Twin-go wrote: » So that was the last one then?
Yes that is my problem, all things being equal, the rareness of miracles not withstanding, Why is a cancer sufferer 100% more likely than an amputee to be graced by a miracle cure?
PDN wrote: Doubtless we find it easier to believe for some things rather than others, and this goes beyond healing. It's easier to believe for God to answer a prayer for €10 than it is for a million euro. And faith, to some degree, is linked to answered prayer. But I, for one, don't find it hard to hold on to my faith, even when I don't see my prayers answered. My faith is not in a God who meets my every want like a heavenly sugar daddy. My faith is in a God who loved me so much that he sent His Son to die for me and made it possible for me to be saved - and that remains true whether I get healed or not.
ISAW wrote: » You are joking surely? If someone grew a limb you would have them have it removed so you could repeat the procedure to convince yourself?.
ISAW wrote: » the fact is qualified doctors examined the patiests and can't explain how the cure happened. Science cant explain it! If you don't have a problem with that then why njot admit admit science can't explain it?
ISAW wrote: » But they can! What part of "qualified doctors examined and doccumented the incurable cases in advance" are you having problems with? And why are you adding "only true scotsman"? I fhtere was a case of a limb growing back you still would not believe it. Not because of the science but because of your belief that it cant be god because you believe there is no God. That isn't skepticism it is atheism!
ISAW wrote: » But we are not talking about everyday cases of peoples beliefs. We are talking about well documented medical cases of what science says is incurable or progressive and terminal and the thing reversing or disappearing.
ISAW wrote: » You are joking surely? If someone grew a limb you would have them have it removed so you could repeat the procedure to convince yourself?
Robert ninja wrote: » [ Actually it's not the skeptics who have a problem that miracles and so on can't happen under a controlled enviornment for repeatable tests,
it's the believers' problem because they can't seem to provide or demonstrate miracles outside of places where there is no real way to tell what's going on or who is inflicted
with what and if it is cured afterwards or if there was even anything to be cured. There's millions of claims of people being possessed too so it's no secret people believe they're sick when they're not. Girls think they have cancer everytime lumps of hair show up on their combs.
PDN wrote: » And he healed an amputated ear in the Bible too.
PDN wrote: » so you have a problem because these extremely rare events happen in one particular set of circumstances rather than another?
PDN wrote: » As for what you have or have not come across, I'm not sure what your point is here? Miracles are extremely rare events - so you have a problem because these extremely rare events happen in one particular set of circumstances rather than another?
Twin-go wrote: » But people claim they prayed and had their diease cured = God cured them. There are plenty documented claims of this sort. I have yest to come accross documented claims of somebody missing a limb praying and having the limb grow back. Why would God pick one afliction over the other to cure? God may not have directly said he'll cure disease or grow limbs back. But he sure did a lot of "curing" in the Bible. And continues to "cure" aflictions of believers, weather it be acceptable claims from Lourdes or less acceptable in terms of the RCC, faith healers.
Newsite wrote: » Where does God say that he will cure human disease or grow limbs back? This is almost tantamount to putting Him to the test and 'thou shalt not put thy Lord your God to the test'. As in, 'if you're really there, grow my limb back'. Sounds a bit familiar to 'If thou be the Son of God, cast thyself down' - and we know who uttered those words.
Aidan1985 wrote: » I apologize if I'm coming across another way other than what my intentions are. What I'm saying is that it's easy for people to get involved in something that if we really stand back and test our beliefs, we might just be wrong. I'm agnostic; I haven't stumbled across proof of a god and nobody has proven to me that one doesn't exist. I'm just on the fence. Same with science. There's a lot of theories floating about but hard facts is what we really need.
Fanny Cradock wrote: » Do you not find it crippling to you argument about 100% proof that you then go on to tell us it only your opinion? What do you know with 100% certainty, btw? Well, feeling is one thing, what you actually are is another. Frankly, if all you can muster are plagiarised insults from TGD then perhaps you would be as well leaving it at "That is all".
Aidan1985 wrote: » A non-dogmatic scientist will tell you that what we teach today might be obsolete in ten years time. We need to be wary of that.
JimiTime wrote: » As a Christian, this is a topic that has me ask the same questions tbh. I am often confused about the pulpit preaching of the power of prayer, and seeing congregations go into 'speaking in tongues' etc. (i don't deny this phenomena, but its still an area where I'm skeptical), and tbh, I can see why such a preaching is made. Jesus told us in Matt 7:7 “Ask and it will be given to you; seek and you will find; knock and the door will be opened to you. 8 For everyone who asks receives; the one who seeks finds; and to the one who knocks, the door will be opened. 9 “Which of you, if your son asks for bread, will give him a stone? 10 Or if he asks for a fish, will give him a snake? 11 If you, then, though you are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father in heaven give good gifts to those who ask him!
Twin-go wrote: » Thanks for the replies Guys. I sort of wanted to come at this from a different angle though, not the God doesn't cure amputees therefore God does not exist line. But PDN closed the thread and forced me to put the question here.:rolleyes: I was wondering how people with strong faith and missing limbs accept that will not be cured (no go to Lourdes with one arm and come back with two moment) by God no matter how much they pray. How can they, when faced with this, still hold on to their faith?
Aidan1985 wrote: » I don't feel delusional and narrow-minded anymore. That's all.
PDN wrote: » So, you don't believe that your mother loved you? I mean, you don't have 100% proof of it, do you? In fact, for all you know you were in a social experiment like the Truman Show. The fact is that all of us, yourself included, make life-choices based on less than 100% proof, but we weigh the available evidence on the balance of probabilities. Anyone who claims otherwise, IMHO, is not open minded, but they may well be a fool.
Aidan1985 wrote: » I think people need to be realistic and say to themselves: I need 100% proof that God (or whatever it is) exists or else I can't fully commit my beliefs to that idea. This should be the thought before we leap into any ideas we are exposed to or stumble across in life. The idea of God is a great one. Eternal life when you die. But just because an idea sounds good doesn't equate to fact or whatever. I also believe that if someone brings fourth an idea or theory, that's good. But without hard, solid, unarguable facts, I would never commit to that idea. I'm very open minded but I'm no fool. 100% proof is a must.
ISAW wrote: » By this you mean there was a statistical change that any of them would happen anyway. So can you explain the mechanism involved in any of theise cases? an science explain how the cure happened. No it can't! I was quite clear that Lourdes was not a requirement of the Catholic church and that I took it an an example because of the well documented cases. You are quite welcome to provide evidence of other "miracles" from elsewhere i.e. cures which scientists have looked into and can't explain. I didn't claim miracles only happen in Lourdes nor indeed that they are miracles. I claimed science can't explain them! they are metascientific occurances. The is not sufficient science to explain how they happened. It isn't an "only fluff" example as claimed! If you were shown one would that make you believe ? No? Well then stop adding "only true scotsman" criteria you won't accept! Or a dead and ready to be amputated limb growing back into the hip loint from which it is disconnected. Or MS reversing? Yes indeed. Ones science can't explain and which are not "only fluff" .
Morbert wrote: » The "miracles" of Lourdes are statistically insignificant.
By this, I mean they happen to people who do not go to Lourdes, or any religious shrine or ceremony.
If you want to claim they are miracles, and not simply surprising examples of imperfect medical knowledge, you would have to show that these "miracles" are correlated to Lourdes.
Or you would have to give an example of something extraordinary, like a limb growing back.
"Miracle" can denote unlikely, but entirely natural events, or even just wonderful events.
A small fraction of Lourdes visitors experience these miracles, as we would expect, but there has been no case of the suspension of natural laws to facilitate divine intervention.
ISAW wrote: » We have just been over that issue. Only true scotsman, scientism, and failure to admit that you accept a limb growing back as proof of God. You still would not believe it if it happened would you? And what is the difference between an offer of amutation for a limb which is clinically "dead" and a dead limb? And how do you scientifically explain MS not just stopping but reversing? Pull the other one
Morbert wrote: » Lourdes "miracles" are statistically insignificant. If the majority came back cured, or if the miracles were unambiguous (I.e. A Limb growing back), then there might have been something too it.
lmaopml wrote: » Sorry for butting in, but my tuppence.. I think the word 'miracle' is commonly misused, but not 'all' of the time... Science explains by it's very nature 'natural' phenomena only, and is a 'tool' we use to understand the world, the body, the universe, our place in it, medicine, dna etc. etc. - of course there are things that 'science' ( you'd swear it was a person, and only non theists could fathom it ) cannot explain,
Reification often takes place when natural or social processes are misunderstood and/or simplified; for example when human creations are described as “facts of nature, results of cosmic laws, or manifestations of divine will
The concept of a "construct" has a long history in science;...Thus, if properly understood and empirically corroborated, the "reification fallacy" applied to scientific constructs is not a fallacy at all
I can't believe that the universe would allow humans and human achievement just to fade away, therefore there must be a God and an afterlife where all will be preserved.
Zombrex wrote: » So when you already believe you will then accept these things are miracles?
I'm not, I'm arguing that nothing religions have ever produced as evidence that miracles take place is anything other than stuff that can easily be explained within the normal laws or nature or can be explained through misunderstandings of humans.
Thus it is a reasonable conclusion that miracles have not actually happened when it is claimed they have.
An amputee regrowing his arm would be a genuine miracle (as would say the stars rearranging themselves to spell "Hi there, its me God"). But those sort of things do not happen.
Instead we get what can best be described as parlour tricks.
I could be explained by either of those things. As I said legs healing do not break the laws of nature. Cancer going into remission does not break the laws of nature.
A leg regrowing itself would.
Firstly how do you know they don't mis-observe. Secondly I didn't say misoberve I said make mistakes.
easily be explained by ignorance of what happened or falsehoods on the part of the participants
Doctors don't make mistakes now, do they? You might want to tell doctors that.
Know I said I would not accept it as proof of the existence of God.
If the only accurate explanation required the theory that the natural laws of nature were suspended I would certain consider it a miracle.
And doctors never make mistakes or lie?
Well that is very naive of you, but could explain why you are so willing to accept claims of miracles.
And? Did he x-ray the leg? No xrays hadn't been invented yet. Did he treat for infection? No germ theory hadn't been established yet.
(15 March 1813 – 16 June 1858) was an English physician and a leader in the adoption of anaesthesia and medical hygiene. He is considered to be one of the fathers of epidemiology, because of his work in tracing the source of a cholera outbreak in Soho, England, in 1854.
He showed that the Southwark and Vauxhall Waterworks Company was taking water from sewage-polluted sections of the Thames and delivering the water to homes with an increased incidence of cholera. Snow's study was a major event in the history of public health, and geography, and can be regarded as the founding event of the science of epidemiology.
Again explain to me how the laws of nature have to be suspended for a broken leg to heal?
Treatment often consists of neo-adjuvant chemotherapy generally followed by a limb salvage or an amputation and may also include radiotherapy. Complete excision at the time of biopsy may be performed if malignancy is confirmed at the time it is examined. Treatment lengths vary depending on location and stage of the disease at diagnosis. Radical chemotherapy may be as short as 6 treatments at 3 week cycles, however most patients will undergo chemotherapy for 6–12 months and radiation therapy for 5–8 weeks.
Sarcoma (cancer) of pelvis; tumour so large that his left thigh became loose from the socket, leaving his left leg limp and paralysed. After taking the waters, he was free of pain and could walk. By February 1964 the tumour was gone, the hip joint had recalcified, and he returned to a normal life.
Sure, they got better.
Can you explain again how that requires the suspension of the laws of physics, you seem to be doing your best to dodge that question.
I'm pretty sure the doctors would concur that they got better.
Science cannot explain a lot of things, normally followed by science then explaining it.
Are you suggesting that a natural phenomena is a "miracle" until science can explain it? That is ridiculous.
Science cannot explain a lot of things, normally followed by science then explaining it. Are you suggesting that a natural phenomena is a "miracle" until science can explain it? That is ridiculous.
ISAW wrote: » The point is already taken that if there you would still not have enough. When will you ever have enough? The point made was only when you believe.
ISAW wrote: » You are arguing for scientific proof of God?
ISAW wrote: » Your criterion " could equally be explained by natural occurrences or mistakes on the part of the observers." are all dealt with in the protocols I showed you. No it could NOT be explained by natural causes or by observational error!
ISAW wrote: » The doctors check it out under strict protocols using modern technology and confirming the case incurable in advance. They didn't mis observe and they do not have a natural explanation!
ISAW wrote: » But you already admitted you would NOT accept it is a miracle in that case!
ISAW wrote: » And it isn't an "undoccumented natural process" either It is highly doccumented and inexplicable i.e. the doctors are resolute that they can not conclude it is a natural process!
ISAW wrote: » I am aghast that you regard scientific achievements in 1875 as rudimentary scant or primitive.
ISAW wrote: » Dr. Van Hoestenberghe's responses of April and May 1875 to Mgr Faict, which were lost during the canonical inquiry, are found again in 1956 and published in 1957. In the second of these responses, Dr. Van Hoestenberghe (who, as we saw, would report to the Commission of 1907-1908 that he had examined the injured leg ten or twelve times
ISAW wrote: » Any explanations?
ISAW wrote: » Can you explain what the doctors in heavily documented cases couldn't.
ISAW wrote: » It wasn't "fluff" they are clearly documented incurable cases and science cant explain how they were cured.
irishh_bob wrote: » fathers in texas and alabama sent thier sons so you could be saved too , during WW2 , many sons died fighting fascism all over europe , none of those guys had the assurance of thier daddy being the most powerfull force in the universe , lets keep the dieing for our sins thing in perspective , shall we
Zombrex wrote: » No, but I would be much more open to the idea that he did over other alternative explains that don't invoke a super powerful deity. But my point (if you were paying attention) is that we aren't even there yet.
Not at all, it fits the criteria perfectly, the CMIL can only declare something medically inexplicable, which just means we don't know how that happened, not that it could not happen based on the current understood laws of physics.
Again this is why you do not see amputees growing new arms or legs. That would actually require a miracle, not simply an undocumented natural process.
Wow, 1875 the pinicle of modern scientific knowledge :rolleyes:
A broken leg healing hardly requires the suspension of the natural laws of physics.
If he had his leg removed by doctors and the next day was walking around with a brand new leg, that might raise an eyebrow. Instead what we have is 19th centuries doctors saying they can't cure his leg, him going away and then his leg healing.
I notice none of your other examples are spontaneous regeneration of amputeed limbs either. Why doesn't God do this for all to see?
It is exactly the same as the question why do psychics only come up with fluff in their sessions, ... Cause it ain't real
PDN wrote: » Indeed I did, and Zombrex's post has confirmed my belief that I was correct to do so. Now, we can continue to discuss it here, or you can start moaning about moderating decisions inthread in which case your ass will be banned. Miracles, by their very nature, are things that happen rarely. I don't know any Christian (other than a certifiable lunatic) who thinks God should serve up miracles on demand. Doubtless we find it easier to believe for some things rather than others, and this goes beyond healing. It's easier to believe for God to answer a prayer for €10 than it is for a million euro. And faith, to some degree, is linked to answered prayer. But I, for one, don't find it hard to hold on to my faith, even when I don't see my prayers answered. My faith is not in a God who meets my every want like a heavenly sugar daddy. My faith is in a God who loved me so much that he sent His Son to die for me and made it possible for me to be saved - and that remains true whether I get healed or not.
