to truth about God with reason and the faith does not depend on reason, which is what you’re saying. The Catholic church condemns this position. Nadia now lets her civility drop, calling me a troll while I haven’t called her anything, but nobody responds to my arguments.
 
nadieteescribe said:
EndTimes and everybody, please don’t feed the troll. He only wants to play with us. I was dumb enough to feed the troll. Don 't repeat my mistake. Peace.
Click to expand...
Yep … He’s lost the debate… Sounds like an antiChristian
 
Last edited:
How about you responded to my point?

As I said before I like Christianity and I’ve defended it against stupid accusations (like that it caused the dark ages). But here you didn’t even know what fideism is while you were supporting it, nor that it’s against Catholic teaching.
 
Last edited:
To anyone else seeking proof for themselves in an honest manner, a lot of the modern Eucharistic Miracles of some pretty strong proof in my opinion. Two in the last 10-12 years have happened in Poland, in Sokolka and Legnica. These miracles have had a lot of scientific research done on them…I’d suggest people read about them and see just how rigorous the testing on the Blood has been.

As always, there is nothing better than the true Body and Blood to offer witness and proof of His love. His true Body continues even to this day to convert people.
 
Blindseeker04 said:
So, cut it off with the ad hominems and the attempts at psychoanalysis and focus on the argument.
Click to expand...
What argument?

You came here asking for evidence. By itself, it is not an argument, but a request.

Now there are some implicit arguments hiding behind it.

For example:
  1. User “Blindseeker04” has judged the evidence he had insufficient for believing Christianity. (premise)
  2. User “Blindseeker04” is good and impartial at judging the evidence. (premise)
  3. If someone who is good and impartial at judging the evidence has judged the specific evidence to be insufficient, it is insufficient. (premise)
  4. The evidence user “Blindseeker04” had is insufficient for believing Christianity. (from 1, 2, 3)
Yes, this argument is valid - that is, if the premises were true, the conclusion would be true.

But making it, even implicitly, is a “strategic mistake”, for it means that now we have to attack premise 2. And then the things you called “the ad hominems and the attempts at psychoanalysis” become perfectly relevant ways of addressing your argument. For, well, then we have to point out that you are not known to be good and impartial at judging evidence, that you did not give any argument to that effect etc.

And then it becomes fine to point out that so far you did not use evidence, but only dismissed it.

For example:
Blindseeker04 said:
The alternative explanations fail IF you take the claims of the Gospels as true, which is what’s at question here. Hence I talked about circular reasoning.
Click to expand...
You have not made even the first step here: you did not even offer a single alternative explanation (which was what I have asked for). You won’t discover what is wrong with alternative explanations, unless you will temporarily commit to one of them.
Blindseeker04 said:
As for Sai Baba, it is well known and reported that thousands of Indians claim to have witnessed his miracles. No, they haven’t written Gospels about it, neither have they died for it, but nobody is trying to kill them for believing in his miracles. I don’t see how that’s so relevant.
Click to expand...
So, first you demanded a way in which evidence for resurrection of Jesus is different from evidence for Sai Baba, then you were given one way, and suddenly you do not see how it is relevant. 🙂

And the excuse for that is that if the world was different, then maybe Sai Baba had such evidence as well. 🙂

Suddenly, imaginary evidence is proclaimed equal to real evidence.

Well, if imaginary evidence is just as good as real evidence, let’s imagine you inventing a time machine and witnessing a miracle as it was happening. 🙂
 
No, fideism is to blindly accept something without sufficient reason.

For example, a prince from Nigeria sends me an email saying he has been looking for a good person and has picked me. He needs to move money and he needs a US account to do so. If I help him, he will give me a million dollars! All I have to do is give him my bank account information…

If I believe him, if I have faith in him, it is a blind faith because I do not have a sufficient basis on which to base my faith. It is not reasonable to believe in him.

However, the others are correct. If you are on a path, you must start with the beginning, not the middle. See first about belief in a Creative Entity. Contemplate the universe from the stars down to the tiniest flowers and everything in between.

From the moment I realized that the universe had to be created because materialist evolution made no sense to the time I began to practice Catholicism was about 9 or 10 years, but I was desultory…
 
Good job at shooting down this imaginary argument that none gave. I would never accept the 3d for example. It’s more like I’ve found the evidence to be insufficient so I’m asking to see if it can be shown not to be so. As for the second, which is your way of justifying the ad hominem, I won’t bother. I don’t talk about people, but about arguments.

To offer an explanation for the facts, I must first have facts and that’s what I’m asking. What are the facts and how do we know them.

There are no excuses. I wanted to see what the difference is. So, the difference is not in the fact that one had witnesses and the other didn’t, but that the first’s wrote the Gospels. I’m not dismissing it, I’m just trying to see what it is.
 
Blindseeker04 said:
Hello everyone, new to the forum. I am an Agnostic who’s searching to find the truth.
Click to expand...
Hi, Blindseeker!

Welcome to the forum. I was an atheist who became Catholic at 32. I did not convert because of miracles (which I always scoffed at - and to this day am very leery of) but because of logic.

Once logic convinces one of the truth of God, it follows that miracles are possible. But, again, due to my upbringing, I am always skeptical.

Since I don’t have time to read this entire thread, forgive me if I’m repeating what others have said, but there is a 500-year-old miracle I lovingly embrace: Our Lady of Guadalupe.

Here’s why:
  1. Conversion of the Aztec people was going nowhere until the miracle.
  2. After the miracle, 8 million Aztecs converted within a decade.
  3. The miracle can be studied today because it took place only 500 years ago.
  4. Much of the conversions took place because the symbols in the image spoke to the Aztecs in ways which the Spanish missionaries could not.
  5. The image rests on a tilma made of material which usually falls apart after a decade. People have tried to replicate the original tilma, and it always falls apart. But Juan Diego’s tilma still remains in tact after 500 years - which includes surviving a bomb blast.
  6. The images of the cosmos which appear on the tilma are not from our point of view looking up, but from the point of view of Someone looking down.
  7. Microscope analysis of Mary’s eyes in the tilma actually show what she would’ve seen: officials shocked and humbled and bowing down to truth. (500 years ago, no one would’ve thought of - or been able to - paint microscope images).
  8. The tilma is not painted - the image is woven into the fabric.
  9. When an eye expert examined Mary’s eyes in the tilma, he fainted. When brought to, he said she was staring back at him (he converted).
  10. I’ve yet to hear even one secular explanation for these things. The tilma is simply ignored by science.
That’s the miracle case I find convincing. I’m not denying other miracles - it’s just that they have not convinced me in the same way.

But again, I did not go the miracle route in deciding if Catholicism was true. I went the logical route. It really, really, really paid off.

If you have any questions about the tilma or the logical road to Catholicism, please do not hesitate to ask or challenge me.

God bless you in your quest for truth!
 
Annie, I was responding to someone who said he couldn’t give me evidence, because I had to have Faith first and not demand evidence. That’s fideism.

I don’t dispute what you say about understanding whether you believe in a Creator first. As I said I’m still unsure about this, although I’ve seen some good arguments. I think it would help me and I would expect to help if Christianity is true, to see some arguments showing that Jesus’ Resurrection story is to be trusted. I mean apologists claim that Jesus, his miracles and the Resurrection are arguments for God themselves. As, someone who’s not an atheist and already open to the possibility of miracles, I don’t see how it’s unreasonable to demand to see if Christianity’s claims are truly more credible than others.

Moreover, even if the idea of a Creator is sensible, Him having anything to do with us and our salvation doesn’t follow automatically and that’s what me and every human cares about. That’s why whether Christianity is true is what matters, hence I’m asking for evidence.
 
Last edited:
Hello Emma and thanks for your answer!

I don’t think the miracle you mention has been mentioned here. Do you have any sources that discuss this with citations? Especially the one with the microscope analysis, I can’t find it. It would be very interesting if true.

Would you also be kind enough to give me a brief version of the logical route that led you to Catholicism?
 
Last edited:
Blindseeker04 said:
I think it would help me and I would expect to help if Christianity is true, to see some arguments showing that Jesus’ Resurrection story is to be trusted. I mean apologists claim that Jesus, his miracles and the Resurrection are arguments for God themselves. As, someone who’s not an atheist and already open to the possibility of miracles, I don’t see how it’s unreasonable to demand to see if Christianity’s claims are truly more credible than others.
Click to expand...
The reason I believe those who wrote or dictated the Gospels and letters of the NT and the Apostles is that they were in a position to know the truth and they died for what they proclaimed. Who would die for something they knew to be untrue?

This is different from later martyrs, who might have been lied to, or martyrs of other religions, who were also not in a position to know the truth.
 
Last edited:
That’s concrete at least as an argument, but how did you establish the basis for it if I may ask? From what I read we don’t have good historical records for how the apostles died (aside from James, not really an apostle, but Jesus’s brother) who’s mentioned by Josephus. We have legends that sometimes conflict with each other.
 
Last edited:
Blindseeker04 said:
First of all, when I’m talking about miracle, I’m talking about something violating the laws of nature as we understand them, like for example turning water into wine. Not unlikely events, or weird occurrences.
Click to expand...
I understand your situation because that was also mine. When you seek the truth in this situation, you want big miracles.

This is a short list of some important miracles or amazing phenomenas of the catholic Church that interested me. (I do not provide the sources here but you can find them.) :

-The well known shroud of Turin.

-Fatima 1917 miracle of the sun, 17000 people attested of the miracle, many converts.

-padre pio, testimonies all over the world of miracles and his knowledge of consciences, his stigmatas.

-Therese Neuman, poor peasant during WW2 receive vision of the life of Jesus and repeat what she hear… she speak in aramean. A professional linguist confirm that… She has the stigmatas every friday with blood flowing as during a crucifixion, she does not eat except hosts, the nazies test that… She lived more than 30 years without food except the host.

-the incorrupt corps of many saints such as the one of the last visionary of Fatima, Jacinta.

-the eucharistic miracles (ex buenos aires)

-Anne Catherine Emmerich has visions of the life of Jesus and allows the house of Mary in Ephesus to be discovered.

-Our Lady of Good success prophecies Vatican 2 and the aftermath of that in the 60s.

-The French king Louis XVI is killed 100 years day for day after the virgin Mary had asked France to be consecrated to her heart.

-exorcisms (you can testify of that by yourself) and all the infestations…

-personal stories of miraculous healing (this happened in my family) and miracles like visions or answered prayers.

And all the other attested miracles of either Jesus of the Saints during the 2000 years of history of the Church… like battles won because of the image of Jesus (mandylion) or a statue of the virgin Mary, the life of Saint Jeanne of Arc,…!
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top