Is Evolution the only option in a Naturalistic point of view ?

I agree that a natural physiological explanations could be possible, and even though I personnally believe that it was a miracle, I do not discard that possibility.But we have to keep in mind two things: this would be an extremely rare case. I mean, as a whole here, how many people de we know that were 'miraculously' cured of cancer ? If it is very rare natural phenomenon, I must be very lucky to know two people who fit into that category, and even luckier that they are both christians.

I defined a miracle as a violation of a known law of nature. Now, I do not have any advanced knowledge of miracles, either practically or theologically, and so my definition may very well be wrong. (After this conversation though, I do plan on reading 'Miracles' by CS Lewis)But, if we stick to this definition, which does seem legitimate to me, and we hypothetically consider this account to be a genuine miracle, than the law of conservation of energy is that could be violated that I could think of. But two brains are better than one, so maybe you could propose another law of nature that could have been hypothetically violated ?

Hey, I do not pretend to have all accurate knowledge of all subjects, and misconceptions will happen again in the future I'm sure. I welcome comments such as yours (without the little arrogance, of course ) very well. I'm only 19 years old and I haven't planed on stoping to learn.ALthough I would think that a law, before being established as a law, was a theory, no ?

I have looked through that site quite a bit about a year ago, and had found the question very interesting. They talk about two types of things God does not cure (which you have mentioned): Amputees, and genetic disabilities such as trisomy 21)For amputees, I think the answer lies in that a lost limb should not be considered an illness. Sure it's a 'tough loss' (if I can use that expression), but you are still medically 100% healthy, but of course not socially 100% capable anymore. Of course, you could still suffer from the 'lost limb syndrom' (I doN't know the correct temr in english) where you are actually feeling pain from your limb that isn't there anymore, which could be considered an illness. However, I am not sure that there are no reports of miracle healings of this syndrom.Also, there are reports of miracle healings of leprosy from missionaries coming from countries where it is still present. Now, knowing the very nature of leprosy, it's healing actually could implies the restoration of some body parts, such as lost limbs.For genetic disabilities such as trisomy, it gets much more difficult to assess. It sure is an illness. How can we know there are no reports of such a healing occuring, I'm not sure how. Maybe since that site went online they have been emailed reports of such healings, but they didn't consider them legitimate. I personnally know someone who works with people who suffer from this, and when I visit here they seem to be as the most happy people in the world, so maybe there is no need for God to actually heal them ? (appart for their family members who pray just to get this 'burden' off their own shoulders)All in all, I won't pretend that I have a full answer to that question, and although I understand the logic behind it, it is much less appealing to me in terms of strength of the argument than it may be to you.

All legitimate possible 'miracles' I supposeBut still, applying Occam's razor would favor the violation of the law of cservation of energy in my mind.

In Canadian health care system, as long as your prepared to wait 48hourrs each time, you can get checked at three different hospitals.

I'm not a professional detective, but I don't believe this is a miracle only on 'blind faith' either.The woman in question kept contact with the doctor, and he even came to church once although saying he wasn't christian (He stilled believd in some sort of 'God' though). He confirmed what she had told us. I also saw the X-Rays, and my brother in med school confirmed that there was initially a cancer but that it disappeared without a trace. (It was a tumour on the pancreas if I remember correctly).I believe it to be a genuine miracle because I have first-hand accounts of it. Now obviously, none of you do, and I don't expect you to think that it is anything more than 'folklore'

I intended naturalist as Minnemooseus defined it on the second page:Philosophical naturalism -There is/are no god(s) or anything else supernatural.)Not as 'one who accepts that natural things have natural causes'

I do think you misunderstand Occam's razor.It is not about which option is more ''likely'' to happen, but rather which of the explanations presented explains it in simplest form. or with the least assumptions, etc.

''But the point at issue is not whether it happened but how it happened.''Yeah well my reponse was more to someone who doubted that it did happen.Would you have more links about the spontaneous remission thing ?

I'll take a different approach, since you didn't understand what I meant. Simplest is used in the sense of which explanation has the least assumptions.I think my explanation of simple dissapearance as less assumptions then the one you proposed in which it has to dissapear here but then reappear somewhere else for instance.Edited by slevesque, : No reason given.

Ok. If something disappears, it is one step to assume it did disappear, it is second step to asssume that it reappeared elsewhereAnnihilation has one assumption, teleportation has both.It is not about which is more or less miraculous, it is about which has the least numbr of assumption.

I just want to say that two previous persons had already answered my question, and that I did stop and read what they told me ...I mean, you could also read what others posted so that I don't get three times the same answer. Once is usually enough with me

This is EXACTLY the type of answer I was looking for. Seriously, I think I'm gonna propose it as post of the month.Although I disagree on one point. I do think that the belief in God/Gods (the theistic position) is innate in humans, even in evolutionnary theory. The belief i na particular God/Gods is of course acquired knowledge though.

Well the christian God can do anything. Technically, He could give me a brand new ferrari in my backyard. Yet he doesn't, even if I pray very, very, very hard and convinced that he will.The fact that a Ferrari does not appear in my backyard does not prove or disprove the existence God. Same applies for this or that miracle that God doesn't do. (which includes the growing back of limbs)PS Sorry for any amputees that could be on this forum, I do not mean to offend anyone.