Why Couldn't the Universe Exist Without a Cause?

[Peter_Plato]

No. It doesn’t need to be either/or, there is a third way, which is to admit when we don’t know, admit it when the science is a long way from certain.

You must have sometimes raised an eyebrow at the inconsistency of the intelligent design fan, who never questions the science of the big bang, because it confirms his wishful thinking, but questions the science of pretty much everything else when it goes against his wishful thinking.

Sums up beautifully, what this poster does, here…

Hume has been very influential of course, and following that influence we might be even more tentative about what can be known. Is a simple idea a quantum of thought, an idea which cannot be decomposed into other ideas? Or perhaps there is no quantum, perhaps even a simple idea relies on other ideas, in the way that dictionary definitions always make use of other words.

And perhaps the mind gives an illusion of cause and effect. Suppose I see an eagle while thinking of Hume, and imagine the eagle wearing Hume’s wig while it mutters gems of observational humor on account of its magnificent eyesight. The parts of that idea don’t seem to be its cause, since I could instead have imagined the eagle with a tiny parrot on its shoulder, reciting Hume in pirate, avast there shiver me timbers. Or any number of other associations. It would seem rather than my mind picked the component ideas out of a bag and then invented plausible (!) causal relationships to make a narrative. Perhaps the mind works by always automatically weaving a narrative, and invents cause and effect where the plot would otherwise be disjointed, so we see causality even where there is none, as in superstitions. I think Hume does conclude that even where we’re pretty sure there really is cause and effect, we still can never be certain.

If YOUR penchant for “wishful thinking” makes YOU more thoroughly convinced by your whimsical imagination than by the rigors of intellect, you are free to follow Hume.

You seem to argue against that in your first post, then succumb completely in your second.

Why is Hume (and you apparently) free to engage in wishful thinking regarding cause and effect, but the “intelligent design fan,” not permitted to do so?

Seems very arbitrary of you.

Hume is lauded, BY YOU, for being capricious and “wishful” in his thinking regarding cause and effect, but the “intelligent design fan” severely chastized. Apparently, “we still can never be certain,” except where “intelligent design fans” are concerned – and then we can be uncompromisingly so.

Your slip of inconsistency is showing.

Hume is thoroughly debunked here…

edwardfeser.blogspot.ca/2014/02/a-world-of-pure-imagination.html#more

 

[DrTaffy]

Well, no, Doc. PR wasn’t making an argument there, she was making an observation.

Then in what sense is that “The trump card of the Believer”?

Why would an ‘observation’ end with “QED” if it was not drawing a conclusion?

 

[DrTaffy]

I think what’s being missed is that we are not speaking of a per accidens causal relationship, but a per se one. I think the post you’re responding to didn’t differentiate either.

So you are making a whole new completely different argument? That’s fine, but if so I don’t see why you link it to the previous argument. In other words, am I missing your meaning?

You could have an infinite series of falling dominos, and if you remove any of the already falling dominos it doesn’t stop the ones ahead of it from continuing to fall.

That analogy presupposes the passage of some kind of ‘time’ in addition to and quite distinct from the ‘time’ or sequence of events represented by the chain itself. Let’s call it ‘hypertime’. What does ‘hypertime’ represent?

It is far from clear, in other words, that this analogy actually represents any real quality of the system.

Now consider the link chain. None of these links has the causal power to hold up another one in and of itself. Even in an infinite chain, they can only hold each other up if one is hooked into a ceiling beam.

(emphasis added, autocorrect mangling of "I’m and of itself corrected)

The bit highlighted in red is true of a physical chain in a gravity field, but it is far from clear that it is true of a sequence of events. Again it presupposes the passage of some sort of hypertime, in addition to whatever is represented by the weight of the chain links.

In other words you seem to have snuck in the assumption of a necessary first cause by sleight of -]hand/-] keyboard. You can’t just assume what you are (yes?) trying to prove.

Another thing to note, this chain of support is all an ongoing action. Remove any middle link and all the chains below it will fall, because they stop receiving the causal power to support the next link.

Likewise, ‘ongoing action’ implies the passage of some kind of ‘hyper-time’ outside of the timeline represented by the chain. ‘Falling’ implies hypertime, hyperspace in which the timeline exists, and some equivalent of weight for the links.

What do all these actually mean?

When a Thomist speaks of a prime mover, a first cause, he isn’t speaking about a series of dominos. He’s speaking of an ongoing, current action.

‘Ongoing’ again. In hypertime or in time?

All movement must originate within a thing or be given from outside a thing. Like the chain of links example, all examples we’ve encountered do not derive any of their movement from within.

a) You surely see that “we have not encountered X” is not logical proof that “X” does not exist. And the endpoint of your argument is surely going to be the conclusion that at least one thing exists that does derive its ‘movement’ from within.
For that matter, outside of declarations of faith, we have not encountered omnipotent sentient entities who exist ‘outside of time and space’ without a physical substrate and yet manage to do apparently temporal things such as change their mind or make decisions. That seems a much larger assumption to me.
b) I don’t see that it is true to assert that we have not encountered things that derive their motion ‘from within’ - i.e. from their own nature.
What do you consider to be the external origin of virtual particle pair creation? Naturally the potential exists (a spacetime in which the particles can exist) but the actual event itself is fairly convincingly shown not to be caused by another event (and for that matter is shown to be nondeterministic)

 

[ynotzap]

So to say that This Happened Because That Could Not Have Happened is abject nonsense. To say that There Are No Other Ways It Could Have Happened, is abject nonsense. To say that you know anything at all with any certainly about this is abject nonsense.

To draw conclusions about what happened, or what didn’t happen, or what could not have happened using everyday concepts for a situation that is beyond comprehension for even the most brilliant minds of our time? Well… Go for it if you feel the need.

How can one say it raining, when all the evidence says it isn’t raining (go outside and check it out) Things got wet because it was raining, and if it wasn’t raining things would not have gotten wet. Is that abject nonsense. To say that you know anything at all with any certainty is abject nonsense? If it’s raining, then it’s raining, that’s certain, unless you don’t believe what your senses tell you, and even then it’s still raining. Would I be justified in saying "… that you lost contact with reality, or maybe you are schizophrenic or maybe you are of a “solipsistic mentality”? I know a thing can not exist, and exist at the same time, that’s certain. I know that you can not give what you don’t have, I know that the whole is equal to the sum of it’s parts, I am certain. We can be an authority to ourselves, and live in a world of imagination, if we choose to, but I try my best to let objective reality dictate to me what is, and what isn’t, and not my own mind, in it’s subjective state of thought. My challenge is to discern what is objective, and what is subjective in my thinking.

 

[inocente]

Sums up beautifully, what this poster does, here…

If YOUR penchant for “wishful thinking” makes YOU more thoroughly convinced by your whimsical imagination than by the rigors of intellect, you are free to follow Hume.

You seem to argue against that in your first post, then succumb completely in your second.

Why is Hume (and you apparently) free to engage in wishful thinking regarding cause and effect, but the “intelligent design fan,” not permitted to do so?

Seems very arbitrary of you.

Hume is lauded, BY YOU, for being capricious and “wishful” in his thinking regarding cause and effect, but the “intelligent design fan” severely chastized. Apparently, “we still can never be certain,” except where “intelligent design fans” are concerned – and then we can be uncompromisingly so.

Your slip of inconsistency is showing.

Hume is thoroughly debunked here…

edwardfeser.blogspot.ca/2014/02/a-world-of-pure-imagination.html#more

Awww, you couldn’t help but gush over Feser again. Sorry, won’t be joining you in that philosophers as pop stars stuff. I just stated the dead obvious fact that Hume is very influential. That’s not lauding him, just stating the obvious. As this SEP article says, Hume influenced Adam Smith, Immanuel Kant, Jeremy Bentham, Charles Darwin, and his works to this day “remain widely and deeply influential.”

“Widely and deeply influential” - four words unlikely to ever be said of Feser.

And all your bluster can’t change the fact that intelligent design arguments are logical fallacies. Not sure why you would compare those fallacies with me musing back to Juan’s musings on how the mind puts ideas together. Do you have anything substantive to say on that? Or on the thread topic? How about your thoughts on whether intelligent design could make ever any arguments which are not logical fallacies?

 

[Charlemagne_III]

The Big Bang suggests very strongly, whether atheists like it or not, that the universe has a start. The problem is not whether it had a start, but why it had a start. And what started it.

It must have dismayed the atheists when the Big Bang was first discovered. Even Einstein, who was not an atheist, was dismayed by it, though eventually he grudgingly came to accept it and his prose more and more found reference to a God let us say comparable to the Supreme Intellect god of Aristotle.

“I’m not an atheist and I don’t think I can call myself a pantheist. We are in the position of a little child entering a huge library filled with books in many languages. The child knows someone must have written those books. It does not know how. It does not understand the languages in which they are written. The child dimly suspects a mysterious order in the arrangements of the books, but doesn’t know what it is. That, it seems to me, is the attitude of even the most intelligent human being toward God.” Albert Einstein

 

[Charlemagne_III]

God-of-the-gaps is a term invented by theologians to criticize any apologetic which relies on gaps in knowledge. A god-of-the-gaps argument is always a logical fallacy, which commits, at the least, an appeal to ignorance fallacy (it can be rewritten We can’t explain X therefore God exists).

Examples include: The big bang therefore God; Unexplained event therefore God; Bach/sunsets/etc. therefore God; Life on Earth therefore God; Fine tuning therefore God; Irreducible complexity therefore God; Amino acid sequencing therefore God.

I’m not certain but think all intelligent design arguments use the fallacy in its “appeal to incredulity” form - they find something which, for those without specialist knowledge, sounds incredible.

So when Einstein speaks of God as an explanation for anything, are you quite certain he is invoking a God-of-the-gaps?

“I’m not an atheist and I don’t think I can call myself a pantheist. We are in the position of a little child entering a huge library filled with books in many languages. The child knows someone must have written those books. It does not know how. It does not understand the languages in which they are written. The child dimly suspects a mysterious order in the arrangements of the books, but doesn’t know what it is. That, it seems to me, is the attitude of even the most intelligent human being toward God.” Albert Einstein

 

[ThinkingSapien]

So when Einstein speaks of God as an explanation for anything, are you quite certain he is invoking a God-of-the-gaps?

“I’m not an atheist and I don’t think I can call myself a pantheist. We are in the position of a little child entering a huge library filled with books in many languages. The child knows someone must have written those books. It does not know how. It does not understand the languages in which they are written. The child dimly suspects a mysterious order in the arrangements of the books, but doesn’t know what it is. That, it seems to me, is the attitude of even the most intelligent human being toward God.” Albert Einstein

I understood that to be a parable for the difference in human intelect and limits on understanding the universe. The more complete quote
Albert Einstein:

Your question is the most difficult in the world. It is not a question I can answer simply with yes or no. I am not an Atheist. I do not know if I can define myself as a Pantheist. The problem involved is too vast for our limited minds. May I not reply with a parable? The human mind, no matter how highly trained, cannot grasp the universe. We are in the position of a little child, entering a huge library whose walls are covered to the ceiling with books in many different tongues. The child knows that someone must have written those books. It does not know who or how. It does not understand the languages in which they are written. The child notes a definite plan in the arrangement of the books, a mysterious order, which it does not comprehend, but only dimly suspects. That, it seems to me, is the attitude of the human mind, even the greatest and most cultured, toward God. We see a universe marvelously arranged, obeying certain laws, but we understand the laws only dimly. Our limited minds cannot grasp the mysterious force that sways the constellations. I am fascinated by Spinoza’s Pantheism. I admire even more his contributions to modern thought. Spinoza is the greatest of modern philosophers, because he is the first philosopher who deals with the soul and the body as one, not as two separate things

 

[Peter_Plato]

Awww, you couldn’t help but gush over Feser again. Sorry, won’t be joining you in that philosophers as pop stars stuff. I just stated the dead obvious fact that Hume is very influential.

So who is doing the “gushing” about influence?

Whether or not you choose to “join” makes no difference to me. Nor does it answer the fact that by permitting Hume’s influence, rather than his lack of compelling argument, to make you question your arbitrary acceptance of Hume’s views on causality at the same time as you want to insist – inconsistently, as it turns out – on a strict set of rigorous causal demonstrations coming from the ID camp, makes your position capricious and arbitrary.

Hume gets the bye because he is “very influential,” but, I suppose – and here is where you are consistent – IDers don’t get the bye because they are not.

So, “influence” is the standard by which arguments are accepted or rejected?

Nice.

So who is really into the “pop stuff?”

The one who drones on about “influence” or the one who does the hard work of making the logical points?

Yes, I know, you won’t argue the matter because… well… “pop stuff” and all that.

 

[Peter_Plato]

And all your bluster can’t change the fact that intelligent design arguments are logical fallacies. Not sure why you would compare those fallacies with me musing back to Juan’s musings on how the mind puts ideas together. Do you have anything substantive to say on that? Or on the thread topic? How about your thoughts on whether intelligent design could make ever any arguments which are not logical fallacies?

Now it’s being “logical” and not “influence” that counts? Nothing like picking and choosing your major.

Hume merely has to be “influential,” but IDers are required to be logically impeccable.

And Feser can still be safely ignored – no matter the quality of his arguments – because he will never be as “influential” as Hume, as far as you can foresee in your crystal ball. I see.

Didn’t I already address where IDers haven’t even made “any arguments” a few posts ago – a point which you promptly ignored – that Meyer uses abductive reasoning in the same way that Darwin did to make an inference to the best explanation?

Oh, yes…

Meyer is not “influential” in the same way that Darwin has been. Different strokes per different folks. I see.

You are correct that the “discussion” would be fruitless, which is why I have no desire for one.

But pointing out the deep inconsistencies of your rhetoric, well…

…we all have to be held to minimal standards lest we become “influential” beyond merit.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Then in what sense is that “The trump card of the Believer”?

Why would an ‘observation’ end with “QED” if it was not drawing a conclusion?

The way I read it, PR was proposing a kind of “meta-argument” about the over-all state of respective arguments coming from both camps.

The “trump card” is that theists actually do propose the existence of God on the basis of other arguments and not on the basis of gaps in knowledge. Whereas, atheists rely on knowledge gaps as reasons to disbelieve any claims about God being proposed. Atheists tenaciously hold to a negative or “skeptical” case for their view that God does not exist – i.e., the default atheistic retort to whatever the theist has to say is “we don’t that for sure” or “we can’t know that with absolute certainty.” Ergo, atheists depend entirely upon the “gap” or uncertainty of human knowledge as a “fallback” to maintain their position.

The capacity to actually muster arguments is what PR is referring to as the “trump card of the Believer” over the inability of Unbelievers to make any positive case that God does not exist.

 

[JuanFlorencio]

Hume has been very influential of course, and following that influence we might be even more tentative about what can be known. Is a simple idea a quantum of thought, an idea which cannot be decomposed into other ideas? Or perhaps there is no quantum, perhaps even a simple idea relies on other ideas, in the way that dictionary definitions always make use of other words.

And perhaps the mind gives an illusion of cause and effect. Suppose I see an eagle while thinking of Hume, and imagine the eagle wearing Hume’s wig while it mutters gems of observational humor on account of its magnificent eyesight. The parts of that idea don’t seem to be its cause, since I could instead have imagined the eagle with a tiny parrot on its shoulder, reciting Hume in pirate, avast there shiver me timbers. Or any number of other associations. It would seem rather than my mind picked the component ideas out of a bag and then invented plausible (!) causal relationships to make a narrative. Perhaps the mind works by always automatically weaving a narrative, and invents cause and effect where the plot would otherwise be disjointed, so we see causality even where there is none, as in superstitions. I think Hume does conclude that even where we’re pretty sure there really is cause and effect, we still can never be certain.

I will continue with the analysis of Hume’s text, but meanwhile if we invent a narrative of whatever we wish, we are obviously the cause of such narrative. And if our mind gives an illusion of cause and effect, then it is the cause of such illusion.

 

[Peter_Plato]

God-of-the-gaps is a term invented by theologians to criticize any apologetic which relies on gaps in knowledge. A god-of-the-gaps argument is always a logical fallacy, which commits, at the least, an appeal to ignorance fallacy (it can be rewritten We can’t explain X therefore God exists).

I have never been a fan because the fallacy is, itself, somewhat of a fallacy.

A “gap” – i.e., an unexplained event – positively requires a sufficient explanation.

What the theist is doing is proposing an explanation – the omniscient, omnipotent cause of all things – as a plausible explanation for the event.

The atheist’s retort is that such an explanation can never actually be the explanation for any event. But how is that known without begging the entire question?

It is an example of letting one’s method determine one’s metaphysics. The atheist has no complete idea of what is required to sufficiently explain every possible event, in the end – perhaps there are legitimate events which can ONLY be explained sufficiently by God. The atheist doesn’t know that a priori, yet that is precisely what they must claim to know to claim God is never required to fill any possible gap.

However, properly understood, the “gap” fallacy should only be invoked to counter methodological shortcuts. It doesn’t function as a metaphysical argument – it can’t because it would then presume to know beforehand what is or is not required for every possible event.

Yet, how does the atheist KNOW, for certain, that God is NOT ever ultimately required to explan some events.

He doesn’t and it is sheer question-begging dogmatism to claim otherwise.

Again, fine as a methodological constraint, but not as a logical or metaphysical one.

The other aspect of the problem is that using “god” as a placeholder in “god of the gaps” simply fails to explicate what it means precisely. In a sense, this undefinable aspect is what makes the “gaps” argument appear to have some cogency.

The same might be made of “will” or “mind” when attempting to explain human behaviour. Perhaps there is, in a very foundational sense, something like “mind” or “will” that grounds human choices and behaviour. Now, an eliminative materialist might claim someone invoking “mind” is merely constructing a “mind of the gaps” argument for mind, but that would be a metaphysical presumption on their part. Their materialistic presumptions might be that a “mind” is never required and every human behaviour can be explained without mind, but until the entire “mechanism” behind human behaviour is understood and explained, to disallow “mind” as explanatory is simply overreach of method.

Ergo, “mind of the gaps” with regard to human behaviour is not a fallacy, it may even be a kind of alternative explanation. Similarly, “god of the gaps” is not a fallacy in a strictly metaphysical sense, it may be presumptuous and possibly blatant overreach, but that does not make the logic of “God,” itself, false. Merely that the conclusion “God” isn’t warranted.

That means proposing “God” as the solution for some events isn’t always incorrect or unwarranted.

 

[DrTaffy]

The way I read it, PR was proposing a kind of “meta-argument” about the over-all state of respective arguments coming from both camps.

Well, at least you admit that it was a sort of argument, even if you are still bending over backwards to avoid admitting that it was a textbook God of the Gaps argument.

The “trump card” is that theists actually do propose the existence of God on the basis of other arguments and not on the basis of gaps in knowledge.

But she didn’t say anything of the sort. She said, in the context of trying to prove that the universe has a cause:

The trump card of the Believer is this: why is there something rather than nothing.

Atheism has no answer for this.

QED

In other words, “Science (allegedly) doesn’t answer this, therefore God”

Whereas, atheists rely on knowledge gaps as reasons to disbelieve any claims about God being proposed.

Nope. They rely on gaps in alleged ‘proofs’ of God’s existence to show that that existence has not been proven, but that is perfectly reasonable. It is not the equivalent of “Religion doesn’t answer thus therefore Atheism”

The capacity to actually muster arguments is what PR is referring to as the “trump card of the Believer” over the inability of Unbelievers to make any positive case that God does not exist.

Odd then that she did not say that. :ehh:

Of course demanding that those not convinced by your belief system must disprove it in order to be ‘allowed’ not to believe it is the argument from ignorance fallacy.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Well, at least you admit that it was a sort of argument, even if you are still bending over backwards to avoid admitting that it was a textbook God of the Gaps argument.

But she didn’t say anything of the sort. She said, in the context of trying to prove that the universe has a cause:

In other words, “Science (allegedly) doesn’t answer this, therefore God”

Nope. They rely on gaps in alleged ‘proofs’ of God’s existence to show that that existence has not been proven, but that is perfectly reasonable. It is not the equivalent of “Religion doesn’t answer thus therefore Atheism”

Odd then that she did not say that. :ehh:

Of course demanding that those not convinced by your belief system must disprove it in order to be ‘allowed’ not to believe it is the argument from ignorance fallacy.

You didn’t understand my post, did you?

Fine, just don’t twist it so it becomes unrecognizable. We’ll let those who can go back and read it for themselves.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

I understood that to be a parable for the difference in human intelect and limits on understanding the universe. The more complete quote

I suppose it doesn’t really matter what you understand as a metaphor.

Einstein is plainly denying that he is an atheist and inferring the existence of God, not the personal God but the Whatchamacallit God.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Similarly, “god of the gaps” is not a fallacy in a strictly metaphysical sense, it may be presumptuous and possibly blatant overreach, but that does not make the logic of “God,” itself, false. Merely that the conclusion “God” isn’t warranted.

That means proposing “God” as the solution for some events isn’t always incorrect or unwarranted.

Then you have Mega-verse-of-the-gaps advocates who presume that a Mega-verse clearly is preferred to God as a handy theory of everything otherwise unexplainable. All things are possible and self-explained in an infinity of worlds. What need have we of God, so long as we have Mega-verse with a ton of theories about it but not one shred of proof for its existence?

 

[ynotzap]

The question is: “what is the evidence for a miracle”? To say that “event X must be a miracle presupposes that we have full, complete, total knowledge of all the laws of nature”. Which we don’t. All you can say that we don’t have an explanation. Nothing more.

We do not have to have total knowledge of laws of nature to understand what is meant by miracles. St.Thomas Aquinas in his Summa divides miracles into three categories. Of course I don’t expect you to accept the explanation, but others may. The first and highest category, there are some things done by God, that nature can’t do: to bring a man to life after being dead, no life giving activity, deterioration setting in. There are miracles of the sacramental nature bread and wine transformed into the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ, books have been written of this miracle, such as the miracle of Lanciano. The further the miracle is removed from the capabilities of nature, the greater the miracle. The second category: God does something that nature can do, but not in the same order, eg. Nature can cause one to live, but not to live after death nature can cause us to see but not seeing after blindness, walking after lameness etc. The third category: God does by the operation of natural principles eg.a person is cured of some disease or illness that nature is capable to cure. We must remember God is the Author of Nature, and it’s principles of operation. He will not contradict the natural order of things which He originally established, but He can supercede them.

Pope BenedictXVI had confirmed that the recovery of Sister Marie Semon-Pierre from Parkinson’s disease was a miracle. The cures at Lourdes in France have been known for many miracles. I have no doubt if you do some honest research, you will find much evidence of miracles.

 

[Bradski]

Meyer, for one, has argued specificially that what he is doing is very much what Darwin has done – an inference to the best explanation.

Damn, now there are cornflakes all over the table. My wife will kill me.

What Darin did was to examine the natural world and see where that led. Which were conclusions that actually went against his beliefs. What Meyer has done is START with the conclusion and look for evidence to confirm it. He STARTED with God and went looking for gaps in our knowledge where He may be found.

You seem to have a funny idea of what science entails and how it is carried out. Makes me laugh, anyway.

It isn’t an argument from ignorance, but an argument from intelligibility.

It most certainly an argument from ignorance. As I have said, the number of people on this planet who understand this subject number in the dozens. But oh so many even within this thread tell us all quite emphatically that it can’t have happened this way, or that way. That these everyday rules we experience in life apply even at levels of existence that can only be described and understood through higher mathematics.

And not a single bite, either.

I know that you can not give what you don’t have, I know that the whole is equal to the sum of it’s parts, I am certain.

I’m pretty certain about that, as well. Under normal circumstances. But under the circumstances which we are discussing, things aren’t what you could even begging to describe as ‘normal’. Normal rules do not apply. And I will repeat that: ‘Normal rules do not apply’.

Then in what sense is that “The trump card of the Believer”? Why would an ‘observation’ end with “QED” if it was not drawing a conclusion?

It is indeed the conclusion. It’s the whole thrust of this thread. At least from the Christian side. I can’t believe that anyone would dare to argue otherwise. It’s the ultimate gap as there is a general admission that we might never understand the process. ‘Ah, so there is somewhere where we can safely say that God resides. No chance of that gap being closed?’

Except everyone else can fit the god of their choice in there as well. One size fits all. Something of a squeeze, if you ask me.

You didn’t understand my post, did you?

Fine, just don’t twist it so it becomes unrecognizable. We’ll let those who can go back and read it for themselves.

I did. And there’s not a shred of doubt that the good doctor nailed it. Maybe PR can post a rebuttal, as in maybe she didn’t mean to say what she said. Maybe she didn’t. But there are so many posts in this thread and countless others in which the exact meaning is undeniable. That is: ‘You don’t have a scientific answer…therefore the only possible explanation is the God in which I believe’.

Incidentally, that isn’t necessarily a Christian argument. One size fits all, as I said.

 

[Solmyr]

Pope BenedictXVI had confirmed that the recovery of Sister Marie Semon-Pierre from Parkinson’s disease was a miracle. The cures at Lourdes in France have been known for many miracles. I have no doubt if you do some honest research, you will find much evidence of miracles.

I can only confirm that certain events are declared to be “miracles”. That is all.