Jackalope

On the other hand, if it's a miracle that someone had a spontaneous remission of cancer, what's it say that Steven Hawking is still alive almost 40 years after he was given only a few years to live? He isn't exactly a friend of the theists.

Oh, Godidit so he could go on proving that the bible version of creation was wrong. (Check out the first episode of Steven Hawking's Universe if you don't get that comment)

[Bizarre, I hit return twice after that smiley and it posted the message. That's not supposed to happen]

Baloo

Some things to keep in mind when challenged with miraculous accounts such as this. First and foremost, identify the actual challenge: to give a plausible naturalistic explanation for the account of the supposed miraculous recovery. Not doing so would be like trying to formulate a natural explanation for the parting of the Red Sea mentioned in the Judeo-Christian holy book - self-defeating and utterly unnecessary.

The natural explanation for the account itself usually falls into one, or a combination of several, of these categories:

1) A false-positive on the initial medical examination (e.g. misdiagnosis of the original cancer - perhaps a smudge on the x-ray).

2) A misunderstanding in the doctor-patient communication (e.g. the patient misunderstands what certain medical jargon means, and maybe concludes that "superficial" really means "superbig").

3) An exaggeration between patient and family/friends (can anyone honestly say they've never made a medical condition sound just a little bit more exotic than it actually was?).

4) A misunderstanding as the story moves "through the grapevine" (e.g. the phrase "miracle" is used to imply a rare recovery, but is misunderstood to mean a necessarily supernatural recovery).

5) A false-negative on the follow-up exam (e.g. what appeared to be a "vanishing" cancer was actually a mis-diagnosed).

6 - 10 pertain to just about any miraculous account, but will be given in the context of miraculous recoveries, where appropriate.

6) In the case of #5, if the cancer was re-discovered at a later date, the re-discovery story would not get trumpetted around with nearly the verboseness of the miracle story, thus the original miraculous account continues to be passed around on its merry way, perhaps even as the miracle patient draws his last breath on his deathbed. To this day, there are people who think scientists have discovered Noah's ark.

7) A truncation of the account at any point whereby details that lengthen the account, make it seem less interesting, and maybe lend credence to a natural explanation are "checked at the door" when the account is passed through the grapevine. If a man is diagnosed with cancer in a preliminary exam, maybe the word "preliminary" is dropped. A young, inexperienced doctor may be turned into just a doctor. A benign tumor becomes just a tumor. etc.

8) There is the lottery factor (aka confirmational bias): if the human body can recover from a level-4 cancer in only 1 out of 1,000 cases, then it is a given that there will many, many cases of people recovering from level-4 cancer. (SIDENOTE: my brother was a bit peeved when I told him the Powerball Lottery was a "Ignorance Tax", and when some guy in WI won $315 Million, he actually called me and asked me whether I still considered it a Tax... "just look at that guy", he said). In other words, more emphasis is placed on the "winner" than on the hundreds, thousands, or even millions of "losers".

9) There is also the "perceptions influenced by belief" explanation, in which people who believe their particular deity plays an active role in all of the going-ons of the world can perceive almost any account of any event as an "act of God", and will subconsciously add and later remember details that lend credibility to the deity playing a role in the miraculous account, but were not in the original account.

10) A touchier version of point 9: the old "Lying for Jesus" explanation. Generally, this offends most theists, and is best left out. But if it must be used, I like to introduce it with: "If you could choose between leading a loved one to Christ with a white lie, vs risking their spending eternity in hell, wouldn't you tell a white lie - remember, Jesus will forgive you?"

Anyway, you are generally lucky to get about two or three minutes into the above responses before the typical proselytizer disengages or changes the subject. If you are really lucky, two or three such exchanges can actually result in a permanent cessation of such challenges.

spurly

As a Christian I will say that I do personally know of people who have been healed of terminal diseases. However, I know of many, many, many times more people who were not healed of their disease.

Does that mean that God does not exist? Does cancer taking toll on a body mean that God could not really be God because if he were God he would heal?

No. Again, I think we are setting up expectations for God from our point of view that don't line up with who God is.

When we were first created by God, we were meant to live forever and we had access to everything we needed to do that. But when sin entered creation, that blessing was taken away.

Who would want to live forever in a world that was tainted by sin? Not I. And God knew it would not be an ideal "forever" life. Sin brings about disastrous consequences - guilt, shame, fear, disease, broken families, death, and more.

The only way out of that, is to make this life temporal - and give us a chance to be redeemed in this temporal life - so that we can live for an eternity in an environment that is free from sin and full of God.

So do I mourn when believers die? Maybe a little. But in reality I realize that they are now free to really experience God in a realm that is totally without the shortcomings that came about because of sin. So I guess more than anything else, that makes me jealous sometimes.

Kevin

Mageth

As a Christian I will say that I do personally know of people who have been healed of terminal diseases.

Wow! How about posting some links to the medical journals where these amazing healings are described?

When we were first created by God, we were meant to live forever and we had access to everything we needed to do that. But when sin entered creation, that blessing was taken away.

You need to reread Genesis 1-3. God kicked A&E out of the garden so that they wouldn't eat of the Tree of Eternal Life and live forever, remember (Gen. 3:22)? There's no mention of a "blessing" of eternal life that was taken away, AFAIK.

Baloo

Hmm. Care to give us a detailed account of such a recovery? One should suffice.

Non-sequitor. The point of the thread, which you seem to have picked up the gauntlet to defend, is wether there are accounts of medical recoveries with no plausible natural explanation, thus serving as evidence of a supernatural agent.
A red herring. You are arguing against the problem of evil objection to the existence of God, when nobody is arguing for it. If this is what you wish to debate, feel free to take it up in a different thread. Otherwise, please stick to the topic at hand.

Very touching defense of evil. Unfortunately, it doesn't have anything to do with whether or not there are accounts of miraculous recoveries without natural explanations.

CALDONIA

A theist must accept that cancer is a creation of God (or has been allowed to exist by God, which is the same thing). Therefore, when he "cures" a person of cancer, is this an arbitrary act done for the fun of it, or is the cure not only a "saving" of the subject but also a condemnation of those whose suffering was NOT cured?

If I am subjected to a 'miracle', is it favoritism or not?

post-it

God could exist and some books about god could make a claim that he heals. The books could contain some false claims, but the fact that God exists does not hinge on what a few books say.

The Christian God which I believe in can heal but I feel he has given that job to men, doctors. Greater works shall ye do.

Ion

So you don't know.

Discovering the reasons of unexplained cures, is discovering the laws of nature.

It is a false approach to nature, to claim unsupported causes.

Godbert

If God didn't want that person to die of cancer why did he have cancer in the first place? And why would a christian who has cancer not want to die anyway - he'd go to heaven after all?

Keith Russell

Greetings:

Let's say that 'God' actually did cure a few people of their non-operable cancer.

So, what?

Everyone can still agree that 'God' hasn't cured 'everyone' of most ailments. (The people that 'God' allegedly cured, are going to die someday--miraculous cures or no.)

Shouldn't people try to figure out why 'God' cures this person, but not that person? Shouldn't we try to find a way to better the odds in the future--to increase the number of people 'God' decides to cure?

But that isn't what happens when 'God' is given credit for these 'cures'. They thank 'God' for curing their great-aunt, or their brother, or their children, but they don't question why 'God' hasn't helped all the others who aren't cured, who don't get saved from disaster after disaster.

This strikes me as...to say the least...odd.

Keith.