Man raised back to life in Jesus' name

I'm reading a lot of arguing about miracles tight now.Has everyone agreed with each other as to what an authentic miracle is?This message has been edited by Mr. Ex Nihilo, 01-07-2006 12:38 AM

OT but...The Scriptures were handed down to us by people who believed -- not the other way around.

No.The onus seems to be for a good portion of us (from very different and contradictory perspectives) to be in agreement as to what an "authentic miracle" is before we all start arguing over whether or not something can be considered as "evidence" of a miracle in the first place.What do you suggest?

Note: I haven't read through other parts of this website. However, I found this bit of research interesting: Scientific Evidence for Answered Prayer and the Existence of God

Arachnophilia I wish I had caught this one earlier but I just have to ask. If a miracle occurs but there is never evidence for it then what evidence swayed you to think a miracle had occured?

quote:

---

Has everyone agreed with each other as to what an authentic miracle is?

---

I like Hume's definition from this website: The summary of the essay is as follows, and is also a very good summary of my position: This message has been edited by schrafinator, 01-07-2006 03:24 PM

I hope you are reviewing this thread.This is
my very first post on this thread, in which I am answering Crashfrog's questioning of Buzsaw: Trixie then answers in Message 77 in a way I think is already very confused and confusing since all I did was reference scripture. Now of course it IS my view but the way she treats it as contradicting the God of Love becomes very problematic as THAT is of course my view TOO, also based on scripture: The problem between Trixie and me on this thread began right here. I quoted and referred to scripture only, and discussed none of it. She responds that those scriptures are hard to reconcile with "the God of Love" but she is calling this "reasoning" as if she hasn't grasped that I'm quoting scripture. This has already begun to sound like an accusation that I somehow reject "the God of Love" if I agree with the scriptures I quoted and referenced.I respond as follows, which I think should have made her aware of her confusion: But it didn't make her aware of anything. She
now goes on to insist that she was responding to a view I had expressed, reasoning I had put forward, implicitly denying that all I had done was reference scripture, and further implying that if I agree with this scripture I must disagree with the God of love and healing: But I did NOT put forward any reasoning whatever. I did NOT express a "view." I quoted & referenced scripture, period. In that post she just goes on and on arguing with what she seems to be denying comes from the Bible: Believe "Faith?" Why believe Faith? This is a bogus either/or. I quoted SCRIPTURE. We are to believe ALL scripture, not pick and choose. Why is this so hard to grasp? This bizarre either/or here even implies that I somehow dispute Jesus Christ, dispute the God of Love, dispute the God of healing. This was becoming maddening to sort out.All of Trixie's Message 79 is confused and confusing. She's arguing scripture against scripture but imputing the part she doesn't like to ME just because I quoted it. She keeps asking me questions like "are we not supposed to pray for healing?" which make absolutely no sense to me. She just seems to be accusing me of either thinking we aren't to pray for healing or contradicting myself if I think we are and it's all wrapped up in her never acknowledging that all I did was quote scripture.Do I agree with it? Of course I do. I agree with ALL of scripture. She is the one who is splitting it up, assigning the parts she doesn't like to me personally, and upholding this other part that she called the "God of Love" as if it contradicted ME.Trixie is very very confused at the very least and it is almost impossible to figure out how to set her straight, and with her implying that I disagree that God offers healing, disagree with the message of love in Jesus Christ, I found it VERY hard to deal with.This message has been edited by Faith, 01-07-2006 05:27 PMThis message has been edited by Faith, 01-07-2006 05:34 PM

Hmmm...interesting.However, in the case of the example of the limbs regrowing, it seems as though some things can be checked.For example, when a bone breaks, it usually leaves some kind of evidence of it having broke (such as some kind of mark going along the bone after it has healed). In fact, doctors can often look at an x-ray of someone's bones and determine with relative ease where a bone has broken in the past.Furthermore, it is also well known that bones have rings around them as they grow (something akin to tree rings which one can use to determine the age of a tree). Although it is not always accurate, doctors can determine the relative age of someone by looking at the development of their bones.In the case of the hypothtical miracle, if one were to critiacally examine the bone using current medical procedures, one might see that there are is certain amount of aging indicated on the origianl bone -- followed by a bizarre cycle of bone growth which indicate no aging whatsoever (or rapid growth in less than one year).I suppose it depends on exactly how the hypothetical mircale works, But I think, in general anyway, is would most likely be possible to verify a genuine miracle from a hoax.Personally, I'm not aware of any validated tests involving the supposed re-growth of a missing limb. There are, however, some reports of "ghost limbs" appearing on the MRI's of people who have recently had a limb amputated or severed, Again, I'm not sure of the accuracy of these reports. Just food for thought.

I agree that such could be checked, but a negative result (i.e. no indication of bone regrowth) wouldn't necessarily be definitive, because there is no way to predict how a supernatural force would replace lost limbs.This is one reason science doesn't examine the supernatural - no predictions can be made about it, and therefore no hypotheses can be tested.I have never heard of an alleged miracle that could not be explained by science to have been the result of naturalistic causes; similarly, every naturalistic cause could be explained by the faithful as being the result of divine intervention.

So, what you're saying is that souls exhibit magnetic reasonance even though, being not matter, they have nothing to resonate?I think perhaps the biggest proof that there is no supernatural is that the supernatural seems to be capable of feats that simply don't make any sense. Even if a soul exists, how would an NMRI machine pick it up?

This is likely true if those were MRI brain scans. Ghost limbs are a well known phenomenon. Someone whose legs have been amputated might have sensations of an itchy toe.

I disagree.Based on the information we have today, I think that a lack of any indication of bone restructuring/growth would strongly indicate a lack of a miracle.This is one of the reasons why I disagree with arguments for a universe created with the "illusion of age". Although there do appear to be some minor anomalies along the way, there is basicaly no strong reason to think the universe is young based on the convergence of geological, biological and astronomical information available today.If one wants to claim that a miracle happened in the form of a rapid creation of the universe, then they need to develop some evidence as to why they believe this rapid miracle happened. Simply stating that a miracle happened is not sufficient to validate it happened under any form of scientific scutiny that I'm aware of.

I have no idea if the reports are true or not.I read about the phenomenon a few years ago -- and it seems to me that there was some evidence in favor of complications during the supposed MRI scans (such as bleeding or temperture variaitons) which resulted in the possibility of erroneous data -- edit: in other words, apparent vague images of limbs seemed to be appearing where an arm or leg had been recently severed).However, if the soul is a real and tangible phenomenon, it doesn't seem totally outside of the scope of scientific inquiry to see if it has any measurable effect on the matter around it.The soul, in most religions anyway, seems to be highly linked with the concept of light. Light exhibits a duality in which it can be treated as either a wave or a particle. It remains possible that the "soul" of a being is a more unique form of light which does not correspond to the normal duality of light. Perhaps the soul is a form of electromagnetism which does not exhibit any particle-like qualities yet possesses wave-like characteristics.Who knows?This message has been edited by Mr. Ex Nihilo, 01-07-2006 09:39 PMThis message has been edited by Mr. Ex Nihilo, 01-07-2006 09:56 PM

That is the other more thoroughly researched phenomenon which is well decumented. But I might as well interject a thought concerning it:Could one consider this as a potential evidence that the soul exists?

Mr Ex-Nihilo These wave like properties are also detectable. Are you aware of any studies that have detected such?

---

But I realize now that these people were not in science; they didn’t understand it. They didn’t understand technology; they didn’t understand their time.