4 ms·

What counts as evidence? Some of the Catholic miracles sure seem pretty solid to me in terms of conveying God's will to us. Like the one in Fatima, which was

by thrww20210329 6y ago

What counts as evidence? Some of the Catholic miracles sure seem pretty solid to me in terms of conveying God's will to us. Like the one in Fatima, which was witnessed by thousands of people: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miracle_of_the_Sun https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miracle_of_the_Sun

nonotreally 6y ago
Every single miracle we have investigated seriously has been proven to be perfectly normal. As an example: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/nov/23/india-blasphemy-jesus-tears https://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/nov/23/india-blasphem... Just because something is unexplained currently does not give any weight to the idea that it was a miracle. Millions of people saw David Copperfield vanish the Statue of Liberty as well... But I certainly wouldn't be tempted to pretend he actually made it vanish https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=823GNH4Rczg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=823GNH4Rczg We don't have a single example where the opposite has been true.
- thrww20210329 6y ago
  https://cruxnow.com/commentary/2017/05/fatima-and-the-atheists/ https://cruxnow.com/commentary/2017/05/fatima-and-the-atheis... The miracle was also seen by sailors on a British ship off the coast of Portugal. Foley recounts an experience in England. He gave a presentation on Fatima at a college in England and was told by one of the teachers that her grandfather saw the miracle from his ship and wrote about it to his wife — “without obviously understanding what it meant or its significance.” And finally, what most convincingly shows that the miracle was not only in the minds and perception of the witnesses is the fact that the crowd at Fatima felt the heat of the sun as it approached them, and their clothes and the ground — which had been soaked by torrential rain — were dry at the end of the miracle. How does one claim this is just some optical mirage?
  - vidarh 6y ago
    One doesn't. At least not only an optical illusion. There is no consistent set of reports. Given that the reports are all wildly inconsistent and contradictory, and many reported seeing and feeling nothing at all, it's clear the reports can not be be taken at face value.
    - nonotreally 6y ago
      Exactly this. In addition, the default shouldn't be "therefore miracle". The default assumption should be "humans are easy to trick". My claim here, is that if we put our brightest minds on this, they will come back with a terrifically mundane explanation for it. In the same way that weeping statues are always just water from a pipe somewhere.
- unknown_apostle 6y ago
  When you use that word "we", are you also speaking for me?
  - nonotreally 6y ago
    Humanity doesn't have a single example where the opposite has been true. Yes. I am speaking for all of humanity here. I welcome evidence to the contrary. But that is kind of the point...
vidarh 6y ago
Thousands of people producing wildly inconsistent stories, including many who reported not seeing anything at all, and a wide range of photographers who all failed to get a picture of the purported "miracle". Get a bunch of people convinced they'll see a miracle and make them stare at the sun, and sure, you'll be able to get a lot of people saying they've seen a lot of things.
elteto 6y ago
So we should accept the 2000 year old book based on a miracle from 1917?
- thrww20210329 6y ago
  In terms of evidence occuring in modern times, I think the various miracles in the 20th century are strong candidates. One might also look into the testimonies of various exorcists in modern times for evidence that the supernatural exists: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nhhi7Fk3ueI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nhhi7Fk3ueI We also have stigmata, such as those received by Padre Pio: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Padre_Pio https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Padre_Pio Just trying to offer a few more things that count as evidence from modern times.

nonotreally 6y ago

Every single miracle we have investigated seriously has been proven to be perfectly normal. As an example: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/nov/23/india-blasphemy-jesus-tears https://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/nov/23/india-blasphem... Just because something is unexplained currently does not give any weight to the idea that it was a miracle. Millions of people saw David Copperfield vanish the Statue of Liberty as well... But I certainly wouldn't be tempted to pretend he actually made it vanish https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=823GNH4Rczg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=823GNH4Rczg We don't have a single example where the opposite has been true.

thrww20210329 6y ago
https://cruxnow.com/commentary/2017/05/fatima-and-the-atheists/ https://cruxnow.com/commentary/2017/05/fatima-and-the-atheis... The miracle was also seen by sailors on a British ship off the coast of Portugal. Foley recounts an experience in England. He gave a presentation on Fatima at a college in England and was told by one of the teachers that her grandfather saw the miracle from his ship and wrote about it to his wife — “without obviously understanding what it meant or its significance.” And finally, what most convincingly shows that the miracle was not only in the minds and perception of the witnesses is the fact that the crowd at Fatima felt the heat of the sun as it approached them, and their clothes and the ground — which had been soaked by torrential rain — were dry at the end of the miracle. How does one claim this is just some optical mirage?
- vidarh 6y ago
  One doesn't. At least not only an optical illusion. There is no consistent set of reports. Given that the reports are all wildly inconsistent and contradictory, and many reported seeing and feeling nothing at all, it's clear the reports can not be be taken at face value.
  - nonotreally 6y ago
    Exactly this. In addition, the default shouldn't be "therefore miracle". The default assumption should be "humans are easy to trick". My claim here, is that if we put our brightest minds on this, they will come back with a terrifically mundane explanation for it. In the same way that weeping statues are always just water from a pipe somewhere.
unknown_apostle 6y ago
When you use that word "we", are you also speaking for me?
- nonotreally 6y ago
  Humanity doesn't have a single example where the opposite has been true. Yes. I am speaking for all of humanity here. I welcome evidence to the contrary. But that is kind of the point...

vidarh 6y ago

Thousands of people producing wildly inconsistent stories, including many who reported not seeing anything at all, and a wide range of photographers who all failed to get a picture of the purported "miracle". Get a bunch of people convinced they'll see a miracle and make them stare at the sun, and sure, you'll be able to get a lot of people saying they've seen a lot of things.

elteto 6y ago

So we should accept the 2000 year old book based on a miracle from 1917?

thrww20210329 6y ago
In terms of evidence occuring in modern times, I think the various miracles in the 20th century are strong candidates. One might also look into the testimonies of various exorcists in modern times for evidence that the supernatural exists: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nhhi7Fk3ueI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nhhi7Fk3ueI We also have stigmata, such as those received by Padre Pio: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Padre_Pio https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Padre_Pio Just trying to offer a few more things that count as evidence from modern times.