Historians can be so proasic!

[MarkFL]

Yes, if we are going to quibble over the definition of verifiable, then we aren't going to get anywhere. To me, it is very clear the difference between those things which can be demonstrated to be true, and those things which cannot. Also, my rejection of a claim is not faith, it is the very opposite of that, so we disagree also on the definition of faith.

 

[MarkFL]

Miracles have happened verified by doctors, x rays and so on. No medical reason for healing yet there it is. Thats a fact

Things have happened which doctors may not be able to explain at that time, however this doesn't mean we get to call it a suspension of the natural order or divine intervention...we simply get to call it something we cannot explain at the moment. It just means our understanding is not complete.

 

[psalms 91]

That is bending over backwwards to explain away the miraculous, miracles happen every day if you but know to look for them, they are all around us

 

[MarkFL]

That is bending over backwwards to explain away the miraculous, miracles happen every day if you but know to look for them, they are all around us

To me, taking something that we can't presently explain and declaring it to be a miracle (as an assertion) is bending over backwards to the point of breaking and beyond. Saying "we don't know" is the more honest approach. We may believe it to be a miracle, and that's fine, but to say it is a miracle as a statement of fact is intellectually dishonest.

 

[psalms 91]

To me, taking something that we can't presently explain and declaring it to be a miracle (as an assertion) is bending over backwards to the point of breaking and beyond. Saying "we don't know" is the more honest approach. We may believe it to be a miracle, and that's fine, but to say it is a miracle as a statement of fact is intellectually dishonest.

When someone has an inoperable tumor or an incurable disease and they recover or the tumor just disappears I know what to call it, trying to explain it away is a bigger stretch to me

 

[MarkFL]

We can call honestly call something we can't explain a mystery...stating a supernatural agent intervened as fact is the actual stretch of intellectual dishonesty.

If you say, "I believe that was a miracle!" then you won't get any argument from me. However, if you say "That can only be a miracle!" then you have made a statement of fact, and unless you can demonstrate the truth of your statement, you are wrong in claiming it as a fact.

 

[Josiah]

Yes, if we are going to quibble over the definition of verifiable, then we aren't going to get anywhere. [

I'm only pointing out that what you call "verification" is pretty subjective.... and since you limit the possibilities so that ONLY your assumptions and faith CAN be affirmed, then it's just a circle. Again, if you insist that fruit can only be black, then you will reject apples (since they are never black), but does that mean apples aren't real?

my rejection of a claim is not faith, it is the very opposite of that, so we disagree also on the definition of faith.

But you ARE making claims! Huge ones! Ones you cannot verify as true, but you believe they are true. Your claim that this is a closed universe, ONLY "natural", the only reality what you label ("natural") ie "fits" with your individual current understanding of physics since a few seconds after the Big Bang (in this dimension/ universe?). That IS a claim. You ARE relying on that. Faith = to rely, to trust; especially (but not exclusively) on something you personally cannot verify absolutely as true.



- Josiah

 

[MarkFL]

Okay, well we disagree on the definitions of very fundamental terms. As I said, we aren't going to get anywhere like that. My refutations would be reiterations of my previous posts and so there's no need for that.

 

[MoreCoffee]

Yes, if we are going to quibble over the definition of verifiable, then we aren't going to get anywhere. To me, it is very clear the difference between those things which can be demonstrated to be true, and those things which cannot. Also, my rejection of a claim is not faith, it is the very opposite of that, so we disagree also on the definition of faith.

Christian claims about miracles, about the Lord Jesus Christ, and about God are mainly claims about history and events from history. These cannot be verified by repeating them. They can be tested only by checking historical sources - and that means either digging up remains or consulting written accounts. The holy scriptures of the Catholic Church are a set of ancient sources that testify to miracles, people, events, and so forth. I suspect that because the claims about miracles in the holy scriptures are claims about extraordinary events one would be tempted to ask for "extraordinary evidence" before accepting them but does anybody even know what "extraordinary evidence" for an historic event is? Even if there were many sources (and their usually is not) from many "independent witnesses" (though how one could prove independence is not so easy to understand given the lapsed time since Moses, for example, and us) that is not "extraordinary evidence" in a scientific sort of way. So for a mind inclined to scepticism regarding Christian claims about God and Jesus Christ there is not much in the way of "proof" to be offered - there is reasoned argument to be offered but even reasoned argument is not "proof" it is evidence but there's no guarantee that evidence will convince.