What is a miracle?

[Hobbs]

It really bothers me when somebody is sick (with cancer, for example), and prays to be healed but also seeks medical treatment. Then, when they are healed, they give God the credit for their recovery when it was really the doctors, nurses, and decades of research that was truly responsibly for their recovery. Let's make sure we give credit where it's really due.

How do you know God didn't inspire the doctor to think of a new treatment, or to try something risky? Like the article about terminal patients, religious doctors are less likely to call it quits. Sometimes, it's that extra effort, the will to not give up, that determines whether a person lives or dies.

Just because you don't pray doesn't mean people shouldn't pray when they're sick. Live and let live.

I still don't understand why you debate this if you'll never accept a miracle.

Oh, and I suppose your science couldn't discount Consiglia de Martino. Your lack of any counterargument leads me to conclude you concede this point.

[Rapscallion]

How do you know God didn't inspire the doctor to think of a new treatment, or to try something risky?

How do you know that's what happened?

Why did you even suggest that?

Rapscallion

[AdminAssistant]

I'd really rather my doctors rely on scientific data and medical fact than inspiration from the Mysterious Man in the Sky.

[Ghel]

How do you know God didn't inspire the doctor to think of a new treatment, or to try something risky?

God can only get credit for the treatment if he first gets credit for the disease. What kind of sick, evil tyrant would infect someone with an incurable disease, and then watch them suffer for decades while they tried to work out a cure?

Just because you don't pray doesn't mean people shouldn't pray when they're sick. Live and let live.

I wouldn't prevent somebody from praying, but I don't think that prayer does any good.

I still don't understand why you debate this if you'll never accept a miracle.

The beginning of this thread was an attempt to start a discussion of what other people consider a miracle. How amazing or how lame does an event have to be before somebody will call it a miracle? Most of those who responded set the bar really low.

Oh, and I suppose your science couldn't discount Consiglia de Martino. Your lack of any counterargument leads me to conclude you concede this point.

I responded to this already. There's almost no readily-available information online describing what happened to Consiglia de Martino. Do you have a better link than what can be found using Google? Given the current information that I have, I see no reason to think that it was anything other than her body's natural healing ability.

Why this "miracle" in particular? What makes you insist on having this event explained? Is this the most recent miracle recognized by the Catholic Church? If miracles actually occurred, you would think that they could come up with something more spectacular than a fluid buildup being reabsorbed by a woman's body over the course of three days, and more recent than 15 years ago.

A proper investigation of this miracle should include examining the woman's medical records and interviewing her doctors. Maybe the Church did so, but I can't find a record of it. Even the official Vatican website has nothing but one line: "For the Beatification of Padre Pio, the Postulation presented to the competent Congregation the healing of Signora Consiglia De Martino of Salerno." Again, do you have a better link?

[HYHYBT]

Then, when they are healed, they give God the credit for their recovery when it was really the doctors, nurses, and decades of research that was truly responsibly for their recovery.

Do not most people in that circumstance who thank God also thank their doctors, etc.? You say it as if it were an either-or thing.

[Hobbs]

Why this "miracle" in particular?

Pick another miracle then. You still can't explain it, so that's your problem.

Raps, what's wrong with me suggesting that? How is labeling it as a miracle make it any less of a cop-out than "the body's amazing ability to heal itself." Wow, utterly convenient becuase that can't be scientifically identified.

[Mytical]

Most people who get healed suddenly and thank God for a miracle, have been told "Nothing we are doing is helping."

I am a live and let live person. Your beliefs or lack thereof have nothing to do with me. I have seen in person things that might turn peoples hair white, but I also realize that I have no evidence of it, so do not expect people to believe my way.

My family has been told "We have done everything we could, all we can do is make them comfortable. Nothing we do will have any affect." Just to have that person be absolutely problem free the next day. Not once, not twice, but three times. Yes, doctors can be wrong..but how does cancer or other deathly disease either reverse, hold still (ie not get worse or better for years), or even vanish entirely?

Also, there are miracles that happen daily, but if you want what I consider a divine miracle (there is a difference). I will tell you. When the laws of physics is suspended or reversed. What do I mean?

In 1991 I was going to college during the summer (and getting paid to do so through a work/school program). We were on the bus, and the driver was well..being an idiot. Driving like an absolute maniac around some curves.

I was sitting on the passenger side and seen something to this day I can not even come close to explaining. We went around a curve, and one whole side of our wheels ... left the road. I don't mean into the grass, or something like that. I mean there was absolutely nothing under them. Nada, zip, zilch. Half the bus was literally suspended in mid air. This was not for a split second, or a fraction of a second. We are talking hang time here. Yet..the bus didn't flip, it didn't crash, it didn't fall.

Now I am not a religious person, though I consider myself spiritual, but the laws of physics are pretty set in stone. Of course I have no PROOF this happened, just what I saw. So I don't expect anybody to believe it.

I have first hand seen spirits, seen the future (and had it happen), and a few other things I just can't explain.

Now to clarify the 'psychics' you hear about .. I believe they are absolute frauds. If somebody claims they can see the future without fail, talk to departed loved ones, or such..that is bunk. I claim no such thing. It's happened a whole of ONE time, and it was not something I controlled or tried to do. So yeah, I am a little more open to things of a 'paranormal'

[Rapscallion]

Pick another miracle then. You still can't explain it, so that's your problem.

You can explain it, and that's everyone's problem.

Your explanation is that an invisible force that sometimes works if you ask it to, but sometimes doesn't, decided to do something about it, but if it didn't work the way you wanted then that's part of this invisible entity's plan. Of course, the answer to this in your worldview is that we have to keep asking this invisible force for assistance and view this invisible force as a superior being, despite there being no actual proof of its existence.

The fact that there's no actual proof (apart from that written by those claiming to be inspired by this force) demands faith, and that apparently seems to make it more true. The less proof, the more true it is!

Where does this make it everyone's problem? Well, we end up with one of two things.

Thing one, Phelps and his cronies or similar perpetuating bigotry of a bunch of people who believed that an invisible force spoke to them several thousand years ago. No matter how nice someone is, if they fall into a certain category then they've been influenced by a malign influence that was created by the main invisible force that we're supposed to believe is infallible and has a plan for us that includes suffering, but loves us.

Thing two, pick-and-mix faith whereby people decide on which particular bits suit them best and try to justify it from within the same literary boundaries as the first group.

All of this is bound up in a carrot and stick approach from the literary source that's claimed to be inspired by an invisible and unprovable force - do what we tell you and you get an unprovable reward, but don't and get an unprovable punishment.

I've been told that many people who have faiths are taught to question it. However, this in my experience has been, "How can I justify this within this context?" Not, "Is the base premise correct?" I've yet to hear of some faith-based philosopher who had the guts to ask, "What if my preference of invisible force that loves us but is quite willing to cause us harm doesn't actually exist?"

Atheism's pretty clean. We're our own masters. We decide what we do and why. We do what's commonly described as 'good' because it's the right thing to do, or we do what's commonly described as 'evil' for self gain. We don't attribute it to invisible forces. We don't go for a cop out.

Raps, what's wrong with me suggesting that? How is labeling it as a miracle make it any less of a cop-out than "the body's amazing ability to heal itself." Wow, utterly convenient becuase that can't be scientifically identified.

What's wrong? Look above. You're claiming what people approve of to be the result of your preference of invisible force, yet not providing proof. Scientists and doctors who think scientifically will come up with the clear response of, "I don't understand this, but I'm going to try and work out what happened."

A sudden recovery? Well, we could say that we're going to look into what happened and see if we can replicate it, and if so we're going to be able to cure other people. Of course, if this happens it was inspired by your particular invisible force of preference, and if it doesn't then the suffering resulting is part of your invisible force's plan.

Of course, if your invisible force of preference was as all-knowing, omnipotent, and loving as is claimed, then ten-foot-high letters of fire announcing the cure for a form of cancer would be useful. Not seen that happen myself. Anyone else? No - it's always unprovable inspiration.

You don't offer proof. You offer a web of supposition that holds us back and removes the incentive to actually perform. It doesn't matter if we don't do this, because our invisible and unprovable power is going to do it for us, or to us if it hurts.

Rapscallion

[Hobbs]

<snip>

Honestly, I only skimmed your argument, because it's just the same stuff Ghel has been spouting for how many pages this thing is.

Thing one: You can't disprove the miracle, which is the whole basis of yours and Ghel's argument: that there are no miracles and everything can be explained scientifically.

Thing two: The position "the human body amazingly healed itself" without any outside interference or a slow gradual recovery is considered a valid argument when clearly it is no less scientific than "it's a miracle."

Thing three: God created all life; so yes, that includes viruses, bacteria, disease and cancer. God created a world that is both beautiful, yet also deadly and dark. It is the balance of the two that makes this world beautiful. If nothing bad happened, ever, we would never see the good that comes from it. How many here saw the tragedies in New York, Washington and saw the amazing feats of rescue workers as they rushed in to save people? God is not evil for having evil exist in the world. That would be like saying, "Since I have guns in my house, I am a killer."

On the subject of doctors and scientists. There are many very intelligent doctors and scientists who are faithful, yet still work using their knowledge to help people. I don't think that becoming a scientist automatically labels you an athiest, nor does it make you a better scientist if you are an athiest.

[Ghel]

Do not most people in that circumstance who thank God also thank their doctors, etc.? You say it as if it were an either-or thing.

I don't have research to back up the anecdotal evidence, here, but from my experience, theists who have undergone extensive medical treatment will thank their God first and their doctors second, or sometimes not at all. And even when they do thank their doctors, they tend to thank their God for the doctors. It still seems like a lot of the credit is misplaced.

Pick another miracle then. You still can't explain it, so that's your problem.

What Raps said.

Additionally, YOU picked this "miracle." You must have thought it was convincing, otherwise why even mention it? You didn't link to evidence to support your claim. You didn't even give a description of what happened to her. You said she was "instantaneously" healed, which (according to the ONE thorough description of the "miracle" I could find) was wrong. When I asked you to provide some evidence, or even a better description of events, you dodged the question by asking me to pick a different miracle.

If you're going to make a claim, such as "miracles happen," and you want anybody to agree with you, you need to support that claim with solid, documented evidence. If you want anybody to take you seriously, you can't just go around saying "prove I'm wrong" like some kid calling a friend "chicken" for not going into a house he says is haunted. No, you show us you're right. Then maybe we'll take you seriously.

[Hobbs]

I don't have research to back up the anecdotal evidence, here, but from my experience, theists who have undergone extensive medical treatment will thank their God first and their doctors second, or sometimes not at all. And even when they do thank their doctors, they tend to thank their God for the doctors. It still seems like a lot of the credit is misplaced.

So...when I say something anecdotal it's wrong to mention it, but when you do, it's justified because it's anti-thiest? Nice rationale there.

Additionally, YOU picked this "miracle." You must have thought it was convincing, otherwise why even mention it? You didn't link to evidence to support your claim. You didn't even give a description of what happened to her. You said she was "instantaneously" healed, which (according to the ONE thorough description of the "miracle" I could find) was wrong. When I asked you to provide some evidence, or even a better description of events, you dodged the question by asking me to pick a different miracle.

If you're going to make a claim, such as "miracles happen," and you want anybody to agree with you, you need to support that claim with solid, documented evidence. If you want anybody to take you seriously, you can't just go around saying "prove I'm wrong" like some kid calling a friend "chicken" for not going into a house he says is haunted. No, you show us you're right. Then maybe we'll take you seriously.

Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar. I did maybe five seconds on google to find that. Which is why I said, pick another one if you don't want to tackle this one. This is a miracle which has been researched and investigated (Yes by the Church, but the Congregation for the Causes of the Saints disproves "miracles" on a yearly basis). So find a verified miracle and disprove it. That's all I'm asking.

You show us you're right. If all you can do is mince words, you're no better than the "ebil Christians" you hate so much.

[Rapscallion]

Honestly, I only skimmed your argument, because it's just the same stuff Ghel has been spouting for how many pages this thing is.

That's because we're right.

Rapscallion

[Mytical]

Here is a problem. It is very hard to document miracles. Why? Because they often happen instantly, or with no warning. It's not like a voice comes from the sky and says "Hey ya'll, I am gonna do a miracle today at 4:30 at this place for this person." So it's not like you can have a camera or something ready for when it happens. So it falls upon the people witnessing the miracle, and how trustworthy they are.

Lets take this http://www.time.com/time/magazine/ar...863899,00.html It can be written off as 'hormonal changes' or any of the things listed at the bottom. It can also be a miracle.

Now mind you, I don't believe in a giant bearded man who can solve all of the world's problems if he wants. We have to look at what a Miracle actually is however. A miracle is something that can not be reasonably explained currently, that is 1) something GOOD 2) saves the life of, heals a person of, or otherwise prevents harm to a person or persons.

Now lets go back to witnesses, and trustworthiness. Though NOT a miracle, I have a witness to something paranormal (besides myself) that I personally 'did' (I will explain, patience). Several years ago, when I was a child, I walked into my parents room and told them "Uncle Bill is dead." Why did I do that? Because I had a dream that he was laying in a coffin surrounded by pills.

Uncle Bill was over 100 miles away, there had been no phone calls, and in fact nobody even knew he was dead until the next morning. By overdose. My parents to this day have no clue how I knew, they just know that hours before it was possible for me to KNOW, I KNEW. Me and 'Uncle Bill' was not even that close. They are witnesses, but of course it is not like we recorded this or anything. There is no PROOF, except for eyewitness accounts. So, by your logic it never occurred.

Of course you don't know me from Adam, so have no reason to believe this, nor do I expect anybody to.

The evidence is not there to support that there is nothing beyond what we can see or currently know. In fact we are learning things constantly that we did not know before. You might be 'right', or you may learn tomorrow how wrong you are. Closing your mind to it, just prevents any chance of learning.

[Rapscallion]

Closing your mind to it, just prevents any chance of learning.

The problem I see is that those who claim miracles close their minds to any other explanation.

If someone looks into it and come up with a repeatable experience and with the explanation, suddenly it was inspired or caused by their invisible power of preference.

The religious explanation denies any explanation that doesn't credit religion with the success.

Sure, I'm on the side of the atheists and sceptics. I expect proof. I don't see anything wrong with expecting that.

Rapscallion

[AdminAssistant]

Sorry, but the whole "God isn't evil because he created cancer" thing doesn't wash with me. If God is truly intervening in our lives, then he is responsible for everything both good and bad.

And, IMO, the God that allows children to die from leukemia and etc. can go fuck himself.