hinduwoman

What is more, miracles do not prove anything about Christian God. Other religions have their miracles too.
Ganesha drinking milk is also a miracle --- the unbeliever points out natural explanation; the believer/anxious-to-be-deluded accepts the supernatural. <img src="graemlins/banghead.gif" border="0" alt="[Bang Head]" />

Typhon

Hello Half-Life,

Let me take the first part of your question (or shall I say, the most generalized version as you stated the example of stigmata was that, an example.)
This is a bit of a loaded question Half-Life, for the following reasons.

What is a miracle? Before we talk any further, let me present what is a "standard" definition of a miracle:

mir·a·cle
n.
An event that appears inexplicable by the laws of nature and so is held to be supernatural in origin or an act of God.

OK, provided you agree with the definition, let's move on to the next part.

Proving a miracle: Proving anything, let alone the tricky definition of a miracle, isn't easy. Notice too, that the definition of a miracle uses the following important words:

"appears"

And…

"held"

What does that mean? Well, it means that a miracle is just a sloppy way of defining an event we don't really understand. Appearances are OFTEN misleading. As I pointed out in my first post, that sometimes things that seemed "miraculous" to us, say human flight a thousand years ago, are now, explainable "by the laws of nature" and in the case of my example, common place.

So, first, we have to find a miracle that passes all our ability to show that it is just a natural occurrence (perhaps even one we've just never seen before), has enough evidence to examine in the first place, comes from a good or trusted source, and isn't simply a hoax or a lie, then what can we at best say about it? Only that we don't know exactly what is happening here.

If you are already superstitious or religious, perhaps you'll think it’s evidence of the supernatural, as someone in 1350 C.E. might have thought if they had seen a man take off and land in a small plane. Or a better example is germ theory. We didn't understand how germs worked, or why people got sick. No surprise that some people thought it was the work of sin, or of devils, or even of bad air or an imbalance of "bodily humors." All of these are just ways of trying to pin an explanation on to what we can't explain. The germ theory finally was taken as the correct one, once we were able to not only observe what was going on, but test and support the theory with experimentation and study.

So if I, someone who doesn't by default believe in the supernatural, witnessed an event that after all the evidence was carefully studied, and every t crossed and i dotted, and it still "defied" naturalistic explanation, I would just say I can't say much about it, and hope that it would happen again, so we could keep studying it until we figured out what had happened. Personally, I suspect that most things would eventually, given time and advancement of science, be explainable by understandable, natural laws.

But even if it didn't, this alone would be very unlikely to prove to me that the supernatural existed, let alone, a distinct god.
Let's now take a look at your example.

Stigmata. This I assume, is a reference to the mythical "signs of crucifixion" that the Christ figure of Christian legend suffered from his supposed sacrifice on the cross. Correct?

Let's say you brought a man or a woman, who in front of my eyes, and a panel of doctors, scientists, and trained observers, were able in the location and circumstances of our choosing, suddenly begin bleeding from their wrists and feet. I'd want to watch, record, observe, and have the doctors and scientists run tests, on the person, on the blood, on the marks, and on the whole event. We'd research the person, their background, where and when these marks first appeared, what the blood was, x-ray the hands and feet, check for old wounds, perhaps self-inflicted, any hidden pumps or surgical alterations, and host of other things to make sure what we thought was happening, was what was really happening.

IF after all this, and frankly, most miracles would never I suspect, pass this many tests, we still couldn't understand how these wounds occurred, we would just say, "we don't know." I certainly wouldn't be convinced it was proof that a real person had existed, that claimed truthfully or not, to be the son of a god, and was crucified by the Romans, at some time in the past. I would be very curious to find out what was happening, but it wouldn't be enough to make me think that the Christian god did exist.

In the case of your example, I don't think I'd be all that moved either. We already know a lot about how the mind can make the body do a lot of things that are amazing. What you think can drastically affect your body. Stress can kill you, belief can make you heal, and just thinking a thing under the right conditions, can sometimes fool your body into doing something that you normally wouldn't expect to control. I'd suspect that this was an event, that was extraordinary, but not impossible.

Does this answer your question?

.T.

[ April 14, 2002: Message edited by: Typhon ]</p>

Half-Life

They could have put the nails in the palm for more pain. If they just tied the wrists, it wouldnt be as much pain for the victim. So, he couldve been nailed in the palm for pain and held up with the rope. But then the old question. Why don't stigmatics have rope burns on there wrists?

Tercel

Hi Half-life,
Does your teacher like this sort of thing, or are you merely trying to be a smart-ass and annoy the teacher? If it's the later then I suggest you stop as it's not really very Christian of you.

Right... Why that interpretation? For example, perhaps she was telling us that in the 13th day of the 1st month we should celebrate "God making bodies incorruptable" day? Okay, that's a bit far-fetched, but the Trinity interpretation just isn't necessary.

I think it's a load of rubbish. All of it. Did you read Typhon's post on the question of miracles? People have a fascination with the miraculous and supernatural and a tendency to say "miracle" at the drop of a hat, when the more skeptical of us would say "coincidence".

The atheist's around here have a saying "Extraordinary claims require extraodinary evidence". As usual, they're wrong.
However, extraordinary claims DO require ordinary evidence. That is to say: you should have real evidence before believing any miraculous claims. A person saying "it's a miracle" should never be sufficient, find out the details and assess it yourself.

I'm a Christian too. I see no reason to think it anything more than coincidence.

Tercel

MadMordigan

I'm a Christian too. I see no reason to think it anything more than coincidence.

Tercel

Thanks for your input and your opinion. Too often, a person will make wild claims about 'miraculous' events, and xians, mystics and theists of all stripes will stay silent. Its refreshing to have someone on the 'other side' call a spade a spade.

Thanks again.

Koyaanisqatsi

Now, if we could just get Tercel to apply the same intelligent reasoning to the resurrection (especially the part where Jesus' body ascends into "heaven;" i.e., the exosphere where the body would implode and become an eternally orbiting popsicle).

Axiom of Choice

Just a note from the sidelines.

Koy, I'm not sure that Jesus would implode on his way up to heaven. If anything, he'd explode, though this is unlikely, especially if he exhaled completely as the pressure dropped. Course, he still would have the problem of being simultaneously asphixiated, frozen solid, and burned to a crisp, not to mention a several millenia long trip if he wants to get anywhere much beyond the Earth's orbit.

Just a side note, but I'm sure that we atheists wouldn't want to be seen as not updating the theories to fit the facts.

Koyaanisqatsi

I thought a vacuum in the gravity of space caused one to implode, not explode.

Axiom of Choice

Not sure what you mean by a "vacuum in the gravity of space," but consider the pressure gradient in space. With a lungfull of air, a person is basically a bag of high-pressure gas. Without an external pressure to balance this, the result would be a rather messy 'pop.' Actually, you wouldn't so much as explode, rather your lungs and blood vessels would probably just rupture. You could survive for a short amount of time, but it wouldn't be pretty. You would implode if the pressure gradient was reversed: high pressure outside, low inside, like if you suddenly found yourself at the bottom of the ocean.

Mageth

A parallel is sudden decompression from a lengthy deep dive. A painful and often fatal experience.