Originally posted by Ryokan

I do not have time to red that thread right now, but I promise to get back to it. Those are pretty good qualifiers, but I've never seen an event that met them with a degree of certainty I'd find acceptable.

Did anyone read the process they go though before a miracle is confirmed? If not, is that because nobody can be trusted to know and tell what is true but you? Which is why you must see it yourself before you believe that something happened which our science can not explain?

Originally posted by warcraft3

Good definition...we shall see if griggsy has a similar definition...

Of course the word "clearly" could be interpreted quite differently by different people...

Based on our present scientific knowledge, the miracle should not be physically possible. This rules out mere statistical improbability.

Im a bit confused...you mean unable to prove or document the illness to someone specific?

Like to a skeptic? Or are you just using this to debunk "healings" of diseases that never existed?

There must be adequate proof that the person who was cured was actually correctly diagnosed in the first place and provably had the disease they claimed to have. Basically that diagnosis was accurate at the time the miracle occured. This is as simple as x-rays or tissue samples or other objective tests performed by a reputable hospital shortly before the miracle occured, then the same tests showing a complete absence of disease afterwards.

The most common problem with miraculous claims in fact is that regularly the person "cured" was actually misdiagnosed. The didn't actually have the disease they were miraculously cured of in the first place. So this possibility must be eliminated.

Then you probably have never witnessed, experienced, or even heard about a true miracle...

Nobody has, as far as I know. Just claims of true miracles.

Originally posted by Rationalist

Based on our present scientific knowledge, the miracle should not be physically possible. This rules out mere statistical improbability.



There must be adequate proof that the person who was cured was actually correctly diagnosed in the first place and provably had the disease they claimed to have. Basically that diagnosis was accurate at the time the miracle occured. This is as simple as x-rays or tissue samples or other objective tests performed by a reputable hospital shortly before the miracle occured, then the same tests showing a complete absence of disease afterwards.

The most common problem with miraculous claims in fact is that regularly the person "cured" was actually misdiagnosed. The didn't actually have the disease they were miraculously cured of in the first place. So this possibility must be eliminated.



Nobody has, as far as I know. Just claims of true miracles.

Did anyone read the process they go though before a miracle is confirmed? If not, is that because nobody can be trusted to know and tell what is true but you? Which is why you must see it yourself before you believe that something happened which our science can not explain?

Originally posted by cbro

Did anyone read the process they go though before a miracle is confirmed? If not, is that because nobody can be trusted to know and tell what is true but you?

Everyone has to decide what they believe is true for themselves. No one can do it for you but you.

Which is why you must see it yourself before you believe that something happened which our science can not explain?

Its likely I would question alot of so called miracles if I saw them. Whether science can explain it or not matters little, since God is the author of natural events.

Originally posted by Rationalist

Based on our present scientific knowledge, the miracle should not be physically possible. This rules out mere statistical improbability.

I dont follow you...

Miracles are outside of scientific explanation by definition....The very nature of a miracle assumes that it can not be explained by natural means..

How does a miracle not being physically possible rule out mere statistical improbability?

An event being improbable is one of two necessary criteria to label something as a miracle...

Originally posted by Rationalist

There must be adequate proof that the person who was cured was actually correctly diagnosed in the first place and provably had the disease they claimed to have. Basically that diagnosis was accurate at the time the miracle occured. This is as simple as x-rays or tissue samples or other objective tests performed by a reputable hospital shortly before the miracle occured, then the same tests showing a complete absence of disease afterwards.

Which describes the case for my Mother exactly as described in the thread I referenced in my reply to Ryokan...

Originally posted by Rationalist

The most common problem with miraculous claims in fact is that regularly the person "cured" was actually misdiagnosed. The didn't actually have the disease they were miraculously cured of in the first place. So this possibility must be eliminated.

Agreed....several so called miracles I heard about growing up turned out to be misdiagnoses after further inquiry...

Originally posted by Rationalist

Nobody has, as far as I know. Just claims of true miracles.

I have. Thats one of the reasons I believe in God to begin with...I have seen and experienced things that do not have any coherent, consistent explanations outside of an intelligent and very powerful being causing things to happen deliberatly.



russ

Originally posted by warcraft3

I dont follow you...

Miracles are outside of scientific explanation by definition....The very nature of a miracle assumes that it can not be explained by natural means..

How does a miracle not being physically possible rule out mere statistical improbability?

An event being improbable is one of two necessary criteria to label something as a miracle...




Which describes the case for my Mother exactly as described in the thread I referenced in my reply to Ryokan...



Agreed....several so called miracles I heard about growing up turned out to be misdiagnoses after further inquiry...





I have. Thats one of the reasons I believe in God to begin with...I have seen and experienced things that do not have any coherent, consistent explanations outside of an intelligent and very powerful being causing things to happen deliberatly.



russ

I agree with the definitions . When someone alleges that something is miraculous that she cannot explain, she just jumps to that conclusion. Perhaps another could expain it . Fortunately , scientists are not of that disposition or else we would not be where we are! It is no miracle that Jewry have survived- the vagaries of history have helped them do so, not their god .No miracle there. It is no miracle that some people survive plane crashes- good piloting and the planes themselves assure that!

Originally posted by Griggsy

I agree with the definitions . When someone alleges that something is miraculous that she cannot explain, she just jumps to that conclusion. Perhaps another could expain it . Fortunately , scientists are not of that disposition or else we would not be where we are! It is no miracle that Jewry have survived- the vagaries of history have helped them do so, not their god .No miracle there. It is no miracle that some people survive plane crashes- good piloting and the planes themselves assure that!

One has to show that a god is behind natural events and that breaks the rule of parsimony.Istarted the two category mistake thread showing that natural causation and teleology just do not mix. I gave reference to Amiel Rossow's essay on Kenneth Miller's Yin and Yang. Read again what I wrote . So, from that standpoint and no real miracles , no god !

From the skeptic's corner:
A useful method to evaluate the efficacy of trips to Lourdes would be something like this: Take 1000 devout Catholics on their way to Lourdes. Match them with 1000 people with the same diagnoses who do not travel to Lourdes. Five years later, have all 2000 of them examined by doctors who do not know which is which, and see how many of each have recovered. Or, even easier, check ten years later for comparative mortality rates. See if there is a statistically significant different between the two groups.

Problem with the one miracle at a time approach:
Say there's a 90 year old woman in Cleveland. Fifty years ago she was diagnosed with liver cancer. She did absolutely nothing. Yet she recovered. (Some cancers go into spontaneous remission.) The miracle of absolutely nothing? You have to compare things to find out whether the thing has any effect, or it would have happened any way.

So it may well be that Lourdes causes miracle cures, but we can't know from this method.

Originally posted by Gaytheist

From the skeptic's corner:
A useful method to evaluate the efficacy of trips to Lourdes would be something like this: Take 1000 devout Catholics on their way to Lourdes. Match them with 1000 people with the same diagnoses who do not travel to Lourdes. Five years later, have all 2000 of them examined by doctors who do not know which is which, and see how many of each have recovered. Or, even easier, check ten years later for comparative mortality rates. See if there is a statistically significant different between the two groups.

Problem with the one miracle at a time approach:
Say there's a 90 year old woman in Cleveland. Fifty years ago she was diagnosed with liver cancer. She did absolutely nothing. Yet she recovered. (Some cancers go into spontaneous remission.) The miracle of absolutely nothing? You have to compare things to find out whether the thing has any effect, or it would have happened any way.

So it may well be that Lourdes causes miracle cures, but we can't know from this method.

As soon as an amputee is cured, let me know.

Has anyone here actually 'googled' and read about Rhuematic Heart Disease? The mortality rate worldwide is only 1-10%. And from the various sources I'm finding, it's not as difficuly to recover from as was previously stated in this thread. One major source is here and there are many others to browse through. There are plenty of people who recover from illnesses and I don't know how we determine which ones are 'miracles'. It seems to be pretty silly if you think about it.

Originally posted by familyof5

It seems to be pretty silly if you think about it.

The whole darn religion seems to be pretty silly if you think about it.

Originally posted by cbro

Did anyone read the process they go though before a miracle is confirmed? If not, is that because nobody can be trusted to know and tell what is true but you? Which is why you must see it yourself before you believe that something happened which our science can not explain?

I believe we talked about the problems with the process in a previous post. The basic issue was that these miracles are not investigated by an independent group.

Originally posted by Rationalist

I believe we talked about the problems with the process in a previous post. The basic issue was that these miracles are not investigated by an independent group.

The late king of Belgium will be declared a saint.Look for three or four more soon.Pray for me to grow muscle . That would be a miralcle!

Originally posted by Rationalist

I believe we talked about the problems with the process in a previous post. The basic issue was that these miracles are not investigated by an independent group.

To make such a obvious and easy to prove to be wrong statment, again shows how illogical a "rationalist" you are really!! Which applies whether or not you know what are ALL the steps in that process.

Originally posted by cbro

To make such a obvious and easy to prove to be wrong statment, again shows how illogical a "rationalist" you are really!! Which applies whether or not you know what are ALL the steps in that process.

The steps are irrelevant . Prove a miracle,just one, ! What hokum.

Originally posted by Griggsy

The steps are irrelevant . Prove a miracle,just one, ! What hokum.

It would appear that we can't prove anything to you, let alone a miracle. So to say your ignorence is of Socrates, dishonors him.