Why Does God Not Cure Amputees? (pt 1 of 2)

[Poof]

I have never seen a report of anything attributed to Padre Pio that occurred in conditions in which scientific reporting was possible.

I know, I know. The reason why I love you people (skeptics) this because I wanted to drive a point, which is, if Padre Pio was indeed a fraud, then it would have been really REALLY easy to expose him. Here was a man who was said to have the ability to read souls, he was immensely popular and he held confessions daily. People flocked to him because of this, many, even testing him to see if he in fact did possess such gifts. Result? They were all left dumbfounded. If Padre Pio was indeed a fraud, how was he able to do it? Think about it.

I am still looking for a properly-observed miracle that is not a thing that happens anyway (like spontaneous remission of cancer).

What about Lourdes? The cures at Lourdes cover a wide variety of diseases such as paralysis, blindness and other medical conditions. Given the strict qualifications for an authentic Lourdes miracle coupled with the fact that the Lourdes Medical Bureau is staffed by doctors of every and no faith, can you say with utmost certainty that all these healings are the result of mere chance? Why am I getting the feeling that I would be getting the response “I don’t know”?

Qualifications

1. The disease should be serious, incurable or difficult to treat.
2. The eradicated disease should not be in its final stage or at a stage whereby it may involve spontaneous recovery.
3. No drug should have been administered or, in the event that it has been administered, the absence of any effects should have been ascertained.
4. The recovery has to take place suddenly and instantly.
   5.The recovery has to be perfect, and not defective or partial.
5. It is necessary that any noteworthy excretion or crisis has taken place at the proper time, as a reasonable result of an ascertained cause, prior to the recovery; under these circumstances the recovery cannot be deemed prodigious, but totally or partially natural.
6. Lastly, it is necessary for the eradicated disease not to reappear.

Read this:
miraclehunter.com/marian_apparitions/approved_apparitions/lourdes/miracles1.html

Any objections? This is only one of our several approved miracles by the way .

I would also appreciate it if you would respond to wcknight’s post

For the atheists to be right, there has to an awful lot of collusion and fraud perpetrated by the most holy of God’s servants…so these ‘saintly’ folks all involved themselves in lies or frauds to further the aims of the Church…

The way I see it, there can only be two possibilities.

1. Our miracles are genuine.
2. The Roman Catholic Church together with its saints are scheming liars who propagate frauds in order to further their own means.

Unless of course, you have some other explanation?
.

 

[Hokomai]

I know, I know. The reason why I love you people (skeptics) this because I wanted to drive a point, which is, if Padre Pio was indeed a fraud, then it would have been really REALLY easy to expose him. Here was a man who was said to have the ability to read souls, he was immensely popular and he held confessions daily. People flocked to him because of this, many, even testing him to see if he in fact did possess such gifts. Result? They were all left dumbfounded. If Padre Pio was indeed a fraud, how was he able to do it? Think about it.

What about Lourdes? The cures at Lourdes cover a wide variety of diseases such as paralysis, blindness and other medical conditions. Given the strict qualifications for an authentic Lourdes miracle coupled with the fact that the Lourdes Medical Bureau is staffed by doctors of every and no faith, can you say with utmost certainty that all these healings are the result of mere chance? Why am I getting the feeling that I would be getting the response “I don’t know”?

Qualifications

1. The disease should be serious, incurable or difficult to treat.
2. The eradicated disease should not be in its final stage or at a stage whereby it may involve spontaneous recovery.
3. No drug should have been administered or, in the event that it has been administered, the absence of any effects should have been ascertained.
4. The recovery has to take place suddenly and instantly.
   5.The recovery has to be perfect, and not defective or partial.
5. It is necessary that any noteworthy excretion or crisis has taken place at the proper time, as a reasonable result of an ascertained cause, prior to the recovery; under these circumstances the recovery cannot be deemed prodigious, but totally or partially natural.
6. Lastly, it is necessary for the eradicated disease not to reappear.

Read this:
miraclehunter.com/marian_apparitions/approved_apparitions/lourdes/miracles1.html

Any objections? This is only one of our several approved miracles by the way .

I would also appreciate it if you would respond to wcknight’s post

The way I see it, there can only be two possibilities.

1. Our miracles are genuine.
2. The Roman Catholic Church together with its saints are scheming liars who propagate frauds in order to further their own means.

Unless of course, you have some other explanation?
.

There are mediums, shamans, psychics, and people of thousands of religions with similar stories, and similar ‘evidence’.

 

[Poof]

There are mediums, shamans, psychics, and people of thousands of religions with similar stories, and similar ‘evidence’.

Okay, name five non-christian miracles belonging to a single religion that have underwent scientific scrutiny.

 

[Poof]

I know, I know. The reason why I told you people (skeptics) this is because I wanted to drive a point, which is, if Padre Pio was indeed a fraud, then it would have been really REALLY easy to expose him. (red = forgot to add)

TYPOS!

 

[Hokomai]

Okay, name five non-christian miracles belonging to a single religion that have underwent scientific scrutiny.

I know of none, or Catholic miracles either. if they were accepted on a scientific basis, I would accept them in the same way I accept all scientific discoveries.

 

[Poof]

I know of none, or Catholic miracles either. if they were accepted on a scientific basis, I would accept them in the same way I accept all scientific discoveries.

Dear heavens, you walked in a circle.

**You **asked for “a properly-observed miracle that is not a thing that happens anyway (like spontaneous remission of cancer).”

**I gave you solid information on Lourdes, complete with information on all 67 cures together with the qualifications for an authentic healing. I said how spontaneous remission is not possible due to the varying types of illnesses cured ranging from blindness to paralysis (not to mention, the fact that the qualifications for an authentic healing took into consideration the possibility of spontaneous recovery, see number six). Afterwards, I pointed out how these cures were vigorously investigated by unbiased medical professionals of every and no religion.

Your response?

“There are mediums, shamans, psychics, and people of thousands of religions with similar stories, and similar ‘evidence’” (which by the way, failed to rebut anything in my post).

**I **responded by challenging you to “name five non-christian miracles belonging to a single religion that have underwent scientific scrutiny” (I mean, there are mediums, shamans and physics and people of thousands of religions with similar stories and evidence right?).

You say no, you can’t name any nor can you name any Catholic ones either.

WHAT? . Didn’t I just give you one? You know, the post on Lourdes? I mean, if you actually responded to that post, saying what you found lacking or unconvincing about the cures, I could have understood. But no, you say nothing, failing to rebut or address anything I’ve posted so far. Instead, you decide to walk in a circle, leading me into a wild goose chase. Congratulations.

 

[tonyrey]

If you are no more than a mindless body your thoughts are electrical impulses which are incapable of abstraction.

In philosophy we use the term “mind” rather than “soul” which has religious connotations. How could a** tangible** organ like the brain produce or understand intangible ideas?

How can **a collection of particles **

choose to go in any particular direction? Well, speaking as such a collection, I think through the options, and decide. Sometimes I do so on instinct, such as when following another.

How?

 :

How

can a collection of particlespredict results? It has no insight or understanding.
The collection between my ears does. And also, for that matter, the collection between the rather more attractive ears of my dog.

Your assumption does not explain "how?"

Rationality does not exist in the non-rational world of particles…

This is the sort of assertion one often hears from theists, but I am not at all sure what it means.

Atomic particles are not conscious, do not think, have no insight, cannot choose or make decisions…

 

[Hokomai]

Dear heavens, you walked in a circle.

**You **asked for “a properly-observed miracle that is not a thing that happens anyway (like spontaneous remission of cancer).”

**I gave you solid information on Lourdes, complete with information on all 67 cures together with the qualifications for an authentic healing. I said how spontaneous remission is not possible due to the varying types of illnesses cured ranging from blindness to paralysis (not to mention, the fact that the qualifications for an authentic healing took into consideration the possibility of spontaneous recovery, see number six). Afterwards, I pointed out how these cures were vigorously investigated by unbiased medical professionals of every and no religion.

Your response?

“There are mediums, shamans, psychics, and people of thousands of religions with similar stories, and similar ‘evidence’” (which by the way, failed to rebut anything in my post).

**I **responded by challenging you to “name five non-christian miracles belonging to a single religion that have underwent scientific scrutiny” (I mean, there are mediums, shamans and physics and people of thousands of religions with similar stories and evidence right?).

You say no, you can’t name any nor can you name any Catholic ones either.

WHAT? . Didn’t I just give you one? You know, the post on Lourdes? I mean, if you actually responded to that post, saying what you found lacking or unconvincing about the cures, I could have understood. But no, you say nothing, failing to rebut or address anything I’ve posted so far. Instead, you decide to walk in a circle, leading me into a wild goose chase. Congratulations.

Have any of the Lourdes cures been published as scientific descriptions in standard peer-review journals?

 

[wcknight]

Doctors examined Pardre Pio’s stigmata on several occasions when he was alive. One said that the wounds on his hands were so deep that they could almost see through to the other side. They often bled especially when he was saying mass. Yet the day after he died they all disappeared, no sign of scars or anything !! What is your explanation for that ???

PLUS his body is exactly the way it was after being dead for over 50 years. Any normal person would have rotted away or or died up or at least shown some indication of being dead for so long. Yet he appears as if he is just asleep.

 

[Poof]

Have any of the Lourdes cures been published as scientific descriptions in standard peer-review journals?

I don’t know what standard peer-review journals are but if you find the investigations to be unscientific or lacking in one way or another, I will post some information on them below.

Wikipedia on the investigation procedures

Approximately 35 claims per year are brought to the attention of the Lourdes Medical Bureau. Most of these are dismissed quickly. Three to five each year are investigated more thoroughly, by drawing up a Medical Bureau, comprising any doctors who were present in Lourdes at the time the apparent cure took place (this is the rationale for all members to notify the bureau of their visits to Lourdes).

The Medical Bureau investigates the claim, by examining the patient, the casenotes, and any test results (which can include biopsies, X-rays, CT scans, blood test results, and so on).

If this conference decides that further investigation is warranted, the case is referred to the International Lourdes Medical Committee (abbreviated in French to CMIL), which is an international panel of about twenty experts in various medical disciplines and of different religious beliefs. CMIL meets annually. A full investigation requires that one of its members investigates every detail of the case in question, and immerses him/herself in the literature around that condition to ensure that up-to-date academic knowledge is applied to the decision. This investigator may also consult with other colleagues about the case.

This information is presented at a CMIL meeting. Also present at the meeting are the head of the Lourdes Medical Bureau and the Bishop of Tarbes and Lourdes (currently this is Jacques Perrier). The cured subject is not normally present.

For a cure to be recognised as medically inexplicable, certain facts require to be established:
 The original diagnosis must be verified and confirmed beyond doubt
 The diagnosis must be regarded as “incurable” with current means (although ongoing treatments do not disqualify the cure)
 The cure must happen in association with a visit to Lourdes, typically while in Lourdes or in the vicinity of the shrine itself (although drinking or bathing in the water are not required)
 The cure must be immediate (rapid resolution of symptoms and signs of the illness)
 The cure must be complete (with no residual impairment or deficit)
 The cure must be permanent (with no recurrence)

CMIL is not entitled to pronounce a cure “miraculous”; this can only be done by the Church. The bureau may only pronounce that a cure is “medically inexplicable”. A full investigation takes a minimum of five years (in order to ensure that the cure is permanent), and may take as long as ten or twelve years. It is recognised that, in rare cases, even advanced malignant disease or severe infection may spontaneously resolve.

The CMIL board votes on each case presented. A two-thirds majority is required for CMIL to pronounce a cure “inexplicable”.

If CMIL decides a cure is medically inexplicable, the case is referred to the Bishop of the diocese where the cured subject lives. It is he who, in consultation with his own experts and with the Vatican, makes the decision about whether a cure is “miraculous”. He may, for whatever reason, refute the claim.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lourdes_Medical_Bureau

The rules the committee has set have grown over the years. They are strict, they are oriented around a scientific understanding of medicine, and they are calculated to promote a scientific outcome. For example, they don’t take Leukemia cases unless they have been free of the symptoms for 10 years, that’s because they know the remission rates and want to avoid the prospect of just getting someone in remission. They require complete medical documentation for the prognosis and diagnosis. All x-ray and results of other texts, and the full course of treatment must be known to the committee before they will even consider a case.

metacrock.blogspot.com/2005/11/lourdes-miracles.html
doxa.ws/other/Miracles.html

Dr. Alessandro de Franciscis
Physician, Lourdes Medical Bureau
“It’s very clear the distinction, there are medical facts, bio-medical facts, that are the task of doctors and medical professionals. And then there is the interpretation of those facts which is the community of believers.”

While Dr. Franciscis is a Catholic, he has made it very clear that medical facts are something very separate from religion and belief.

To handle the workload, he often calls upon the thousands of doctors, nurses, and other medical professionals to offer their own expertise.

Ever since accepting the responsibility as the medical chief of Lourdes, he has remained loyal to his original promise.

and

In the 130 year history of the Lourdes Medical Bureau, there have been over 7,000 documented cures that can not be medically explained. However, the Shrine has only recognized 67 as miracles.

romereports.com/palio/in-lourdes-how-a-cure-is-proven-to-be-a-miracle-english-6237.html

 

[Poof]

Just to clarify the qualifications I posted earlier (which were laid down by Benedict XIV) were reworded in 1977 in the light of current scientific and technological innovations.

a 16 query scheme prepared by the LIMC was laid down; among other things, this introduced the need to rule out any psychopathic component, as well as any other subjective pathologic statea or manifestationa (which are therefore not verifiable), hence only taking into account the recovery acknowledgements relating to serious and provable affections, the only ones that could be deemed as “scientifically inexplicable”. And therefore, in this case it will be possible to close the medical report supporting a “certain and medically unexplainable” recovery, only when:

1. The diagnostics and authenticity of the disease has been preliminarily and perfectly assessed;

1. The prognosis provides for an impending or short-term fatal outcome;

1. The recovery is sudden, without convalesce, and absolutely complete and final;

1. The prescribed treatment cannot be deemed to have resulted in a recovery or in any case could have been propitiatory for the purposes of recovery itself.

These criteria are still in use nowadays, in view of their highly logical, accurate and pertinent nature.

doxa.ws/other/Miracles.html

Also, the group “CMIL” which was stated in the Wikipedia article is no different from the group “LIMC” which was mentioned in the texts above, both stand for the Lourdes International Medical Committee. The qualifications in the Wikipedia article is also a mere rewording/translation of the one above.

 

[wcknight]

Hokomai http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/statusicon_khaki/user_offline.gif
Regular Member
Hokomai http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/statusicon_khaki/user_offline.gif
Regular Member
Hokaimai,

YOU are the one claiming that there are all these other folks and religions who claim miracles etc, then why can’t you name any of them or any of their miracles.

The fact is there are not any who have legitimate miracles, we have named several. There are a bunch of them in our faith, and a bunch have many witnesses and documantation to back up there miracles.

AND the most convincing aspect of this, is that all of these folks were honest and upright folks. People whose reputation and integrity were above reproach, enough so that the Church evenually declared them to be saints… BTW it requires at least 2 miracles for anyone to be declared a saint (it used to be 5).

The fact is, you have no rebuttal for any of this because it is all true. For you to be correct, you will have to prove that all of these folks were frauds, and all of the folks who witnessed these things were etither lying or were all fooled.

 

[Credo_ergo_sum]

When St. John of Damascus´ hand was cut off, he got it back through prayer.

 

[Hokomai]

Hokomai http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/statusicon_khaki/user_offline.gif
Regular Member
Hokomai http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/statusicon_khaki/user_offline.gif
Regular Member
Hokaimai,

YOU are the one claiming that there are all these other folks and religions who claim miracles etc, then why can’t you name any of them or any of their miracles.

The fact is there are not any who have legitimate miracles, we have named several. There are a bunch of them in our faith, and a bunch have many witnesses and documantation to back up there miracles.

AND the most convincing aspect of this, is that all of these folks were honest and upright folks. People whose reputation and integrity were above reproach, enough so that the Church evenually declared them to be saints… BTW it requires at least 2 miracles for anyone to be declared a saint (it used to be 5).

The fact is, you have no rebuttal for any of this because it is all true. For you to be correct, you will have to prove that all of these folks were frauds, and all of the folks who witnessed these things were etither lying or were all fooled.

No, for me to be correct all I must say is that I have seen nothing, and been referred to nothing in this thread that constitutes evidence acceptable in a scientific context. It is up to those making extraordinary claims to provide the extraordinary evidence needed to support such claims. People can believe things without being liars or fools. It is one of the reasons that belief interests me, and why I myslef attemt to avoid belief, but to reply on conclusions from evidence. a simple test of whether all this ‘evidence’ is in fact evidence it to ask who, without prior faith, has been convinced by it. The answer is, very, very few. Are the unconvinced people all liars or fools?

 

[PumpkinSeed]

Are these people ridiculous or what?

First off, we have prosthetic limbs for those who need them, and second off who says he didn’t?

If you read in the new testament you see that Jesus cured MANY people. Who is to say that one of them wasn’t an amputee?

 

[Poof]

It is up to those making extraordinary claims to provide the extraordinary evidence needed to support such claims.

We did buddy, were just waiting for you to actually respond. You have yet to make a single rebuttal in this thread. Stop dodging and answer us straight up, as we have done with your posts.

For you to be correct, you will have to prove that all of these folks were frauds, and all of the folks who witnessed these things were etither lying or were all fooled.

Right on the nail!

@Hokomai

1. Since Bernadette claimed to have seen apparitions of the Virgin Mary, was she a liar, a lunatic or genuinely telling the truth?
2. If Bernadette was a liar or a lunatic then did she dig up the spring by mere chance?

Dying to see your response.

 

[Hokomai]

We did buddy, were just waiting for you to actually respond. You have yet to make a single rebuttal in this thread. Stop dodging and answer us straight up, as we have done with your posts.

Right on the nail!

@Hokomai

1. Since Bernadette claimed to have seen apparitions of the Virgin Mary, was she a liar, a lunatic or genuinely telling the truth?
2. If Bernadette was a liar or a lunatic then did she dig up the spring by mere chance?

Dying to see your response.

I am not compentent to say what Bernadette’s situation was. I have insuffciient facts. I do know that her statements do not constitute scientific evidence. It is not up to me to rebut extraordinary claims. It is up to those who make them to demonstrate their truth. The demonstration I see is something acceptable to normal scientific inquiry. I have seen nothing in this thread of this sort.

 

[dingodile]

No, for me to be correct all I must say is that I have seen nothing, and been referred to nothing in this thread that constitutes evidence acceptable in a scientific context. It is up to those making extraordinary claims to provide the extraordinary evidence needed to support such claims. People can believe things without being liars or fools. It is one of the reasons that belief interests me, and why I myslef attemt to avoid belief, but to reply on conclusions from evidence. a simple test of whether all this ‘evidence’ is in fact evidence it to ask who, without prior faith, has been convinced by it. The answer is, very, very few. Are the unconvinced people all liars or fools?

Mainstream scientific journals are not in the business of authenticating miracle claims, so it is unreasonable to expect to find evidence in them.

There are, however, plenty of other resources. Many miracles have been carefully and rigorously investigated by people with impeccable scientific credentials, and the documentation is out there for those who care to look at it.

Most people don’t care to look at it, though. Most people manage their lives in a way that enables them to avoid confronting things that threaten the comfort zone they have created in their own beliefs. Skeptics are fond of saying such things about the religious, but of course the reality is that we are all this way. There are no exceptions. So if the question is, Why haven’t more people been convinced by the evidence concerning miracles?, the answer is: Some have been convinced, but most do everything in their power to avoid giving that evidence a fair hearing.

Taking myself as a case in point, you’ll see that I’m “unchurched.” That means I’m unbaptized and not formally a part of any religious tradition or denomination. I’ve vacillated between atheism and agnosticism for most of my life (I’m nearly 60). In the recent past, I decided to force myself to take a fresh look at things. As a result, I’ve changed my position on the existence of God, at least. I think the evidence for God is reasonably strong, though not overwhelming. In the process of all this, I’ve also researched miracles, and I’ve come away from that research with the conviction that some reported miracles are the real thing.

Why did it take me so long? It’s simply because it was very, very easy for me to set a very low standard of acceptance for any skeptical claim, and a very high standard for any miracle or theistic claim.

 

[tonyrey]

I am not compentent to say what Bernadette’s situation was. I have insuffciient facts. I do know that her statements do not constitute scientific evidence.

You keep referring to evidence but you haven’t given any scientific evidence for your assumption that a** tangible** organ like the brain produces and understands intangible ideas - or how it does so - or how particles which are not conscious, do not think, have no insight, cannot choose or make decisions magically succeed in doing all those things…

 

[Hokomai]

You keep referring to evidence but you haven’t given any scientific evidence for your assumption that a** tangible** organ like the brain produces and understands intangible ideas - or how it does so - or how particles which are not conscious, do not think, have no insight, cannot choose or make decisions magically succeed in doing all those things…

I do not know how the brain works. I read scientific investigation of it avidly. Just because i do not know how something works, I am not justified in creating god(s) to fill in the gaps in my knowledge.