Evidence of miracles.

[Mountainmike]

Another thread had a curious title.

Independently REPEATABLE evidence of miracles. Which is a logical contradiction in the sense that by definition researchers cannot repeat the supernatural, otherwise it wouldn’t be supernatural.

So all that can be done is
1/ to identify evidence of the unexplained.
2/ to confirm it is inexplicable, by breaking a fundamental paradigm of science as it is known
( eg prophecy as a simple example because of time arrow, consciousness outside the brain )
3/ that there is no credible means of faking the evidence.
The only repeat possible is reassessment of evidence, not repeat the event.

But 1-3 deal only with defining something as supernatural, not a miracle which ascribes a cause.

Since God is not in the model of science , nor can science proclaim Him as a verdict, a limitation of science, not God.

So all we can do is is state
4/ it occurs in the theistic context
And
5/ the church adds other conditions too


Reality is there is a lot of such evidence.
Take miracle healings at Lourdes.
The lame walk, the blind see.

The process is massive to declare it so, from a large medical panel any qualified medic can join, most are not religious. They declare inexplicable , not just unexplained. ( Lourdes medical commission do that part )

The second declaration is by the church 4/ 5/ which is just as stringent. Many healings declared supernatural by medics, don’t pass the churches criteria as miracle. .

So what is left?
Take this. A pelvic cancer before cancers were in anyway curable had destroyed all the pelvic bone to a leg bone connected only by small amounts of soft tissue.

Journey to Lourdes healing waters.
Bone reappeared albeit a shorter leg. Pain disappeared. Cancer gone.

Appeared in serious medical journals.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6027009/pdf/10.1179_0024363913Z.00000000015.pdf

A medical doctor Heads up the commission for typically 10 years a time.
A couple have written books.

 

[NxNW]

Reality is there is a lot of such evidence.
Take miracle healings at Lourdes. The lame walk, the blind see.

There is no such evidence. James Randi wrote a book on it, The Faith Healers, and found evidence of fraud and lies, but no miracles.

Take this. A pelvic cancer before cancers were in anyway curable had destroyed all the pelvic bone to a leg bone connected only by small amounts of soft tissue.

Journey to Lourdes healing waters Bone reappeared albeit a shorter leg. Pain disappeared. Cancer gone.

I found an online excerpt from The Faith Healers, in which Randi attempted to verify this case. (Isn't it interesting that you have to go back 60 years for an example?)
Full text of "The Faith Healers James Randi"

The relevant text is about 24 column inches from the top, or you can use control-F to find the patient's name. Suffice it to say the 'miracle' is poorly-documented and full of contradictions.

Bear in mind, all mysteries are not miracles.

 

[Mountainmike]

There is no such evidence. James Randi wrote a book on it, and found evidence of fraud and lies, but no miracles.

let’s deal with the science via evidence of medics on the medical commission. Unless Randi was on it he has no opinion of this case or any other. He was a magician not a doctor.

Apriori sceptics make a lot of money, telling skeptics just what they want to hear as Randi did. That’s not science.

As for “there is no evidence” , read the paper.

 

[NxNW]

let’s deal with the science via evidence of medics on the medical commission.

The evidence could not be substantiated.

Unless Randi was on it he has no opinion of this case or any other.

Who said anything about Randi's opinion? Clearly you haven't read his examination of your 'data'.

Apriori sceptics make a lot of money

Link, please.

telling skeptics just what they want to hear.

What do skeptics want to hear? Link? Do you speak for them?

That’s not science.

Is anyone claiming it is?

As for “there is no evidence” , read the paper.

The paper has been found to be poorly documented and riddled with errors and contradictions. Efforts to substantiate the claims were unsuccessful.

 

[Mountainmike]

You mean they wouldn’t enter dialogue with Randi.

In the one corner we have
“In 1954, an International Medical Committee took over from the National Committee. It was (and still is) composed of about twenty university professors of medicine and skilled specialists”

the committee takes the verdict. Any qualified doctor can get involved in the research and express opinions.

In the other an apriori sceptic called Randi.
Had he been qualified he could have joined in.

I am a scientist. I know which verdict I choose.

Read the books by subsequent heads of the panels.
The process is amazingly thorough.

The evidence could not be substantiated.

Who said anything about Randi's opinion? Clearly you haven't read his examination of your 'data'.



Link, please.



What do skeptics want to hear? Link? Do you speak for them?



Is anyone claiming it is?

The paper has been found to be poorly documented and riddled with errors and contradictions. Efforts to substantiate the claims were unsuccessful.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I see that the OP does not see it odd that as recording methods have improved that the number of miracles have gone down. So much so that he has to refer to a very out of date article that cannot be confirmed today. The pattern of miracles in their response to technology indicates that they do not exist.

 

[Tinker Grey]

The fact that Christians aren't doing miracles every day is evidence that they do not exist. John 14:12

 

[Mountainmike]

I see that the OP does not see it odd that as recording methods have improved that the number of miracles have gone down. So much so that he has to refer to a very out of date article that cannot be confirmed today. The pattern of miracles in their response to technology indicates that they do not exist.

Another one who prefers his opinion to those of a panel of medical professors.

Recent reviews eg Francois come to similar conclusion. They open the files to medical professors , not cranks like Randi.
(But he is a medical professor, not an apriori sceptic , so you won’t agree with him)

If you read french - a 2019 book “ terre de guerisons” theilleur documents His experience as head of the medical commission.

The criteria , have also evolved, to the point of excluding many inexplicable cures.

Your illogic as always faulty. One incident is enough.
Your logic - Hiroshima was an Illusion built on faulty science - no cities have blown to smithereens since science became enlightened.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Another one who prefers his opinion to those of a panel of medical professors.

Recent reviews eg Francois come to similar conclusion. They open the files to medical professors , not cranks like Randi.
(But he is a medical professor, not an apriori sceptic , so you won’t agree with him)

If you read french - a 2019 book “ terre de guerisons” theilleur documents His experience as head of the medical commission.

The criteria , have also evolved, to the point of excluding many inexplicable cures.

Your illogic as always faulty. One incident is enough.
Your logic - Hiroshima was an Illusion built on faulty science - no cities have blown to smithereens since science became enlightened.

LOL! Oh my false accusations. Not very convincing.

 

[Mountainmike]

LOL! Oh my false accusations. Not very convincing.

Do you study anything before declare it a fraud?

Your final comments on the shroud proved it. Citing papers you had never read as “ evidence for fraud” by an author whose views you clearly didn’t know, supporting the authenticity of the shroud not debunking it! But any cut and paste will do huh!

In yet another case I’ve told you where to look: books written by medical doctors that head the medical bureau.
The commission of medical professors decides on medical cases, on the basis of that evidence.

Leuret ( modern miraculous cures) describes the tortuous process and doctors involved needed to declare both inexplicable ( by medical commission) and a miracle ( decided by church) in the period described, and all the safe guards that eliminate fraud.

Terre de Guerisons ( in french, theilleur) , head until 2010 brings it to present day.
Sadly many books on such things are not English. ( just like Eucharistic miracle works are in a variety of languages)

The church chooses not to declare many inexplicable cures as a miracle. The church waits for decades before declaration, long after the medical commission has investigated. That’s why there are no more recent cases.

But apriori scepticism is easier. It doesn’t trouble itself with annoyances like evidence.

 

[SkyWriting]

Reality is there is a lot of such evidence.
Take miracle healings at Lourdes.
The lame walk, the blind see.

We have that:

Rehabilitation & Therapy - Froedtert
Rehabilitation & Therapy
[URL='https://www.froedtert.com/orthopaedics']Orthopaedic Services
The highly trained therapists at Froedtert & the Medical College of Wisconsin work together to help patients recover from all types of orthopaedic injuries, conditions and surgeries. Our team of rehabilitation professionals includes physical therapists, occupational therapists and certified athletic trainers who work closely with our orthopaedic physicians and other specialists to deliver the best possible patient care.
[/URL]

 

[Mountainmike]

They can make The blind see?
I think not.

We have that:

Rehabilitation & Therapy - Froedtert
Rehabilitation & Therapy
Orthopaedic Services
The highly trained therapists at Froedtert & the Medical College of Wisconsin work together to help patients recover from all types of orthopaedic injuries, conditions and surgeries. Our team of rehabilitation professionals includes physical therapists, occupational therapists and certified athletic trainers who work closely with our orthopaedic physicians and other specialists to deliver the best possible patient care.

 

[Tinker Grey]

They can make The blind see?
I think not.

I think so: https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=people+recovering+their+sight

 

[Mountainmike]

I think so: https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=people+recovering+their+sight

In at least one of the Lourdes cures, the back of eye still showed the chronic condition that led to blindness, the only difference was they could now see!

Cure of blindness can also be temporary , in one instance I know it lasted an hour……. The guy certified and tested blind before and after, described accurately, visually, the scene that had unfolded in front of him.

 

[partinobodycular]

Reality is there is a lot of such evidence.
Take miracle healings at Lourdes.
The lame walk, the blind see.

You do love playing whac-a-mole. As soon as we debunk one miracle you go...look over here, here's another!

It's like looking at a bunch of fuzzy photos of bigfoot and wondering why in the heck can't someone manage to get a clear photo. They get pictures of everything else for gosh sakes.

It does get tiresome after a while, and I would suspect that at some point not even your fellow Christians find it persuasive. But you keep doing you, and we'll keep summarily dismissing you.

 

[Mountainmike]

You have not debunked one so far.
You attempt to discredit with smoke and mirrors.


When you discuss the slides and test results of the Eucharistic miracles , I’ll know you want to discuss science not your scepticism.

Yet again I prefer the evidence of scientists
( this case twenty medical professors on the Lourdes medical commission )
to partinobodyclar apriori scepticism.
Just for once read the documents would be good?
Read the books written by the heads of the commission?

But so far no, in this case , you prefer seemingly the testimony of one famous sceptic illusionist who’s main skill was extracting money from sceptics, who was not on the medical panel nor saw the files.
But you believe Him, because he was a sceptic crank! I prefer the medics.

No wonder you all believe as you do, you won’t put in the hard yards to study any of it.

You do love playing whac-a-mole. As soon as we debunk one miracle you go...look over here, here's another!

It's like looking at a bunch of fuzzy photos of bigfoot and wondering why in the heck can't someone manage to get a clear photo. They get pictures of everything else for gosh sakes.

It does get tiresome after a while, and I would suspect that at some point not even your fellow Christians find it persuasive. But you keep doing you, and we'll keep summarily dismissing you.

 

[partinobodycular]

Just for once read the documents would be good?

Remember, I asked you for documents...you had NONE.

Instead you gave me a list of forensics "experts", who it turns out weren't all that credible. Including one who went to prison for fraud, and another who actually worked for a television station at the time.

You do have a tendency to overstate your evidence.

 

[NxNW]

Read the books by subsequent heads of the panels.
The process is amazingly thorough.

It's so thorough, all original records have been lost and the existing ones contradict themselves!

If miracles really exist, it would be easy to find an example that wasn't 60 years old and didn't have so many loose ends.

 

[Irkle Berserkle]

As a very longtime student of the paranormal (see my profile if you like) and an experiencer myself, I can only say:

• Events occur all the time, across all religions and periods of history, that defy mundane explanation. When these events have been investigated to the full extent possible, scientists and medical professionals can only say "We have no explanation consistent with what we currently know."
  
  
• When such an event happens to you, it is not anecdotal evidence. It is direct experience.
  
  
• When your experiences closely mesh with those of thousands or even millions of other sane and credible people, there gradually accumulates a mountain of evidence that simply can't be ignored. Those who disallow such evidence do so not because it isn't compelling but because their commitment to philosophical naturalism forces them to do.
  
  
• Much of this evidence is, based on what we now know, inconsistent with the naturalistic paradigm and more consistent with a theistic (or at least "higher reality" paradigm).
  
  
• The evidence is just too all over the map, and cuts across too many belief systems and cultures, to make much of it from a Christian perspective. There are inexplicable miracles in the Christian context, of course, but there are plenty in the atheist and Hindu contexts. (Studies show that approximately 20% of atheists hold some pretty startling "woo-woo" beliefs.)

One of my favorite tales involves arch-skeptic Michael Shermer, with whom I've communicated. He and his wife experienced an almost classic After-Death Communication from her late grandfather that was very close to some I've experienced. He described it in Scientific American, Anomalous Events That Can Shake One’s Skepticism to the Core - Scientific American. I defy anyone to attach a mundane explanation to this event, especially when it's multiplied by hundreds of thousands of essentially identical ones.

Yet Shermer's article provoked howls of protest from his naturalistic atheist minions. Shermer was "a traitor to the cause" - which they obviously saw as the cause of atheism rather than truth. The suggested explanations were comical. To maintain his standing, however, Shermer was forced to backtrack and take the position "Well, of course it has a naturalistic explanation, even if we have no idea what it is."

 

[partinobodycular]

When your experiences closely mesh with those of thousands or even millions of other sane and credible people, there gradually accumulates a mountain of evidence that simply can't be ignored. Those who disallow such evidence do so not because it isn't compelling but because their commitment to philosophical naturalism forces them to do.

So what you're proposing is that we should find a preponderance of anecdotal evidence... a la Michael Shermer to be somehow convincing?

Should we likewise find the evidence for bigfoot to be convincing, or alien abductions, or the Loch Ness monster, or ghosts?

The sheer number of anecdotal stories doesn't equate to evidence. And should always be taken with a hefty dose of skepticism.