How are we to explain these "miracles?"

[Naturalism]

And what of all the people who pray and their prayers remain unanswered? You see, this is a logic fallacy people are prone to. You zero in on the one instance in which your prayer appeared to be answered, not thinking of the many more times that your prayers weren't answered. And if you pray every time before a turning point in your life or someone else's, chances are eventually it will seem that prayer is "answered".

Confirmation bias that is, nothing more. This is why a method like science requires such checks and balances to ensure impartiality and bias are removed as it was figured out long ago that humans are clever and foolishly clever.

 

[Heissonear]

Confirmation bias that is, nothing more. This is why a method like science requires such checks and balances to ensure impartiality and bias are removed as it was figured out long ago that humans are clever and foolishly clever.

.

You think science can evaluate the Spiritual Realm? What is of the Spirit is spiritual - John 3:7. "That which is born of flesh is flesh, and that born of the Spirit is spirit".

And since when have those who have zero Supernatural experience become the truth bearers of the Spiritual Realm existence? They have no clue.

.

 

[TLK Valentine]

.

You think science can evaluate the Spiritual Realm? What is of the Spirit is spiritual - John 3:7. "That which is born of flesh is flesh, and that born of the Spirit is spirit".

And since when have those who have zero Supernatural experience become the truth bearers of the Spiritual Realm existence? They have no clue.

.

What spiritual realm, Heiss?

 

[freezerman2000]

What about those documented by the RCC?
Google those and try to pick them apart..

Our Lady of Lourdes - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
That was just one..
Were the events(healing) miraculous or not?

 

[Lord Emsworth]

What about those documented by the RCC?
Google those and try to pick them apart..

Mostly the usual ploy:

1. It is scientifically inexplicable.
2. Technically it is otherwise inexplicable too.
3. But despite this we are somehow righter.
Therefore, it is our miracle.​

As long as they can't explain how a dead Pope can -- what was that again? -- cure Parkinsons ... They have a very slim case. (Actually they have plenty of slim cases.)

Can you explain how a dead Pope can cure Parkinsons?

 

[theophilus777]

If those are your critiques, you seem to not understand the concept of "miracle."

 

[Lord Emsworth]

If those are your critiques, you seem to not understand the concept of "miracle."

Ultimately the concept does not make sense.


Regardless, I would like to hear why you would accuse me of not understanding the concept in your response to my post. Must miracles, in your opinion, be totally inexplainable, or does it suffice if they are scientifically inexplainable. Principally inexplainbe, or just practically?

Or what?

 

[freezerman2000]

Lourdes has been witnessed by many people.
Scientifically inexplicable?Yes..If the healings were scientifically explainable,they would no longer be miraculous,would they?

 

[freezerman2000]

Mostly the usual ploy:

1. It is scientifically inexplicable.
2. Technically it is otherwise inexplicable too.
3. But despite this we are somehow righter.
Therefore, it is our miracle.​

As long as they can't explain how a dead Pope can -- what was that again? -- cure Parkinsons ... They have a very slim case. (Actually they have plenty of slim cases.)

Can you explain how a dead Pope can cure Parkinsons?

No,can you?

 

[Lord Emsworth]

No,can you?

Me, explain how dead Popes do stuff? Mhmm-mhmmmmm.

 

[Lord Emsworth]

Scientifically inexplicable?Yes..If the healings were scientifically explainable,they would no longer be miraculous,would they?

Mhmmm-hmmm. That seems to be something we can all agree on, methinks.

 

[theophilus777]

Ultimately the concept does not make sense.


Regardless, I would like to hear why you would accuse me of not understanding the concept in your response to my post. Must miracles, in your opinion, be totally inexplainable, or does it suffice if they are scientifically inexplainable. Principally inexplainbe, or just practically?

Or what?

Totally unexplainable, other than by the Power of God, with good reason to attribute it to God Himself, by those who know Him.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Totally unexplainable, other than by the Power of God, with good reason to attribute it to God Himself, by those who know Him.

So anything you can't explain must be God?

 

[Lord Emsworth]

Totally unexplainable,

Mhmm-hmmm. (Sometimes however people content themselves with scientific inexplicability.)

other than by the Power of God

Yes, that is what I think too. Explain stuff! Which is however never done.

How can a dead Pope -- what was it again? -- cure Parkinson?

 

[Lord Emsworth]

So anything you can't explain must be God?

I think he means, that you have to be able to explain it with the power of God.

(Plus, he said that there needs to be good reason to attribute it to God. Hitler's strange resilience to assassination plots probably won't make the cut.)

 

[PsychoSarah]

If those are your critiques, you seem to not understand the concept of "miracle."

My biggest issue is that miracles are one of if not the most faked events. I am personally open to the idea they might happen, but when one claims to have witnessed or facilitated a miracle, there word alone is not going to cut it. They are just faked far too much.

 

[theophilus777]

My biggest issue is that miracles are one of if not the most faked events. I am personally open to the idea they might happen, but when one claims to have witnessed or facilitated a miracle, there word alone is not going to cut it. They are just faked far too much.

For you not to believe a specific miracle based solely on an internet claim is what I would call reasonable skepticism. For you to claim you can somehow research such a thing is what I would call a flight of fancy.

Your opening statement here is what I would call prejudice. What basis do you have for this claim?

 

[AV1611VET]

My biggest issue is that miracles are one of if not the most faked events. I am personally open to the idea they might happen, but when one claims to have witnessed or facilitated a miracle, there word alone is not going to cut it. They are just faked far too much.

I'm sure that's what Pharaoh's magicians, Jannes and Jambres, told Pharaoh.

Until God brought them to this conclusion ...

Exodus 8:19a Then the magicians said unto Pharaoh, This is the finger of God:

 

[PsychoSarah]

For you not to believe a specific miracle based solely on an internet claim is what I would call reasonable skepticism. For you to claim you can somehow research such a thing is what I would call a flight of fancy.

Your opening statement here is what I would call prejudice. What basis do you have for this claim?

Fake miracles can be shown to be fake, the determination depending on the nature of the fake (in the case of a medical miracle, medical records showing those people never to be sick to begin with). I never claimed to be able to research real miracles, that would be pretty much impossible, but you can weed out the fakes, although some fakes manage to remain for decades before they are soundly disproven.

 

[theophilus777]

My biggest issue is that miracles are one of if not the most faked events.

Still haven't seen you support this statement. How could you? What is it besides prejudice?