Using miracles in apologetics

[Roseeurekacross]

Here’s the thing about that . 70 thousand people watched that miracle, and another 20 thousand outside the direct area. So many people should have converted, entire populations. They didnt.
And as Our Lady said, if we did not do a few things, a worse war would follow ww1. The world for the most, ignored the message. The 20th century was the worst we have had.

We are the remnant Catholic population .in the 21st Century. Pray for conversions.

 

[anon50218184]

So many people should have converted, entire populations. They didnt.

True. That’s why we have to pray. For every minute we spend talking to someone about the Truth, we should spend two minutes in prayer for them.

 

[Roseeurekacross]

Our first job in conversion is to be the example by the way we live our lives. .

 

[BlackFriar]

As I observe, other belief systems have wonders too which attract converts or reinforce the faith of those already in those belief systems. They don’t seem to be restricted to any singular belief system.

So yes good for apologetics, but not only Catholic apologetics.
Aquinas did not think much of miracles in themselves.

 

[De_Maria]

As I observe, other belief systems have wonders too which attract converts or reinforce the faith of those already in those belief systems. They don’t seem to be restricted to and singular belief system.

So yes good for apologetics, but not only Catholic apologetics.

Perhaps. But when compared, Catholic miracles are proven genuine. I have yet to see a non-Catholic miracle which has not been debunked.

Aquinas did not think much of miracles in themselves.

Since he, himself, performed miracles, I doubt this very much.

You have a penchant for making authoritative sounding claims without proof. Please cite the document where Aquinas says that he does not, “think much of miracles in themselves.”

 

[BlackFriar]

I am responding to Diah not your good self my friend.

 

[Scowler]

I would assume that most non-Catholics or atheists would dismiss miracles, but if they are presented in a compelling way with plenty of scientific evidence wouldn’t they at least elicit acknowledgement and maybe open up the door?

Of course they would be. I would be ecstatic if a well-designed miracle would be presented. The problem is that all those alleged miracles are just stories, without any substance. The Sun “dancing” at Fatima? Come on. The whole Earth would have been scorched if it happened. Healings at Lourdes? Just stories. But these alleged miraculous healings could be a good start to substantiate miracles.

All you would need is to do is to gather a sizeable group of amputees and/or blind people, send half of them to Lourdes (test group), the other half to some other resort (control group). Then pray for those who are at Lourdes. After a certain time - because you cannot have an open-ended experiment, we could compare the two groups and find out if there is any statistically significant difference between them.

Of course there would not be. And you could explain away the lack of it by pointing out that God refuses to participate in any experiment which could reveal his existence. So all you could do is present impossible to verify stories, which will remain unconvincing to non-Christians. Waste of time. Not because the non-believers refuse to accept the existence of miracles, but because you (the apologists) refuse to participate in a well-designed, double blind experiment, which could be used to substantiate your claims. After all, one is not allowed to test God.

 

[anon50218184]

What exactly to do you mean by “well-designed miracle”? It appears you’re suggesting that miracles are in themselves a scientific study. That is not the case. Rather, scientific studies can be conducted on or about miracles.

Which is what I presented in your thread. I offered you a Eucharistic miracle that had been studied by scientists who did not know where the evidence came from.
I asked you on your thread, twice, what exactly you found compelling or not compelling about that miracle and its subsequent study. Could you please answer the question?

The problem is that all those alleged miracles are just stories, without any substance.

Who says that they are just stories? You? Me? How do you corroborate that they are “just stories”?

The Sun “dancing” at Fatima? Come on. The whole Earth would have been scorched if it happened.

But the earth didn’t burn, did it? That was part of the miracle.
“Mass hallucination” you’ll say. Okay. Prove it. You claim to have designed a double blind study that would disprove miraculous healings at Lourdes; well then design a similar study proving that 70,000 people all suffered from mass hallucinations.

But these alleged miraculous healings could be a good start to substantiate miracles.

So would Eucharistic miracles. Could you address the miracle I proposed?

Of course there would not be.

Such flippant dismissals betray a closed mindedness. You seem to already have made up your mind. Why even bother?

After all, one is not allowed to test God

Cheeky, says who?

 

[Scowler]

Cheeky, says who?

Says the Catholic church. Luke 4:12. “Jesus responded, “The Scriptures also say, ‘You must not test the LORD your God.’””

 

[BlackFriar]

1. Dead bodies dont “perform” miracles but it is easy to attribute miracles to someone who cannot speak for themselves.
2. Even the testimony is vague, contradictory in places and no more compelling than the many legends of other belief systems. The testimony re Simon Magus looks more compelling than this.
3. Regardless, why does what you say, were it true disprove my observation that Thomas wasnt impressed by wonders?

 

[BlackFriar]

70,000 people all suffered from mass hallucinations.

It appears the phenomenon was not physical. Some witnessed it, some did not…and such were standing next to each other. Some non Catholics saw, some Catholics did not.

 

[anon50218184]

Yes, and Deut 6:16, and Mt 4:7…
What about Malachi 3:10?
Why am I not surprised you chose to make an exegetical challenge rather than answer the question?
This is the third time you’ve avoided the my question.

 

[anon50218184]

BlackFriar, I mean no disrespect, but your observations have not been consistent or clear. Also, you have made far too many unsubstantiated claims.
You’ve also fallen into several formal and informal fallacies, including ad hominem attacks.

If you could articulate your position consistently and plainly perhaps I could try to respond.

As it is I simply cannot.

 

[BoomerangToo]

It appears the phenomenon was not physical. Some witnessed it, some did not…and such were standing next to each other. Some non Catholics saw, some Catholics did not.

Revisionist history. Everyone there saw it. Author John Haffert went to Portugal in 1960 to interview surviving witnesses before they all passed away. He interviewed hundreds of people. He asked all of them the same questions, one of which was, “Are you aware of anyone who was there that day and did not see anything?” He asked that question specifically because even as far back as 1960, there were people who were trying to discredit the event by claiming that the miracle was only witnessed by the hysterical, religious nut-cases in the crowd.

All of the witnesses he interviewed said that as far as they knew, everyone there saw the miracle. None of them knew of anyone there who did not see it. These testimonies are in the book, “Meet the Witnesses of the Miracle of the Sun.”

 

[BlackFriar]

I often find that persons with limited cultural experiences and tendencies towards binary views and set positions often cannot make sense of alternative models of such phenomena that are at least as consistent as theirs.

I also find that persons with a set view often feel they are being personally attacked when their views are challenged as being but one among a variety of models. Most persons do not consider such challenges to be ad hominem. If you feel that I have gone beyond challenging your views you have my apology.

I don’t believe I have made any more unsubstantiated claims than yourself.
If you disagree with my claim re Fatima then it seems you have only read pious third or fourth party sources. I have done research of some of the primary and secondary sources. Much is now available on the Net if you care to research yourself if you disagree with my report of testimony from credible persons at the scene but ignored by Catholic writers.

You seem to be the one who makes the claim that none of the wonders of other religions are not compelling. Saying that Catholic wonders are more compelling does not logically infer that others are not compelling.

It seems the one who has to substantiate that strong claim is yourself I suggest.
What do you consider to be the greatest wonders of, say, Buddhism, and why are they not compelling to you?

 

[BlackFriar]

Everyone there saw it. Author John Haffert went to Portugal in 1960 to interview surviving witnesses before they all passed away.

All survivors from the 70,000? Come on.
As I say some reports immediately after the event gave testimony from those who saw nothing even though they wanted to. I believe it was observed at the time that pro Catholic media were only intrested in wanting to hear from those who had seen.

I don’t deny that a wonder happened.
But it appears it wasn’t simply a physical phenomenon.

 

[Roseeurekacross]

We must remember of this series of approved Church apparitions by Jesus, Our Lady, St Joseph the message is

Pray for peace and conversion of souls
Penance
Reparations to the Sacred Heart of Jesus and the Immaculate Heart of His mother, Mary. Especially reparation to the Immaculate Heart of Mary in the 5 first Saturdays.

God performed the Miracle of the sun, not Mary.

 

[De_Maria]

I often find that persons with limited cultural experiences and tendencies towards binary views and set positions often cannot make sense of alternative models of such phenomena that are at least as consistent as theirs…

But you haven’t produced any evidence of “alternative models of such phenomena”. You have only asserted that such exist.

 

[anon50218184]

I often find that persons with limited cultural experiences and tendencies towards binary views and set positions often cannot make sense of alternative models of such phenomena that are at least as consistent as theirs.

Are you saying I have limited cultural experience?

I also find that persons with a set view often feel they are being personally attacked when their views are challenged…

I don’t think you’re resorting to ad hominem because of what I believe, but because of what you have said already:

You are intellectually a young and still inexperienced fellow in this game so some friendly parting advice.

This is the basis for your argument: "I’m more intellectually advanced so my statements and observations are more valid.
I have more cultural experience so my statements and observations are more valid. "

I don’t believe I have made any more unsubstantiated claims than yourself.

What unsubstantiated claims have I made?

If you disagree with my claim re Fatima

I don’t even know what your claim re Fatima is. Maybe I’m too much of youngster to pick up what you’ve said.

If you disagree with my claim re Fatima then it seems you have only read pious third or fourth party sources.

Post hoc ergo propter hoc. Fallacy.
Could there be another reason? You’re giving me exactly two options: 1.agree with me or 2. You’re a culturally inexperienced “intellectual youngster”.
What about a third option?

You seem to be the one who makes the claim that none of the wonders of other religions are not compelling.

Again. And for the 6th time. If that is the case the question becomes “which is more compelling?”

What do you consider to be the greatest wonders of, say, Buddhism, and why are they not compelling to you?

I would say the one that occured to you which you refuse to substantiate. Why? Because apparently you’re still Catholic.

 

[Scowler]

Why am I not surprised you chose to make an exegetical challenge rather than answer the question?

Because the word of Jesus takes precedence. Since Jesus says that ALL sins can be forgiven (except blasphemy), then you can safely choose the “evil” action, and then repent and ask forgiveness.

This is the third time you’ve avoided the my question.

Ok. The answer is simple. There was NO proper chain of custody, there were no protocols involved. All you can say that some specimen was examined by some unknown people in some unknown laboratory. It is no surprise that there are very strict rules for keeping the evidence safe from tampering, intentional or otherwise.

And there is another problem. The so-called Eucharistic miracle is supposed to be that the “accidents” of the host are unchanged, but the “essence” is now miraculously different. Now you wish to skin another layer, and posit that the “accident” is also different. Not to mention that the article talks about the heart tissue of a “dying” man. There is no such thing as a “dying” person. The person is either alive or dead. All in all, it is just a story.