Originally posted by Barry Desboroug

My wife and I passed through Lourdes a couple of weeks ago. We were curious, and we were looking for a place to stay after a tour of the Spanish and French Basque areas.

It took about twenty minutes before my wife cried, "Get us out of here!" Trying to drive down a street, ushers were needed to halt the hordes crossing the road to let a couple of cars through every now and then. The hordes were headed for what I can only descibe as a religious Las Vegas. Streets of stores with vaguely religious names, bright lights, rows upon rows of plastic crucifixes, Christs and Virgins. We crawled the car through the throng of the hopeful infirm mixing with the professional beggars.

Well, I'm sure that at least 67 of those people experienced some form of miracle. It just takes the Vatican a verrrry long time to acknowledge each "official" miracle. I predict that the 68th miracle will be acknowledged "soon". Maybe sooner ...

Originally posted by Cognos

Well, I'm sure that at least 67 of those people experienced some form of miracle. It just takes the Vatican a verrrry long time to acknowledge each "official" miracle. I predict that the 68th miracle will be acknowledged "soon". Maybe sooner ...

Would not one true miracle be enought to impress anyone who was not fully committed to being dishonestly ignorant as I say in my sig?

Clearly a miracle . . . based upon the standard operative believer definition (we don't understand it and/or the experts got it wrong, and it's affirmational to our worldview).

Byron

Originally posted by Rationalist

No, more like this:

Pig worshipper: I saw a pig fly yesterday, here's a video tape. (There were these scientists who also said it was true).
Skeptic: Well there are 4000 video tapes of flying pigs made every year in the US, every single one so far either a proven fake or inconclusive.
Pig worshipper: !

Seriously, if you believe the paltry amount of evidence that certifies this miracle, you'll probably be equally impressed by these guys... http://www.certifiedpsychics.com/

67 healings with extensive documentation and certification by two different medical boards, which have atheists on them. Which is not a "paltry amount of evidence", and so leaves no reasonable doubt that the healings have happened. However, the atheists on those boards have a different reason for continued disbelief then having a "paltry amount of evidence" but it is not any more reasonable than that one given by Rationalist. Who obviously does not use logic as the base of his rational, but uses instead, the emotion of what he thinks will best meet his needs, as I explain in my sig.

Originally posted by cbro

67 healings with extensive documentation and certification by two different medical boards, which have atheists on them. Which is not a "paltry amount of evidence", and so leaves no reasonable doubt that the healings have happened.

What extensive documentation? I hear them claim extensive documentation, but I haven't seen any.

Anyone can claim that there was "an extensive investigation" without actually extensively investigating anything.

However, the atheists on those boards have a different reason for continued disbelief then having a "paltry amount of evidence" but it is not any more reasonable than that one given by Rationalist. Who obviously does not use logic as the base of his rational, but uses instead, the emotion of what he thinks will best meet his needs, as I explain in my sig.

Show me the money, cbro. There number of false claims of miracles are so overwhelmingly numerous that I consider any claim of that sort with an enormous amount of skepticism. I'm not going to naively accept somebody's say so that there was an "extensive investigation" because such claims have been falsely made many times before.

The reason to disbelieve is because of the large amount of fraud and shennanigans associated with these claims..

There are ways to investigate claims under carefully controlled scientific conditions. These tests are used to evaluate supernatural claims for csicop and the randi foundation.. and they're really quite simple.

For Lourdes.. the test is quite simple as well. Do those who come to Lourdes objectively have a higher statistical cure rate than those who do not. A simple comparative epidemiological study would suffice to settle the issue as to whether a visit to Lourdes affects the outcome of any disease.

Originally posted by Rationalist

What extensive documentation? I hear them claim extensive documentation, but I haven't seen any.

Anyone can claim that there was "an extensive investigation" without actually extensively investigating anything.



Show me the money, cbro. There number of false claims of miracles are so overwhelmingly numerous that I consider any claim of that sort with an enormous amount of skepticism. I'm not going to naively accept somebody's say so that there was an "extensive investigation" because such claims have been falsely made many times before.

The reason to disbelieve is because of the large amount of fraud and shennanigans associated with these claims..

There are ways to investigate claims under carefully controlled scientific conditions. These tests are used to evaluate supernatural claims for csicop and the randi foundation.. and they're really quite simple.

For Lourdes.. the test is quite simple as well. Do those who come to Lourdes objectively have a higher statistical cure rate than those who do not. A simple comparative epidemiological study would suffice to settle the issue as to whether a visit to Lourdes affects the outcome of any disease.

I did that for cancer on one occaision. You can look up Remission rates on various Cancers on many Govt health dept websites. then compare it to the number of cures from Lourdes. You would not be shocked by the results. Dont trust MY word however, it only takes a few mins. Just remember that all cancers are not the same. Compare the same types.

http://www.nci.nih.gov/statistics/

Is a good one, its the US NIH cancer advisory service.

Have fun!

QUOTE=Rationalist
What extensive documentation? I hear them claim extensive documentation, but I haven't seen any.
Anyone can claim that there was "an extensive investigation" without actually extensively investigating anything.

quote=cbro
That is because you don't want to see any. As shown by your ignoring the words "certification by two different medical boards, which have atheists on them" as if they meant nothing. Instead of seeing them as not being a "paltry amount of evidence", because they leave no reasonable doubt that the healings have happened.

quote=rat
Show me the money, cbro.
There are ways to investigate claims under carefully controlled scientific conditions. These tests are used to evaluate supernatural claims for csicop and the randi foundation.. and they're really quite simple.

For Lourdes.. the test is quite simple as well. Do those who come to Lourdes objectively have a higher statistical cure rate than those who do not. A simple comparative epidemiological study would suffice to settle the issue as to whether a visit to Lourdes affects the outcome of any disease.

quote=cbro
I guess you are going to insist that both boards, including their atheists, did not do that simple test?
It looks to me like that goes with the idea that the natural causes of evolution can be subject to meaningful tests, so they qualify as passing scientific hypotheses to scientific fact. Which only a needy person of my sig would say.

Where can anyone confirm your word?

Originally posted by spl_cadet

Through the magical entity of Google.

Thank you

Originally posted by Cognos

Hmmm ... 67 verified healings out of how many thousands of people who have visited Lourdes since 1858?

Looks like even less than the "God ratio" of 2.5%. (http://whydoesgodhateamputees.com/god2.htm)

Mom is no expert. The Vatican experts are just letting their emotions tell them that a miracle occurred. Others have checked out at least some of the miralcles and find they are just natural occurrences.Did the lady have an adequate examination in the fir st place to see if she had that illness? Anyway , a spontaneous remission is the only way for her to have recovered. As Hume maintained without begging the question , all experience shows no miralcles . I f real changes, then a natural reason caused them or else there were no real change sand thereofore, a hoax . One no more finds a true miracle than patent officials grant patents to inventors of perpetual motion machines- it just does not happen!

Originally posted by Griggsy

Mom is no expert. The Vatican experts are just letting their emotions tell them that a miracle occurred. Others have checked out at least some of the miralcles and find they are just natural occurrences.Did the lady have an adequate examination in the fir st place to see if she had that illness? Anyway , a spontaneous remission is the only way for her to have recovered. As Hume maintained without begging the question , all experience shows no miralcles . I f real changes, then a natural reason caused them or else there were no real change sand thereofore, a hoax . One no more finds a true miracle than patent officials grant patents to inventors of perpetual motion machines- it just does not happen!

I am someone who claims to have some knowledge of real miracles but before we get into that Id like to know what, by your definition, is a "true miracle"?

Originally posted by warcraft3

I am someone who claims to have some knowledge of real miracles but before we get into that Id like to know what, by your definition, is a "true miracle"?

An event which clearly violates the known laws of nature which occurs as a result of some form of religious devotion or appeal.

Being suddenly cured when you are unable to prove or document that you were truly sick in the first place does not count as a miracle. Nor does being miraculously cured of a disease only to die quietly of that same disease soon after with no retraction of the "miracle" claim. Nor does being cured of a disease where random unbelievers often also see spontaneous remissions.

These cover 100% of the claims of miracles I've ever seen.

Originally posted by Rationalist

An event which clearly violates the known laws of nature which occurs as a result of some form of religious devotion or appeal.

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

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

Originally posted by Rationalist

Being suddenly cured when you are unable to prove or document that you were truly sick in the first place does not count as a miracle.

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?

Originally posted by Rationalist

Nor does being miraculously cured of a disease only to die quietly of that same disease soon after with no retraction of the "miracle" claim.

Agreed...

Originally posted by Rationalist

Nor does being cured of a disease where random unbelievers often also see spontaneous remissions.

Agreed...

Originally posted by Rationalist

These cover 100% of the claims of miracles I've ever seen.

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

Rationalist and I agree on the definition . We are rationalists/skeptics so we want evidence . And s/he shows why miracles do not happen . So we are dogmatic in wanting evidence . Hardly!

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...



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?



Agreed...



Agreed...



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

This is another problem I have with "true miracles". Seeing and experiencing tends to be placed on a higher level than careful examination and analysis. I was very skeptical of most miracles before my conversion, and still am today. They are hard to provide evidence for, theologically troubling, and diamonds amidst a giant rough of pious frauds.

Originally posted by Ryokan

This is another problem I have with "true miracles". Seeing and experiencing tends to be placed on a higher level than careful examination and analysis. I was very skeptical of most miracles before my conversion, and still am today. They are hard to provide evidence for, theologically troubling, and diamonds amidst a giant rough of pious frauds.

Agreed...I have specific criteria for what I do, and do not, label a miracle.

A miracle must be an event that has two characteristics for me to label it such...

1. Improbability - The event must be one that is unlikely to occur under the known circumstances surrounding the event.


2. Intentionality - The event must be one that shows some kind of decision or preference one way or the other that could possibly link that event to an outside intelligence.

My two examples and discussions can be found here http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...6&page=1&pp=16





Russ

Originally posted by warcraft3

Agreed...I have specific criteria for what I do, and do not, label a miracle.

A miracle must be an event that has two characteristics for me to label it such...

1. Improbability - The event must be one that is unlikely to occur under the known circumstances surrounding the event.


2. Intentionality - The event must be one that shows some kind of decision or preference one way or the other that could possibly link that event to an outside intelligence.

My two examples and discussions can be found here http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...6&page=1&pp=16





Russ

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.