The question of miracles - Are there convincing miracle cases?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Blindseeker04
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Welcome Blindseeker.

It might help if you considered a few things with respect to your terminology.

What does the word “convincing” mean? and what is the evidence of a miracle?

In a secular court of law, one of the highest forms of evidence is human testimony, which is not perfect but highly regarded because people put their reputations on the line.

If someone observes an alleged miracle, say an apparition, and their testimony is viewed as credible, then the testimony can be admitted into evidence as convincing and decisive.

It’s more convincing and “evidentiary” when more than one person has seen the occurrence.

When you read the scriptures, as old as they are, you’re looking at antiquated viewpoints and laws, but it doesn’t necessarily dismiss the validity of the testimony. In fact. while quality assurance was different, many of the laws and punishments were more severe, such as crucifixion for speaking one’s mind.

The children at Fatima, for instance, were threatened with severe punishments for lying, but they did not change their stories.

That said… I still think the best way is to see for yourself… go to church… really give your life to God -perhaps without asking anything in return… and see what happens…
 
Last edited:
I think all miracles are only as convincing as the person finds them to be. But I do not believe they are doctrinal - the Faithful are not required to believe in them.
 
Searching1 said:
I think all miracles are only as convincing as the person finds them to be. But I do not believe they are doctrinal - the Faithful are not required to believe in them.
Click to expand...
Eh… maybe I am wrong, but aren’t we required to believe in all public revelation, as described in the New Testament? So things such as described in the creeds, like Christ being born of a virgin, having died and been resurrected, ascending to heaven, etc… I’m pretty sure all that is required…

What I think you mean is, we are not required to believe in private revelation, like the miracles God may have worked through someone like St Francis of Assisi, the BVM, etc… The church approves of these, even venerates them, but we are not required to adhere to them the same way as by those included in public revelation…
 
Last edited:
tomo_pomo said:
First one is external: the Church which exists for 2000 years already. Show me another institution of 2000 years. All of them fall apart because of human greed and pride. True sign that Church is from God.
Click to expand...
Judaism, but that’s only bc Jesus didn’t come on the scene until 01/01/00 AD… 🙂
 
Faith is a matter of believing without seeing. If you do not have faith, you will not believe. It’s that simple.

And yes, the articles of Faith found in the creed are required belief.
 
Last edited:
Yes, a phenomena occurred, and who asked for a scientific investigation? The Catholic diocese.

The Church wants these phenomena to be scientifically investigated, and if the miracle is a part of a canonization process, requires investigation.

The Eucharistic miracle which occurred in the 1990s in Buenos Aires was requested to be invesigated… by Bishop Jorge Bergoglio, now known as Pope Francis, with much different results.
 
Pattylt said:
On Eucharistic miracles, have you read the opposing views? The problems with chain of custody? No witness reports? Unknown or unnamed monks? Why don’t Protestants accept it? They believe in God and miracles. Why only Catholics? Do any red flags ever rise in your mind about these claims? Or, is it easier to believe that which confirms what you already believe?

To me, they are pious frauds.
Click to expand...
Pattylt said:
I’m not asking for the absurd. I’m asking for reasonable evidence from non biased specialists so that I can have well reasoned reasons for believing. This does not qualify.
Click to expand...
Well, let’s see how those standards are applied elsewhere:
Pattylt said:
I tried for over four years. I never wanted to lose my faith…it just happened and I desperately tried everything. I finally accepted that I no longer believed. I’m still fascinated by why I lost my faith and how others retain theirs. Somehow, I’m just different or unable to believe.
Click to expand...
OK, so, where are the notarised diaries (of you and of your family members) from that time? Where is the record by an independent psychologist and ECG records confirming you had stress? Where are the stenographic reports of you talking with your rabbi?

Since such evidence is not available, are we to conclude that you are lying, just as in the analogous case you pronounced the judgement “pious fraud”?

Or is it that in this case you will see that lack of direct evidence ruling out every doubt one has thought of does not lead to the automatic conclusion that those doubts are true or reasonable?

Furthermore, what if you would be able to present all this evidence? Wouldn’t that be far more suspicious?

After all, who notarises diaries? Who needs stenographic reports of private meetings? Most likely, someone who already (in advance) knows that he will need to rule out some doubts. Someone who is trying to commit some serious fraud.

So, if the evidence for something is too good, it becomes evidence against it.

The same works for miracles.

You should not just chant “More evidence! We want more evidence!” without thinking. You should consider what evidence you could expect to have if a miracle was true, and what evidence you could expect to have if it was false. And compare it with the evidence you have.

Yes, it is much harder: it requires thinking and not just parroting something.

But that’s how you get closer to truth.
 
Last edited:
@Pattylt

I didn’t have a lot of time when I replied earlier, but the fact that some hosts react in a normal/natural way just as regular bread would if soaked in water and left out does not disprove that other hosts which have also been scientifically studied have proven to be something else entirely.
 
I’m just trying to point out that first, not every Catholic believes in these Eucharistic miracles. Virtually no Protestants believe in them and almost zero other religions believe in them. You are free to accept and believe all you want but if the evidence doesn’t even convince all or almost all Catholics, how can you expect me to believe in it?
 
AlNg said:
Vedic Hinduism is about 3500 years old and has not fallen apart but is still popular in India. Actually, there is a Vedic Hindu temple nearby here in the USA and many people attend.
Click to expand...
Buddhism too.
 
Blindseeker04 said:
Are there any miracles that you consider really defensible?
Click to expand...
Yes… For Example:

In my extended family one very defensible one occurred…

It involves a cousin (strong atheist) scheduled for an OP
and his mom (and aunt) was in YugoSlavia at the time…
and Prayer (obviously with FAITH) that he be cured.

She called him from YugoSlavia - to him in the States

His physiological problem had indeed vanished just before the OP and the OP was cancelled.,

I do not know if he remains an atheist or not
  • but my reaction to him when I was informed of it in his presence by his wife,
    and then I questioned him who confirmed it
    was off the charts…
Call it whatever you will…

Jesus’ Enemies neither denied His existence nor His Miracles barring one.

The Resurrection
 
I meant something that can be publicly known. How can I know about your cousin?
 
Blindseeker04 said:
I meant something that can be publicly known. How can I know about your cousin?
Click to expand...
Oh…

The miracles of the 1st Century AD - were very publicly and widespread known…

You can read all about them in the Sacred Scriptures
 
Last edited:
But the issue is that the Sacred Scriptures, presumably by those 4 people, is the only thing we have. Isn’t that circular? Also how are they more convincing than thousands of people alive in our era who claim that Sathya Sai Baba performed all kinds of similar miracles?
 
Blindseeker04 said:
But the issue is that the Sacred Scriptures, presumably by those 4 people, is the only thing we have. Isn’t that circular?
Click to expand...
No…

It’s more like it’s the one and only history of the Middle East - of which those who reject Jesus - reject…

_

_
 
What is that even supposed to mean? You didn’t answer anything. You have 4 books claiming those miracles and thousands of living witnesses today claiming some others. Why is the first case more convincing?

I want to accept Jesus, but I’m trying to see the evidence. Your condescending attitude isn’t helping.
 
I don’t know. Some of the things happening in the OT, like the sea being split, fire from the sky, the ones in the New Testament, St Joseph’s freaking levitation, Simon the Tanner moving a mountain. All those things seemed to use to happen in the past, but now no more.

And yes you can say “do you expect something like that to believe?”. Well, according to Christianity those things DID happen, so at some point God had no issue doing them, but now when they can easily be verified, he’s not. Saints are not levitating anymore.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top