Eucharistic Miracle in Buenos Aires

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

God isn't supposed to be omnipotent. Classical or orthodox Christianity claims that omnipotence is part of God's nature. It doesn't require belief in God to understand the difference.

Well that is all a bit academic. My issue is with the claims made by Christians about God, not God himself given that we have no system to test claims about God. Neither of us can sit down and work out an experiment with a falsifable result to determine the likelihood that God is or isn't omnipotent.

The issue is the paradoxical nature of both claiming that God is the omnipotent creator of the universe and that he intervenes with his own creation.

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

You then go on to state that a miracle is cheating and God needs to do something with respect to his interaction in this world. I don't know if this is a case that you simply don't understand what Christians say about miracles and the nature of God or if you are misrepresenting your opponents beliefs.

I think it is more a case that you, like many Christians, don't actually appreciate what the claim of an omnipotent creator actually implies.

I'm not saying it is logically impossible that God intervenes in his own creation. I'm saying that such an intervention would be unnecessary and utterly pointless if God actually was the omnipotent creator, just as cheating in a game of chess would be unnecessary and utterly pointless if you already knew all the moves from the start and in fact invented the game.

In fact given how God is defined by Christians miracles would be strong evidence against God doing anything, as of all the beings that could exist God would be least likely to need to intervene.

Which is why I always find it odd that Christians if they believe something supernatural must have happened don't seriously consider miracles as being the work of non-deity supernatural entities, such as Satan, since such acts are far more consistent with begins that have interventionist power but which didn't "invent chess" as it were.

Bogwoppit wrote: »

I think if Dr Zugiba had a piece of flesh from a heart that continued to beat as he examined it that he would have made a bit of a fuss. For starters I think the lab would be put in serious quarantine to prevent the possible outbreak of a horde of zombies.

Yeah it is odd that these scientists always just report back findings and then go about their normal business when they are supposed to have found something that completely revolutionises science. You would think one of them at least is deserving of a Nobel prize.

Almost as if, oh I don't know, the reports of the scientists findings are greatly exaggerated.

Of course it is on the Internet, so it must be true ...

lmaopml wrote: »

God did intervene - he sent so many people and prophets, but then he sent Jesus Christ, his only son, knowing that it was the only way to prove what love is. Hence the crucifix that baffles so many.

Why was it necessary for an omnipotent omniscience being to intervene in the system he created in order to ensure the outcome he wanted?

That is the paradox.

lmaopml wrote: »

As it were, Christians do believe that Satan intervenes a lot

And how do you determine when God is intervening and when Satan is intervening.

How for example do you know Jesus wasn't a manifestation of Satan in order to trick people into moving away from the Old Testament laws? After all you don't follow those laws any more, under the idea that Jesus fulfilled them. If Jesus wasn't God and didn't actually have the authority to fulfill them you are breaking the law and sinning, which is obviously something that Satan would wish.

peaceboi wrote: »

"You are mistaken, not understanding the Scriptures nor the power of God". Matthew 22:29

But then Satan would say that, wouldn't he? Satan pretending to be a false prophet or the messiah commands you to do something against what God has ordered. Confused you ask this messiah is it not wrong to do this. The false prophet, wishing you to disobey God, instructs you taht in fact you made a mistake when interpreting the original message from God, this false prophet will no give you the real instruction and you should follow that.

I guess it is up to God whether he will punish you for listening to Satan when Satan says "This is what God really wants"

indy_man wrote: »

This is an outstanding Miracle and not the first time this has happened. There is to much testimony, evidence and witnesses to not believe.

That is a very naive position to take, and shows a large lack of understanding of human nature.

In 1978 a red panda escaped from a zoo in Rotterdam. After the escape was mentioned in the local papers and on the radio over the course the next year the zoo received close to 300 reports of residents of Rotterdam having seen the panda out and about.

Sounds reasonable doesn't it, panda escapes from a zoo you would expect that people saw it out and about and would phone in to the zoo.

The problem?

The panda had been hit by a train just a few feet outside the zoo wall. He had never made it to a populated area. All these people who were going to the trouble of ringing in to the zoo were not actually seeing the red panda.

People are easy to fool, particular easy to fool within the context of a system that has already been suggested to them. They already have a narrative and fill in the gaps in knowledge to fit within that narrative.

The only evidence you ever have that a miracle has taken place are the testimony of people who are claiming a miracle has taken place, based on their own assessment that this is the only plausible explanation. These people are more often than not believers, or at the very least invested in the narrative of a "miracle" taking place.

There has never been any objectively testable evidence that a miracle has ever taken place. In fact many Christians like that fact as they say that a miracle is not proof of God, but simply a sign to the faithful. The key word being faithful, these miracles are only miracles to those who already believe.

And if 300 people can see a panda that doesn't exist convincing them a miracle has taken place doesn't seem all that hard.

indy_man wrote: »

Bad analogy, you can't compare a dead panda (poor thing) to a miraculous event that was analysed by scientists who gave reports and testomonies.

Of course you can. No one has ever been able to show through science that something actually was a miracle. Despite that lots of believers claim otherwise.

You have your dead panda right there, people seeing what they want to see, not reality.

indy_man wrote: »

I suppose you also compare the resurrection of Jesus Christ to sightings of the lock ness monster.

What?, because the Loch Ness monster is less plausible than a guy in 1st century Palestine rising himself from the dead?

People see what they want to see, particularly when a suggestion is being passed around a community. It is easy to imagine how a rumour got started that Jesus had come back from the dead and then people would start claiming to have seen him, even if they hadn't. The stories get more embellished until a few years later you have stories of people meeting with him and talking to him.

All this is entirely plausible and in fact happens all the time. For example, interviews with holocaust survivors often have claims that Hitler himself visited prisoner and concentration camps when we know from historical records he didn't. These people aren't lying, they believe the stories, which are often quite elaborate. But they aren't true stories, we know from historical documents that Hitler didn't visit places where these survivors claim to have seen him. This demonstrates how easy it is for false memories to be generated by the mind, particularly in times of extreme stress and hardship, as the early Christians would have no doubt experiences following Jesus' execution.

People put a huge amount of faith in testimony when that testimony fits a particular narrative.

indy_man wrote: »

Many people have been converted through Miracles, apparations and healing, this is well known.

It is also common in other religions, religious that are mutually exclusive to Christianity.

Is this evidence that those religious are the true religion and Christianity is false?

And most interesting these miracles more often than not occur along cultural and religious boundaries. So we get a ton of "miracles" occurring in European and European settled countries where Christian tradition is part of the culture. Not so many visions of Mary or bleeding statues appearing to the Aborigines of Australia. Likewise Muslim miracles more often than not occur in cultures steeped in Muslim tradition.

Miracles are simply unexplained events, that people then take and fit into the narrative they are most familiar with. If these miracles had happened in another culture at another time they would have been interpreted along the lines of what supernatural tradition existed in that culture. There is nothing explicate Christian about this miracle other than the claims made by Christians after they interpreted the unexplained even in the framework of their own religion. Imagine what an ancient Chinese person would have thought of this miracle, I doubt he would have seen it as a sign of the truth of Christianity.

indy_man wrote: »

"For those who believe, no explanation is necessary. For those who do not believe, no explanation is will suffice." So common ground, maybe.

That is nonsense. An explanation that actually explains what happened will suffice. Simply saying "It must have been [insert particular cultures supernatural being here] making this happen for [insert particular cultures supernatural reason here] reason" isn't an explanation.

It is a guess, nothing more. The ones who are happy with that are the ones who have already decided to believe in what ever cultural supernatural tradition they happen to be born into. "Miracles" happen across cultures, across time, across languages. And they are never universally attributed to one deity or religion.

peaceboi wrote: »

"You are mistaken, not understanding the Scriptures nor the power of God". Matthew 22:29

It is incredibly wrong to quote the book you are trying to prove is true, in order to prove it true.

To show a book to be true, you have to deliver evidence independant of the book which cooberates that book. This is something that is very lacking vis a vis the bible.

indy_man wrote: »

Maybe if the blood cells are dead, these are alive.

And how pray tell are blood cells "alive", when they are clearly not in the pulmonary system of a living animal, the only place they can remain "living"?

Leaving aside the fact that blood cells were never alive in the first place.