Vorkosigan

I always go for the constellation one too, big and obvious. It's only when you realize that when you exit naturalism there are no rules that it becomes obvious why the supernatural is a bad idea.

The latter argument is from either Natural Order or Changing Order, in that case directed at psychic experimentation.

Vorkosigan

Amie

are you absolutely sure about that?

No

It is.

No
people have a tendency to die when the buildings they are in are obliterated by airplanes.

I understand that you don't believe that there is anything significant there.

possibly...why not?

I've never actually seen one cry myself, but many people do believe...

Family Man

My answer to the first question is that the event must clearly violate some physical law and that it leaves evidence that verifies that it couldn't have happened in any natural way.

For instance, imagine a bus that is driven off a cliff. Instead of falling and killing everyone, it floats gently down and lands softly. This would be an obvious violation of physical laws, and it would leave obvious evidence that it couldn't have happened any other way (how else would you explain how the bus got there).

The trouble with a place like Lourdes is that it doesn't meet either of these requirements. It isn't clear that anything that violate physical laws are happening there. In fact, much of the "miracles" that occur there are simply the result of a psychological boost the believer gets from his belief. Wasn't it Victor Hugo who quipped, upon seeing canes stacked up, "What, no artificial limbs?" Nor do we have any concrete evidence that a miracle has ever occured there.

As for the second question, I'm with Vork. How could you definitely show that a miracle was the result of the Christian god? I can't think of any.

[ December 07, 2002: Message edited by: Family Man ]</p>

Amie

perhaps not the Christian God, but some divine being must be attributed to them..

Let me ask you: Do you think people believe in miracles because we want to believe in them?

sometimes I think that is the case, but when things happen that can not be explained and there appears to have been many witnesses to the events, doesn't it make ou wonder?

lpetrich

As to the Miracle of Fatima, there is an easy way to induce it:

Stare at the Sun.

And people in centuries past were sometimes described as having worked much bigger miracles than any today.

Consider medieval saints. St. Genevieve, Richard Carrier's example in "Why I Don't Buy the Resurrection", had allegedly drove out demons, made blind people see, blinded those who stole from her, calmed storms, made oil and water appear from nowhere, and ordered the chopping down of a troublesome tree, which turned out to contain monsters. By comparison, how many miracles had Mother Teresa ever worked, aside from creating an image of herself as a great humanitarian?

Looking back further, both Jesus Christ and Roman emperor Vespasian had allegedly healed people with magical spit therapy; has anyone recorded any success with that therapy in any reputable present-day medical journal?

250 years ago, David Hume had noted that miracles had become rare in his day as compared to previous centuries; he concluded that those past reports of miracles were either misunderstandings or fabrications. And that continues to be the case, as Richard Carrier has noted.

[ December 07, 2002: Message edited by: lpetrich ]</p>

Amie

Hi lpetrich

I don't think that would induce it. Each one present having the same affect?

Absolutely

yes by comparison Mother Teresa has not worked miracles, she has that one now but even I admit thats questionable...she only needs 2 before she's sainted...

I don't know if there's any recordings, probably not.

OK that was his opinion...

Oxymoron

Yes. New Scientist published details about how to do it a while ago (there are various schemes employed, for crying Mary's, milk-spurting Ganesh's...)

Do you have a problem with certainty?

But the point is that many thousands survived and some have been quoted as saying "it's a miracle..." Point being: miracles are subjective. Interesting thought: if Satan chucks a fireball at (ooh) Kansas and loads of xians die, is that a miracle, or does the word only imply something good? If the latter, then in no sense can anyone surviving 9/11 call it a miracle.

No, that's not what I said. It's not a question of whether I have a personal belief about healing. It's a question of whether there is anything measurable or even testable going on, and the answer is no. "Statistically significant" is not an opinion, it's a logical concept.

You can tack "why" or "why not" onto anything to reflect a question back, but it's not the most positive of contributions to a debate:

George W Bush is a woman - why not?
The earth is flat - why not?
The burning bush was not consumed - why not?

Perhaps the place to start is that it flatly and diametrically contradicts all our knowledge of the world. When that happens, we really ought to do a sanity check, cos either our world model is wrong (which it frequently can be), or the event never happened that way. Nope, Dubya is still more of a man than a woman, the Earth casts a circular shadow on the moon no matter where the sun is, and bush fires destroy trees in Israel, Australia and probably Alpha Centauri. My world model is still consistent, the Bible stories are hogwash beyond all reasonable doubt.

The further an event differs from how we understand the world works, the more caution we should apply to it and the more scrutiny it needs to be placed under. The alternative - placing extreme and untested notions into our internal map of the world is a very dangerous way to lead one's life. That way madness lies...

Amie

Hi Oxymoron

No. However when it comes to some of these things we can not be certain.

well it obviously was not theie time to go...perhaps there was divine intervention for some. I don't know.

and if there are hundreds of witnesses to a miracle? would you say they have all been deceived in some way?

well I think people usually associate the word miracle in a divine sense however a miracle is something that violates the laws of nature and physics as we know them, and can not be explained reasonably or attributed to a physical cause then yes..your example would be a miracle so to speak...

I suppose a lucky break...

How do you know that? What about the people that go there with diseases and leave without them?

Oxymoron

What about the people who go there with diseases and come back with them? The vast majority, that is.

Never ever underestimate the power of the placebo. Once you've removed all the failures, you have to do dome pretty clever tests to differentiate:

* those who were cured who would've got better anyway
* those who said they were cured but weren't
* those who had a remission because they had a nice holiday in France
* those who benefited from the placebo effect

Once you do, you realise that there is nothing to see, move along people.

Amie

yeah I think the vast majority do...

cured in a matter of days? while at lourdes. you chalk that up to coincidence I suppose...

ok I'll give you that...

lol

what is this placebo affect everyone talks about? wishing and hoping something to happen?