Originally posted by nickcopernicus

NICK:

Fine, then post a sound, deductive argument that shows the existence of miracles.

Here's an argument from Peter Kreeft:

1) A miracle is an event whose only adequate explanation is the extraordinary and direct intervention of God.
2) There are numerous well-attested miracles.
3) Therefore, there are numerous events whose only adequate explanation is the extraordinary and direct intervention of God.
4) Therefore God exists.

To support Premise Two, you can look at any of the 67 Lourdes miracles for yourself.

NICK:
Emphasis mine.

That is a non sequitur.
That there is a mircle does not prove the existence of a god(s).

How's that, exactly? Especially considering the definition I just posted. "An event whose only adequate explanation is the extraordiary and direct intervention of God does not prove the existence of a god(s)" nick?

Suppose a limb spontaneously regenerated after someone prayed. You're saying that this wouldn't prove God's existence? Oh, that's right, perhaps it's some undiscovered mutation that goes against all scientific documentation and genetic research.

Suppose someone came to the Lourdes with heart disease unable to walk on their own, carried on a stretcher. Suppose they were dipped down into the water, and right after that, were able to walk again, completely free of their heart disease. This wouldn't prove the existence of God how?

Especially because without said"god" actually being there to take credit for it, we could ascribe the allged supernatural event to a cornucopia of things.

Of course. Here's the typical atheist tactic of asserting that each supernatural entity has an equal amount of evidence. We don't have any more evidence for Yahweh than we do for Zeus or Santa Clause.

Yet such a statement is false. That discussion is for another thread, but if it can be reasonably demonstrated that there is more evidence for Yahweh than for Zeus, then it makes more sense to ascribe the supernatural event to Yahweh rather than "a cornucopia of things."

Someone claiming to be a "Reasonist," making such a lazy, red herring response is rather revealing.

Secondly, even if JC did a bunch of magic tricks,

Ah yes. Healing someone of blindness is a "magic trick."

he could have been an alien. It is much more propable that he was an aliean then he was the creator of a universe over 26 billion light years across and over 12 billion years old.

Funny that you resort to any possibility that you can think of so you don't have to admit the supernatural.

And it's also funny that positing Jesus as an "alien" doesn't solve your problem at all; it merely moves it somewhere else. How are these aliens able to perform "supernatural" occurances if there was no God?

Magic tricks don't prove the existence of a god.

Sorry.

Nick

I take it that spontaneous remission of heart disease is what you'd call a magic trick, then?

Originally posted by Griggsy

No, going by experience is just what we go by until the evidence says otherwise, so Hume was not trying to assume what he had to prove just as Newton's laws were found not adequate for everything when new evidence overcame its experience.

"Hume was not trying to assume what he had to prove?" Well, that's exactly what Hume did, actually. You're not hearing me.

Let me reiterate. Hume, as you quoted him, said that we have to "overcome all experience" to label something as a miracle. But how could he possibly know that all experience before us precludes miracles? He doesn't, and you don't either. It's merely something he assumed from the outset. The only way he would have known something like that is if he already knew that miracles did not occur. And therefore, writing about it would be useless.

Show miracles that in principle that science can't explain.Natural causes fit situations adequately, not requring ad hoc explanations. Skeptics have investigated enough miracles that like patent officials rejecting patents for perpetual motion machines ,they can doubt any supernatural miracle. Remissions and false diagnoses happen all the time.

Right. The remission just happened to occur naturally right at the moment where she got in the water, right? If she had been five minutes late, she would have been healed on the spot without any of the water, right?

Bleeding statues are a dime a dozen and Marian appearances are nothng. To see a miracle is another account of pareidolia.

Of course, people being healed of deadly diseases is in an entirely different category, isn't it?

NICK:

Fine, then post a sound, deductive argument that shows the existence of miracles.

P-DUNN
Here's an argument from Peter Kreeft:

1) A miracle is an event whose only adequate explanation is the extraordinary and direct intervention of God.
2) There are numerous well-attested miracles.
3) Therefore, there are numerous events whose only adequate explanation is the extraordinary and direct intervention of God.
4) Therefore God exists.

To support Premise Two, you can look at any of the 67 Lourdes miracles for yourself.

NICK:
Okay. I have to point out a few things that are problematic with your argument.
1. That was not a deductive argument, nor is it sound.
2. The conclusion is “god exists” not “miracles exist” so you have not proven what I challenged you to do; so let me say [type] it again. “Fine, post a sound, deductive argument that proves the existence of miracles.”
3. Now, that inductive probabilistic argument would probably “convince” a very gullible person.
4. Premise one is definitional.
5. Premise two is false.
6. Premise three is in effect “god did it” and begs the question of how god managed to do the “unexplainable.” To explain mystery with even greater mystery tells us nothing of substance.
7. The conclusion does not follow from the premises.

NICK:
Emphasis mine.

That is a non sequitur.
That there is a [miracle] does not prove the existence of a god(s).

P-DUNN
How's that, exactly? Especially considering the definition I just posted. "An event whose only adequate explanation is the [extraordinary] and direct intervention of God does not prove the existence of a god(s)" nick?

NICK:
Okay, I will show you how it is a non sequitur.
1. If even one miracle or any sort of spiritual experience is confirmed, then atheism is false.
2. even one or more miracle or any sort of spiritual experience is confirmed.
therefore
3. Atheism is false.

1. If the existence of a spirit that interacts with a person, and it is recorded and verified in a controlled environment and verified as a spiritual experience does not prove the existence of a god, then it does not follow that “If even one miracle or any sort of spiritual experience is confirmed, then atheism is false.” And as such the major premise of P-DUNN’S argument is a non- sequitur.
2. the existence of a spirit that interacts with a person, and it is recorded and verified in a controlled environment and verified as a spiritual experience does not prove the existence of a god
Therefore
3. it does not follow that “If even one miracle or any sort of spiritual experience is confirmed, then atheism is false.” And as such the major premise of P-DUNN’S argument is a non- sequitur.

That is a sound deductive argument.

P-DUNN:
Suppose a limb spontaneously regenerated after someone prayed. You're saying that this wouldn't prove God's existence? Oh, that's right, perhaps it's some undiscovered mutation that goes against all scientific documentation and genetic research.

NICK:
1. Yes, the person could have supernatural powers. As I said, your god would need to be here to take credit for such a thing.
Yes, “perhaps it's some undiscovered mutation that goes against all scientific documentation and genetic research.”
But if such a thing occurs, then I would be most interested in reading about it. Do you have any examples of such a thing?
*crickets chirping*

P-DUNN:
Suppose someone came to the Lourdes with heart disease unable to walk on their own, carried on a stretcher. Suppose they were dipped down into the water, and right after that, were able to walk again, completely free of their heart disease. This wouldn't prove the existence of God how?

NICK:
No. Suppose someone came to the Lourdes with heart disease unable to walk on their own, carried on a stretcher. Suppose they were dipped down into the water, and right after that, were carried away on a stretcher still unable to walk on their own, completely burdend of their heart disease.
A hundred thousand times compared to that one time. Coincidences to happen.

NICK:
Especially because without said” god" actually being there to take credit for it, we could ascribe the alleged supernatural event to a cornucopia of things.

P-DUNN:
Of course. Here's the typical atheist tactic of asserting that each supernatural entity has an equal amount of evidence. We don't have any more evidence for Yahweh than we do for Zeus or Santa Clause.

NICK:
R.O.F.L. Just because your god is popular right now does not mean “there is more evidence for him or her.”
AFAICT: there is more evidence for “RA” the sun god then yours. Why don’t you worship him? He could be the “sprit” of the sun.
Well?

P-DUNN:
Yet such a statement is false. That discussion is for another thread, but if it can be reasonably demonstrated that there is more evidence for Yahweh than for Zeus, then it makes more sense to ascribe the supernatural event to Yahweh rather than "a cornucopia of things."

NICK:
Fine. Start a thread. I will assert the following:
“There is more evidence for the existence of the sun god RA, then the Jewish Christian God, Yahweh”

Will you take that. I’ll even take it to the gym debate.

P-DUNN:
Someone claiming to be a "Reasonist," making such a lazy, red herring response is rather revealing.

NICK:
That was a sophomoric response and doesn’t really merit discussion.

NICK:
Secondly, even if JC did a bunch of magic tricks,

P-DUNN:
Ah yes. Healing someone of blindness is a "magic trick."

NICK:
Yes, it is a magic trick. Can you tell me how your would be god managed to heal someone of blindness?
“It was a miracle, Jesus miraculously did it” =“It was magic, Jesus magically did it”

NICK:
he could have been an alien. It is much more [probable] that he was an [alien] then he was the creator of a universe over 26 billion light years across and over 12 billion years old.

P-DUNN:
Funny that you resort to any possibility that you can think of so you don't have to admit the supernatural.

NICK:
Funny, that you can’t define the “supernatural” out side of something like “I don’t know what caused x therefore x is supernatural”

P-DUNN:
And it's also funny that positing Jesus as an "alien" doesn't solve your problem at all; it merely moves it somewhere else. How are these aliens able to perform "supernatural" [occurrences] if there was no God?

NICK:
Yes, they do “solve the problem”
What you do not seem to realize is that advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic. What if I were to travel back to 33 CE and fly an Apache Helicopter over Jerusalem? What do you think the locals would have thought of computers?
The answer to your question is easy. There need not be a god. It was magic.

NICK:
Magic tricks don't prove the existence of a god.

Sorry.

Nick

P-DUNN:
I take it that spontaneous remission of heart disease is what you'd call a magic trick, then?

NICK:

Rheumatic Heart Disease Statistics


• Rheumatic fever and rheumatic heart disease killed 3,248 people in the United States in 2004.
• 2004 mortality: male deaths — 1,022 (31.5 percent of total deaths from rheumatic fever/rheumatic heart disease); female deaths — 2,226 (69.6 percent).
• Modern antibiotic therapy has sharply reduced mortality. In 1950, about 15,000 people in the United States died of these diseases.
• From 1994 to 2004 the death rate from rheumatic fever/rheumatic heart disease fell 50.0 percent. Actual deaths declined 40 percent (preliminary).
• In 2004 the death rates per 100,000 population for white males were 0.9, for black males 0.6, for white females 1.3 and for black females 1.0.
http://www.americanheart.org/present...dentifier=4712

NICK:
So let me get this straight. Because this woman only had a 30% chance of surviving from this disease, and she did. Therefore, it was a miracle.


here is what you posted.

“A miracle is an event whose only adequate explanation is the extraordinary and direct intervention of God.”

And adequate explanation is that “she got lucky” If her chances were say .
.00232x10^-10989 or something like that and she spontaneously recovered, then it may have been argued that it was a miracle.

If the criteria for a miracle are that someone beat the odds of 1 and 4 then whatever scientific organization that “verified” these alleged miracles is probably not peer reviewed and is on par with creation science.

Cheers,

Nick

Griggsy (#89):
As Hume showed, miracles have to overcome all experience as does anything that would take the place or add to a theory.One cannot confirm any of those miracles. There was no Amazing Randi to verify them! Miracles in the form of remissions or misdiagnoses happen all the time to naturalists as to anaturalists

P-Dunn (#92)
David Hume's argument against miracles is actually quite circular.

He says that miracles have to "overcome all experience," in order to be real miracles. But you can only know if they have to overcome all experience if you already know that all reports of miracles are false. And we can only know that if we already know miracles don't ever happen. Hume merely takes the "supernatural" out of the equation before beginning.

POWELL:
I think Hume went too far in rejecting miracles.

NICK (#93, to P-Dunn):
Fine, then post a sound, deductive argument that shows the existence of miracles.

P-Dunn (#92):
As an aside, I think it's quite interesting that the skeptical retorts in this thread all completely miss the point. Pointing out that the ratio of healed people versus unhealed people is completely irrelevant. If even one miracle or any sort of spiritual experience is confirmed, then atheism is false. If even one of the thousands and thousands of people that went to the Lourdes was legitimately healed, then pointing out the people that weren't healed means nothing at all.

NICK (#93):
Emphasis mine.

That is a non sequitur.
That there is a mircle does not prove the existence of a god(s).
Especially because without said"god" actually being there to take credit for it, we could ascribe the allged supernatural event to a cornucopia of things.

Secondly, even if JC did a bunch of magic tricks, he could have been an alien.
It is much more propable that he was an aliean then he was the creator of a universe over 26 billion light years across and over 12 billion years old.

Magic tricks don't prove the existence of a god.

Sorry.

Nick

POWELL:
Yes, that X is a miracle does not imply that God exists. One could formulate a definition of miracle that implied the existence of God, but that controversial definition would beg the question that a miracle implies the existence of God.

NICK (#93):
Fine, then post a sound, deductive argument that shows the existence of miracles.

P-Dunn (#97):
Here's an argument from Peter Kreeft:

1) A miracle is an event whose only adequate explanation is the extraordinary and direct intervention of God.
2) There are numerous well-attested miracles.
3) Therefore, there are numerous events whose only adequate explanation is the extraordinary and direct intervention of God.
4) Therefore God exists.

To support Premise Two, you can look at any of the 67 Lourdes miracles for yourself.

NICK (#99):
Okay. I have to point out a few things that are problematic with your argument.
1. That was not a deductive argument, nor is it sound.

POWELL:
Kreeft's argument should be assumed to be deductive because it has the form in which it appears to be claimed that the truth of the premises guarantee the truth of the conclusion. If it weren't deductive then it should explicitly say "probably" in the conclusions. The argument would be valid if the conclusion were something like "God has existed" since the truth of the premises would only guarantee that God has intervened in the past. It's possible that God ceased to exist after the last miracle unless an acceptable definition prevents that.

Anyway, I agree that the argument is not sound.

NICK (#99):
2. The conclusion is “god exists” not “miracles exist” so you have not proven what I challenged you to do; so let me say [type] it again. “Fine, post a sound, deductive argument that proves the existence of miracles.”

POWELL:
Good point.

NICK (#99):
3. Now, that inductive probabilistic argument would probably “convince” a very gullible person.

POWELL:
Kreeft's argument appears to be deductive.

NICK (#99):
4. Premise one is definitional.

POWELL:
It's appropriate to put definitions in arguments.

NICK (#99)
5. Premise two is false.

POWELL:
Agreed.

NICK (#99):
6. Premise three is in effect “god did it” and begs the question of how god managed to do the “unexplainable.” To explain mystery with even greater mystery tells us nothing of substance.

POWELL:
Whether a premise begs some irrelevant question is irrelevant to whether it establishes the truth of the conclusion.

For example, the premises of the following argument form:

If p then q
p
therefore
q

establish the truth of the conclusion "q" even if "p" begs some irrelevant question such as why "p" was used as the variable letter rather than "r."

NICK (#99):
7. The conclusion does not follow from the premises.

POWELL:
Correct, but it's closer to following than you seem to think.

The conclusion "God has existed" follows from the premises.

NICK (#93):
Emphasis mine.

That is a non sequitur.
That there is a [miracle] does not prove the existence of a god(s).

P-DUNN (#97):
How's that, exactly? Especially considering the definition I just posted. "An event whose only adequate explanation is the [extraordinary] and direct intervention of God does not prove the existence of a god(s)" nick?

NICK (#99):
Okay, I will show you how it is a non sequitur.
1. If even one miracle or any sort of spiritual experience is confirmed, then atheism is false.
2. even one or more miracle or any sort of spiritual experience is confirmed.
therefore
3. Atheism is false.

POWELL:
Yes, the reality of miracles or spirits does not imply the existence of a God except in a controversial definition which begs the question.

NICK (#99):
1. If the existence of a spirit that interacts with a person, and it is recorded and verified in a controlled environment and verified as a spiritual experience does not prove the existence of a god, then it does not follow that “If even one miracle or any sort of spiritual experience is confirmed, then atheism is false.” And as such the major premise of P-DUNN’S argument is a non- sequitur.
2. the existence of a spirit that interacts with a person, and it is recorded and verified in a controlled environment and verified as a spiritual experience does not prove the existence of a god
Therefore
3. it does not follow that “If even one miracle or any sort of spiritual experience is confirmed, then atheism is false.” And as such the major premise of P-DUNN’S argument is a non- sequitur.

That is a sound deductive argument.

POWELL:
Kreeft's miracle definition is not a conditional, so I don't see why you think it's a non sequitur. If you think Kreeft's definition is wrong then just claim the premise is false or it begs the question.

P-DUNN (#97):
Suppose a limb spontaneously regenerated after someone prayed. You're saying that this wouldn't prove God's existence? Oh, that's right, perhaps it's some undiscovered mutation that goes against all scientific documentation and genetic research.

NICK:
1. Yes, the person could have supernatural powers. As I said, your god would need to be here to take credit for such a thing.
Yes, “perhaps it's some undiscovered mutation that goes against all scientific documentation and genetic research.”
But if such a thing occurs, then I would be most interested in reading about it. Do you have any examples of such a thing?
*crickets chirping*

POWELL:
Right. The reality of the supernatural would not imply the reality of God. A devil-believer should accept that since they believe the devil can do supernatural things.

P-DUNN:
Suppose someone came to the Lourdes with heart disease unable to walk on their own, carried on a stretcher. Suppose they were dipped down into the water, and right after that, were able to walk again, completely free of their heart disease. This wouldn't prove the existence of God how?

NICK:
No. Suppose someone came to the Lourdes with heart disease unable to walk on their own, carried on a stretcher. Suppose they were dipped down into the water, and right after that, were carried away on a stretcher still unable to walk on their own, completely burdend of their heart disease.
A hundred thousand times compared to that one time. Coincidences to happen.

NICK:
Especially because without said” god" actually being there to take credit for it, we could ascribe the alleged supernatural event to a cornucopia of things.

P-DUNN:
Of course. Here's the typical atheist tactic of asserting that each supernatural entity has an equal amount of evidence. We don't have any more evidence for Yahweh than we do for Zeus or Santa Clause.

NICK:
R.O.F.L. Just because your god is popular right now does not mean “there is more evidence for him or her.”
AFAICT: there is more evidence for “RA” the sun god then yours. Why don’t you worship him? He could be the “sprit” of the sun.
Well?

POWELL:
I'm inclined to think there's more evidence for the Christian God than for Zeus or Santa Claus. However, more evidence than for Ra? Well, you might have a point. At least we can see the sun.

P-DUNN:
Yet such a statement is false. That discussion is for another thread, but if it can be reasonably demonstrated that there is more evidence for Yahweh than for Zeus, then it makes more sense to ascribe the supernatural event to Yahweh rather than "a cornucopia of things."

NICK:
Fine. Start a thread. I will assert the following:
“There is more evidence for the existence of the sun god RA, then the Jewish Christian God, Yahweh”

Will you take that. I’ll even take it to the gym debate.

POWELL:
I think that could be an interesting debate.

P-DUNN:
Someone claiming to be a "Reasonist," making such a lazy, red herring response is rather revealing.

NICK:
That was a sophomoric response and doesn’t really merit discussion.

NICK:
Secondly, even if JC did a bunch of magic tricks,

P-DUNN:
Ah yes. Healing someone of blindness is a "magic trick."

NICK:
Yes, it is a magic trick. Can you tell me how your would be god managed to heal someone of blindness?
“It was a miracle, Jesus miraculously did it” =“It was magic, Jesus magically did it”

NICK:
he could have been an alien. It is much more [probable] that he was an [alien] then he was the creator of a universe over 26 billion light years across and over 12 billion years old.

P-DUNN:
Funny that you resort to any possibility that you can think of so you don't have to admit the supernatural.

NICK:
Funny, that you can’t define the “supernatural” out side of something like “I don’t know what caused x therefore x is supernatural”

POWELL:
Also, Kreeft's definition relies on there being no adequate explanation other than God, so if there is an adequate explanation in the form of "aliens did it" then that would disqualify it from being a Kreeft-miracle.

P-DUNN:
And it's also funny that positing Jesus as an "alien" doesn't solve your problem at all; it merely moves it somewhere else. How are these aliens able to perform "supernatural" [occurrences] if there was no God?

NICK:
Yes, they do “solve the problem”
What you do not seem to realize is that advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic. What if I were to travel back to 33 CE and fly an Apache Helicopter over Jerusalem? What do you think the locals would have thought of computers?
The answer to your question is easy. There need not be a god. It was magic.

NICK:
Magic tricks don't prove the existence of a god.

Sorry.

Nick

P-DUNN:
I take it that spontaneous remission of heart disease is what you'd call a magic trick, then?

NICK (#99):
Rheumatic Heart Disease Statistics

• Rheumatic fever and rheumatic heart disease killed 3,248 people in the United States in 2004.
• 2004 mortality: male deaths — 1,022 (31.5 percent of total deaths from rheumatic fever/rheumatic heart disease); female deaths — 2,226 (69.6 percent).
• Modern antibiotic therapy has sharply reduced mortality. In 1950, about 15,000 people in the United States died of these diseases.
• From 1994 to 2004 the death rate from rheumatic fever/rheumatic heart disease fell 50.0 percent. Actual deaths declined 40 percent (preliminary).
• In 2004 the death rates per 100,000 population for white males were 0.9, for black males 0.6, for white females 1.3 and for black females 1.0.
http://www.americanheart.org/present...dentifier=4712

NICK (#99):
So let me get this straight. Because this woman only had a 30% chance of surviving from this disease, and she did. Therefore, it was a miracle.

POWELL:
You seem to misunderstand the data. It looks to me that about 2000 or 70% of the 3000 deaths in 2004 were women while about 1000 or 30% of the 3000 deaths in 2004 were men.

NICK (#99):
here is what you posted.

“A miracle is an event whose only adequate explanation is the extraordinary and direct intervention of God.”

And adequate explanation is that “she got lucky” If her chances were say .
.00232x10^-10989 or something like that and she spontaneously recovered, then it may have been argued that it was a miracle.

If the criteria for a miracle are that someone beat the odds of 1 and 4 then whatever scientific organization that “verified” these alleged miracles is probably not peer reviewed and is on par with creation science.

Cheers,

Nick

POWELL:
If the 67 confirmed healings are in line with statistical expectations then they should not be treated as miracles, but as the lucky ones. If they are well beyond statistical expectations then skeptics should look more carefully into trying to debunk them.

John Powell

Soon the Vatican will declare the very flawed Mother Teresa a saint on the basis of two flawed miralcles.
More remissions ,all natural!

Originally posted by sandlewood

So what method do they use to distinguish a miracle from a non-miracle? If they have a method, then why can’t they tell us what it is so we can all determine for ourselves when miracles occur and we won’t need the Catholic Church to tell us.

Why did God have her become ill in the first place if he wanted her to be well? Was it meant as a demonstration? If God wants to demonstrate his existence, then there are much less cryptic ways of doing it. (Hey, this is posted in the Apologetics forum)

Why did they wait 50 years to declare this a miracle? So that any possibility of disproving it as a miracle would be long gone?

There is a former non-believer (not sure how Christian he is as I barely know him) that says he was miraculously healed. You can talk to him if you'd like.

Originally posted by Griggsy

Soon the Vatican will declare the very flawed Mother Teresa a saint on the basis of two flawed miralcles.
More remissions ,all natural!

Can you name one saint who was not flawed? Sanctity doesn't mean one is perfect, it means that one seeks to do God's will as best one can in spite of imperfection.

Bandecoot is right. The Vatican indulges in wishful thinking with no evidence whatsoever.The verifyiing process is fraught with indulgence of such thinking.
Hume is still right!

Read what Michael Martin has to say about one particular Vatican-declared miralcle in his monumental "Atheism: a philosophical Justification."
Hitchings did an analysis of one such miracle,finding it natural.
Why would God be selective with His miralcles? To answer that His ways are not ours makes a mockery out of morality and reason.We can see through the immoral Yahweh to see that makes no sense.It is not a matter that we need more centuries to pass as we have better notions of morality to see His wisdom but those better notions show that it is we , as the Euthrypo suggests, know morality independent of any god.
The unkwown reasons are also an argument from ignorance! The bane!

Originally posted by Griggsy

Read what Michael Martin has to say about one particular Vatican-declared miralcle in his monumental "Atheism: a philosophical Justification."
Hitchings did an analysis of one such miracle,finding it natural.
Why would God be selective with His miralcles? To answer that His ways are not ours makes a mockery out of morality and reason.We can see through the immoral Yahweh to see that makes no sense.It is not a matter that we need more centuries to pass as we have better notions of morality to see His wisdom but those better notions show that it is we , as the Euthrypo suggests, know morality independent of any god.
The unkwown reasons are also an argument from ignorance! The bane!

When you understand that all the healings of persons in the New Testament were done to those who had faith, you will see that God's powers are not put in motion for those who want God to do their will.

Originally posted by P-Dunn

Here's an argument from Peter Kreeft:

1) A miracle is an event whose only adequate explanation is the extraordinary and direct intervention of God.
2) There are numerous well-attested miracles.
3) Therefore, there are numerous events whose only adequate explanation is the extraordinary and direct intervention of God.
4) Therefore God exists.

To support Premise Two, you can look at any of the 67 Lourdes miracles for yourself.


How's that, exactly? Especially considering the definition I just posted. "An event whose only adequate explanation is the extraordinary and direct intervention of God does not prove the existence of a god(s)" nick?

Suppose a limb spontaneously regenerated after someone prayed. You're saying that this wouldn't prove God's existence? Oh, that's right, perhaps it's some undiscovered mutation that goes against all scientific documentation and genetic research.

Suppose someone came to the Lourdes with heart disease unable to walk on their own, carried on a stretcher. Suppose they were dipped down into the water, and right after that, were able to walk again, completely free of their heart disease. This wouldn't prove the existence of God how?


Of course. Here's the typical atheist tactic of asserting that each supernatural entity has an equal amount of evidence. We don't have any more evidence for Yahweh than we do for Zeus or Santa Clause.

Yet such a statement is false. That discussion is for another thread, but if it can be reasonably demonstrated that there is more evidence for Yahweh than for Zeus, then it makes more sense to ascribe the supernatural event to Yahweh rather than "a cornucopia of things."

Someone claiming to be a "Reasonist," making such a lazy, red herring response is rather revealing.


Ah yes. Healing someone of blindness is a "magic trick."


Funny that you resort to any possibility that you can think of so you don't have to admit the supernatural.

And it's also funny that positing Jesus as an "alien" doesn't solve your problem at all; it merely moves it somewhere else. How are these aliens able to perform "supernatural" occurences if there was no God?


I take it that spontaneous remission of heart disease is what you'd call a magic trick, then?

There is an important perspective here concerning the rate of observed remission of disease under unusual circumstances under controlled conditions in hospitals and under a physicians care, and the percentage of people that have visited Lourdes and have been considered miraculously healed. Spontaneous and unusual instances of the body healing itself has been observed under rare circumstances. People with terminal heart disease with low life expectancies have recovered and lived long lives without medical intervention. It is of course very rare, like documented healings at Lourdes, but not unheard of.

Why so few documented healings at Lourdes in it's long history? Even considering if you add many of the undocumented claims, over the history of Lourdes, the percentages are still relatively small.

Originally posted by papas

When you understand that all the healings of persons in the New Testament were done to those who had faith, you will see that God's powers are not put in motion for those who want God to do their will.

Some that Christ healed apparently did not have faith.

Originally posted by shunyadragon

Some that Christ healed apparently did not have faith.

It was not at their request (i.e. the man whose ear was healed to prove that violence is wrong). God's will must be done before He will answer anybody's prayer/request, because otherwise God is doing the will of unrighteousness.

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)

Yes, but how many people have had their faith restored during their visit to Lourdes? How many people have recommitted themselves to serving God during their visit to Lourdes? How many people have felt a renewed call to the service of God's people during their visit to Lourdes? Healings aren't the only miracles that have happened at Lourdes.

Originally posted by Lazarus

Yes, but how many people have had their faith restored during their visit to Lourdes? How many people have recommitted themselves to serving God during their visit to Lourdes? How many people have felt a renewed call to the service of God's people during their visit to Lourdes? Healings aren't the only miracles that have happened at Lourdes.

Than why place so much emphais on physical healings? Anecdotal claims of restored faith are not any more an attribute of Lourdes than my home.

And the first miralcle to make Teresa a saint bases itself on a false diagnosis! As science progresses there should be even fewer miracles as there are fewer now than a century ago!
Again, this shows the presumption of naturalism. We go to doctors for cures,not to faith healers.
Lazarus, so what! Other things can also cause nice changes in people.