G
Gorgias
Guest
Nevertheless, it’s a characteristic of physical objects.
In my experience, the answer is usually “it proceeds from physical activity in the brain.” Often, it’s claimed that this is a deterministic effect.
- Status
1
1Lord1Faith
Guest
Last edited:
D
Dan_Defender
Guest
i was thinking that since, as the OP has pointed out, observable interactions are rare and cannot be brought about in a controlled laboratory environment, then one can still accept the testimony of reliable witnesses, no? in the miracle of Calanda, where a limb actually grew back, the king of Spain at the time witnessed to it, is that a reliable witness? in the miracle of the sun at Fatima, thousands witnessed to it, is that enough? If the standard for the atheist is no, it has to be observable by me personally, then forget it, no such standard will ever be met.
F
Freddy
Guest
Do you know how many people have claimed to have seen aliens? How many do you think we need before we can say it’s true?
And if thousands saw a one time event at Fatima over a hundred years ago and we must therefore acknowledge it happened then if hundreds of thousands saw the Virgin Mary at Zeitoun very many times over a period of months just a few decades ago then that must be true as well.
Am I following your logic?
D
Dan_Defender
Guest
Witnesses have to be reliable of course. That is why the Church investigates miracles. My point is the standard cannot be that every person has the chance to experience such. Even if another atheist came to you and said that he converted because he experienced God in some way, you would not believe it. You would say that he was not a real atheist to begin with, or something.
F
Freddy
Guest
With respect, Dan, the point you made was backed up by a one time event reportedly seen by thousands over a century ago and one from 4 centuries ago which the king of spain might have seen. You class these as events therefore seen by reliable witnesses so we should believe them.
So I suggested Zeitoun which was only a few decades ago, seen by hundreds of thousands over a period of months and which happened for hours at a time. And was seen by what surely should be accepted as reliable witnesses. Including priests and bishops of the Coptic Church and nuns of the Society of The Sacred Heart. Plus President Nasser (I think that beats your King of Spain hands down).
I think that any reasonable person would say that my example trumps yours, so by your very own criteria we should accept it as having happened.
G
Gorgias
Guest
Again: aliens =/= spiritual beings. The former are posited to be physical beings and the latter are not. Therefore, we expect to be able to empirically verify the former, rather than the latter!
F
Freddy
Guest
The proposal is the same. ‘A claim is more valid the more people who claim it to be true’. That was exactly the point being made. What is being claimed doesn’t matter. It seems that all one needs is lots of people and some credible witnesses.Freddy:
Again: aliens =/= spiritual beings. The former are posited to be physical beings and the latter are not. Therefore, we expect to be able to empirically verify the former, rather than the latter!
I would have thought that hundreds of thousands of witnesses including priests, bishops and a president would apply. Certainly as we’re talking about a spiritual occurence. But it doesn’t. So the criteria isn’t valid.
The only difference between Fatima and Zeitoun as far as credibility is concerned is that the church has accepted one and not the other. Number of witnesses and credibility of said witnesses seems not to count. So the criteria is rejected.
T
TheHolyTrinity
Guest
Science is the study of the natural world.
Supernatural is by definition something outside of nature, so if something is truly supernatural then no, it would be beyond the ability for science to study.
If at some point Scientists find a way to scientifically study the supernatural, then that would indicate that the supernatural are part of the natural world and therefor would no longer be supernatural.
Supernatural is by definition something outside of nature, so if something is truly supernatural then no, it would be beyond the ability for science to study.
If at some point Scientists find a way to scientifically study the supernatural, then that would indicate that the supernatural are part of the natural world and therefor would no longer be supernatural.
G
Gorgias
Guest
Hang on a second, though. The Catholic Church has merely deferred comment, respecting the rights of the Copts to rule on it. No?
J
JimG
Guest
F
Freddy
Guest
I think ‘deferred comment’ equates to ‘nothing to do with us…’. The problem with Zeitoun is that there is too much evidence. Or, too put it another way, too many ways it can shown to be false.Freddy:
Hang on a second, though. The Catholic Church has merely deferred comment, respecting the rights of the Copts to rule on it. No?
Every single miracle the church has declared to be valid could have a natural explanation. But the church would never validate anything that could be proved to be false. Hence a reasonable reticence to stay clear of Zeitoun.
Check out the link that Jim posted. There’s a picture of the apparition in that. It’s one of about 2 or 3 you can find on the internet. Considering that Mary was meant to have appeared for up to an hour on many ocassions over a period of many weeks, that rings alarm bells to start with. I’d expect literally thousands. But anyway…stay with me.
Christian artists from the 4th century onwards have used iconography to indicate holy people. They presumably took this idea from earlier Chinese and Asian art. Shown generally as a light above the persons head. Which usually became a disc or a halo. Once it started, everyone began to use it. Obviously not because a saint actually had a halo or a disc around his or her head - it was simply an artistic indication of spirituality. Let’s face it, Jesus didn’t walk around with a halo floating above his head. And neither did Mary.
But check out the image of Mary in that link. She is portrayed exactly as if done by someone who wanted to convey an image of Mary and had seen countless pictures of Mary. All with a halo.
Do you think the Virgin Mary decided to appear to millions of people and thought she’d better add some 4th century artistic iconography in case no-one recognised her?
The church recognises that Fatima is a miracle because that is impossible to disprove. It would never do the same with Zeitoun because it could be disproved. And it’s exactly the same with all miracles. They actually may be miracles but they will always be impossible to disprove. Hence the problem with too much evidence.
A
AlbMagno
Guest
Private Revelations appear in a way that is familiar to the seer and promote devotion. That’s why the stigmas of Mystics are usually located in the palms, when Jesus probably had stigmas in His wrists.
F
Freddy
Guest
It wasn’t a private revelation.Freddy:
Private Revelations appear in a way that is familiar to the seer and promote devotion. That’s why the stigmas of Mystics are usually located in the palms, when Jesus probably had stigmas in His wrists.
A
AlbMagno
Guest
All post-apostolic visions of the Saints count as Private Revelation, even if hundreds of people have seen it. They are private because they don’t add new information of the Divine Plan, and as such they don’t need to be proclaimed publicly by the Church.
F
Freddy
Guest
I’m not sure tht answers tbe question as to why Mary found it necessary to copy medieval artists when making an appearance.
A
AlbMagno
Guest
I thought that was my original response.
F
Freddy
Guest
You can find reports that state that millions saw her. And that she appeared hundreds of times. Over many months. For up to an hour at a time. Always at the same place. And do you know how many photos there are of this apparition?AlbMagno:
I thought that was my original response.
Two.
A
AlbMagno
Guest
I wasn’t talking about that, that’s clearly a separate argument.
F
Freddy
Guest
You can comment on it if you like.
- Status