One thing I've done a lot of is documented miracles. I think I probalby have paid better attention to real miracle evidence than just about any apologist on the net. I know sounds very arrogant but consider the fact that only a hand full of sights even bother to deal any sort of actual process of demonstration. Very sights by apologists actually deal with the miracle making process of the RCC. That of cousre assumes I want to be called "apologist." I guess it's too late now. There is some very good evidence.
First, the Catholic rules, weather for saint making or Lourdes, the same people, same rules, two different committees, are the best rules. They are strict scientifically aware rules.
BY DAVID VAN BIEMA
The paradox of human miracle assessment is that the only way to discern whether a phenomenon is supernatural is by having trained rationalists testify that it outstrips their training. Since most wonders admitted by the modern church are medical cures, it consults with doctors. Di Ruberto has access to a pool of 60 - "We've got all the medical branches covered," says his colleague, Dr. Ennio Ensoli - and assigns each purported miracle to two specialists on the vanquished ailment.
They apply criteria established in the 1700s by Pope Benedict XIV: among them, that the disease was serious; that there was objective proof of its existence; that other treatments failed; and that the cure was rapid and lasting. Any one can be a stumbling block. Pain, explains Ensoli, means little: "Someone might say he feels bad, but how do you measure that?" Leukemia remissions are not considered until they have lasted a decade. A cure attributable to human effort, however prayed for, is insufficient. "Sometimes we have cases that you could call exceptional, but that's not enough." says Ensoli. "Exceptional doesn't mean inexplicable."
"Inexplicable," or inspiegabile, is the happy label that Di Ruberto, the doctors and several other clerics in the Vatican's "medical conference" give to a case if it survives their scrutiny. It then passes to a panel of theologians, who must determine whether the inexplicable resulted from prayer. If so, the miracle is usually approved by a caucus of Cardinals and the Pope.
Some find the process all too rigorous. Says Father Paolino Rossi, whose job, in effect, is lobbying for would-be saints from his own Capuchin order: "It's pretty disappointing when you work for years and years and then see the miracle get rejected." But others suggest it could be stricter still.
There is another major miracle-validating body in the Catholic world: the International Medical Committee for the shrine at Lourdes. Since miracles at Lourdes are all ascribed to the intercession of the Virgin Mary, it is not caught up in the saint-making process, which some believe the Pope has running overtime. Roger Pilon, the head of Lourdes' committee, notes that he and his colleagues have not approved a miracle since 1989, while the Vatican recommended 12 in 1994 alone. "Are we too severe?" he wonders out loud. "Are they really using the same criteria?"
One can find further discussion of the rules in an article interviewing one of the committee members,
Franco Balzaretti. One of the most impressive miracles is not from Lourdes but a saint making miracle. The second miracle that put over St. Theresse of Lisieux as a saint.
Society for the Little Flower (Website) FAQ (visited 6/3/01)
St. Theresse of Lisieux
"Regarding St. Therese, in 1923 the Church approved of two spontaneous cures unexplained by medical treatment. Sister Louise of St. Germain was cured of the stomach ulcers she had between 1913 and 1916. The second cure involved Charles Anne, a 23 year old seminarian who was dying from advanced pulmonary tuberculosis. The night he thought he was dying, Charles prayed to Therese. Afterward, the examining doctor testified, "The destroyed and ravaged lungs had been replaced by new lungs, carrying out their normal functions and about to revive the entire organism. A slight emaciation persists, which will disappear within a few days under a regularly assimilated diet." These two miracles resulted in Therese becoming beatified."
Of course many times when I've used this atheists have tired to shame it by arguing that it's obviously a lie and propaganda because it's on a site dedicated to that saint. There's an attitude among atheists that unless something is presented skeptically it has to be a lie. I amid it's not scholarly evidence. It's available documentation it's not best evidence. Best evidence on this particular case is hard to come by. I exchanged emails with the committee and they assumred me the X-Rays still exist and they do in fact show the lungs as new. While this is not the best evdience it's showing the existence of the case in the files and the files the OfficeMax docs that demonstrate and document the case. I don't present it as proof I present it only a reason to seek further. The atheist response to it is still very telling. I don't remember who this is but here's one response from CARM:
As for lungs growing back, that's cool. I love the power of belief, and believe in it myself. Seems strange though that God picks and chooses those "He" heals. I guess Meta's God is a Calvinist. Matter of fact, many Christians are Calvinists and just don't admit it. Christianity is the ME religion filled with egotists who think they can influence the mind of a diety by begging and currying favor. When something "miraculous" happens, they can crow that God loves a prayor better than an atheist. He would let an atheist die while allowing someone who does a Groucho Marks and says some choice magic words live..My response:
This belief is beyond preposterous and makes mental midgets out of humans and stifles research into why and how beliefs can and DO heal people. The placebo effect is well known and ignored by those who say "God did it"
Originally Posted by Metacrock
That's because there isn't any.
Instead of dealing with the evidence presented they first try to shame it, mocking and ridiculing the idea and attacking what they see as Christian attitudes rather than looking at what the evidence shows. Then they just deny the evidence exists at all. I find they do this for almost all claims and all evidence. It's really pretty alarming how weak atheists are on evidence.
I presented my outline of argumetns on eight leves of verification for the new testament and I list over 25 scholars who I quote I showed each point that I quote them for.
Eight levels of Verification for Gospels underrigd belief in Res.
This post first saw life as an answer to other arguments I was making on the "other" board. It refers to things I have already documented and the names of the scholars I use to document them.
The argument it backs is this:
(1) There's real strong evidence to suggest that the stories that became the synoptic and John were told in the original community under controlled conditions, where eye witnesses were plentiful and could help keep it all straight.
(2) These stores were first written must 18 years , not 40, not 60 after he events. Still a major source of eye witnesses lived in order to correct the statements should they be wrong.
(3) While this hypothesis can't be proved absolutely the evidence for it is strong enough to foster confidence in the hypothesis: the resurrection is historical validated.
(4) logicians accept placing confidence in a partially proved hypothesis. so when I say that the evidence is strong enough to place confidence that means it's logical to accept the belief, especially if one has modern confirmations.*
*religious experience lending credence to belief.
the eight levels of verification
8 levels of Verification for Gospels
None of the atheist has answered these levels. A few have tried. Most have not even mentioned them. Most are just asserting they "can't be true" without even considering the facts.
those who have given it a good shot include GS and Elf, maybe a couple of others I can't recall my apologies if I can't.
those who have not even attempted yet asserting I haven't offered any evidence, even though they haven not attempted an answer include "Big thinker"Of course and Maybrick.
following is a summary of the sources I used. most of you were not willing even look at the links.
I list only 6 numberically the other 2 are a and b and c under Pauline.
1) The original pre Mark redaction
Sources of proof include Koester's book Ancient Christian Gospels, Jurgen denker,
John D. Crosson,
Philipp Vielhauer, Geschichte, 646
Peter kirby says its consensus in the field.
(2)the Pauline corups
....(a) what he got form people who were there
Quoting Paul himself: quotes James, the Jerusalem church's creedal formula and hymns.
....(b) his saying source.
synoptic saying source
........(c) the chruch tradition he learned in Jerusalem
(3) extra canonical Gospels such as Peter and Thomas
Hennecke-Schneemelcher-Wilson, NT Apocrypha 1.96
Charles Hendrick and Paul Mirecki
Ron Cameron, ed., The Other Gospels: Non-Canonical Gospel Texts (Philadelphia, PA: The Westminster Press 1982), pp. 23-37.)
Peter KIrby's site "Gosepel of Thoams"
Stephen J. Patterson, Gospel of Thomas and Jesus
Stevan L. Davies, The Gospel of Thomas: Annotated and Explained (Skylight Paths Pub 2002)
(4) Oral tradition
Papias (from Eusebius)
Robert C. Cully,Oral Tradition and Biblical Studies
(5)The Gospels themselves which reflect the community as a whole, a whole community full of people who were there.
(6) writers who write about their relationships with those who were there.
1 Clement (the source)
Richardson and Fairweather, et al. Early Christian Fathers, New York: MacMillian, 1970 p.45-46).
F.F. Bruce, NT documents
Irenaeus, Agaisnt heresies and missing fragment supplied by Calvin ....college
Eusebius Ecclesiastic histories
Papias, fragments (Peter Kirby, Early Christian Writings, site:http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/papias.html
Schoedel 1967: 91-92;
Kortner 1983: 89-94, 167-72, 225-26).
Documents of the Christian Church, edited by Henry Bettonson, Oxford University press 1963, 27).
Ante-Nicene Fathers vol 1
Iranaeus describes works of Papis
Seteven Carlson's site:http://www.mindspring.com/~scarlson/...ext/papias.htm
these face statements like "the Gospels have no backing" and telling me I haven't done anything to prove anything, this is not good enough see? It's' an untruth.
Here are all the statements atheists like Big thinker have quoted to back up there view:
O gee, I forget there aren't any not 0.
not good enough see! until you answer this stuff with your own research of an equal level then you are just flapping your gums.
Their answer in summary, collectively, was something like "this can't be verification of the New Testament becuase it can't have any." A huge portion of them argued this is circular becuase it's circular to claim verification for a book from evidence in the book. The problem with that is they are thinking of the argument about the fundamentalist who says "the Bible is the word of God and my proof I shall quote the Bible where it says it's the word of God." That is circular reason. Verification is not proof the Bible is the word of God, it's historical evidence outside the bible that stacks up to show the truth of the narrative in the Bible. The evidence of this extra biblical proof is referenced in the Gospels since they are constructed out of prior writings that match up with certain kinds of historical evidence. This is a very different thing than saying "the Bible is true becuase it says it is." The atheists don't bother to think about any of that, they jsut short hand, the sec web says "no" so it's "no." BTW the details for the quotation above can bee seen demonstrate to what each scholar refers on "histoircal Validity of the Gospels," on Religious A prori.
It all goes back to the same tendency of atheists to say "there's no evidence for your God" when they are staring 42 arguments in the fact (my God argument list). Antoher area in which I have pointed out that atheist can't deal with evidence is the historical evidence for the resurrection. They basically aruge agaisnt the possibility of the concept of resurrection and just pretend the historical evidence doesn't exist. It seems clear from these cases that essentially atheists can't deal with evidence, and in the main, not all but many have only one argument, that of argument form incredulity. Argument from incredulity is a refusal to consider the other side, it says "I refuse to believe ,therefore, it cant' be true." This one of the most flagrantly fallacious ways to argue.
Atheist compare this situation to empirical evidence. they like to imagine that their side as this mountain of factual back up that proves their world view in scinece. While all they really do is sing the praises of scinece as though it's a protection form an angry god, then selectively choose that which agrees with them while mocking and ridiculing prefecture good scinece that disproves their view point, such as my 200 studies on religious experience. (for a biboliography of many of the sources see here).