The debate "Catholic people have claims for miracles with no evidence. They are essentially blind to the truth" was started by
November 11, 2015, 10:18 pm.
30 people are on the agree side of this discussion, while 21 people are on the disagree side.
That might be enough to see the common perception.
It looks like most of the people in this community are on the agreeing side of this statement.
zoeclare7 posted 2 arguments, omactivate posted 2 arguments to the agreers part.
Apollo8 posted 4 arguments, Lane posted 3 arguments, pajrc1234 posted 1 argument to the disagreers part.
omactivate, zoeclare7, SweetAngel, tr, Tiredandred, AstroSpace, DannyknowsItAll, Tristanzee, wmgreen00, xbulletwithbutterflywingsx, Skeetc15, AlexRose1517, Sli, omgflyingbannas and 16 visitors agree.
pajrc1234, Apollo8, Alex, MrDebate, liberalssuck, andrewkorman, Lane, MrShine, bigB, Glyan14 and 11 visitors disagree.
while you are correct on the most part, the only part you are missing is that the truth DOES exist, but we just haven't figured it all out yet.
I also have to say that when you provocatively call a group of people blind to the truth because you disagree with them, like so many people do today, you are displaying your own blindness... You have to accept that people are free to believe what they want, AT LEAST until science proves it wrong. Science has not done that yet, so it is not right to say that Catholics are blind to a truth; a truth doesn't actually exist yet.
The prompt can be reversed right? I can turn it around and say that "People who claim that miracles(meaning all miracles) are just illogical theories do not have evidence" and you'd be stuck saying that miracles have been proven wrong by science in the past. The exact same way that i'm saying there are still plenty of miracles in the present day that science has not proven wrong.
You can't say that people are wrong about miracles, shouldn't even try if you don't have a way to disprove the ones that remain intact, despite science. I asked for that in my other message, still waiting. You can say a miracle is science, but, until it is scientifically proven, that will be nothing more than a speculation, as good as the idea that it is divine.
Sorry if that comes across as angry, but the prompt is kind of provocative, and statements like that cause a lot of unrest through the whole world.
@PsychDave What an argument... So I know that this is mainly about "catholic blindness" but let me bring up another prominent religion, Hinduism. Hinduism has got close ties with science. In fact, it is probably the most scientific of the major faiths. Catholicism does not really support science, nor does science really support Catholicism. But when you come upon a religion that does, one that has a Superior being plus three other main ones and thousands of minor gods under that, and you consider miracles that have happened in Hinduism... what would you all say to that in relation to this debate?
My opinion is that, if the truth about something is not known, then there is no truth yet, nothing to be blind to. Way back, thunder and lightning were thought to be divine. They did not know the truth, so they had the right to believe in divinity. Years later, we know it is nature, and believing that thunder and lightning is still God is admittedly wrong. But it changes when we discover the truth, not before then. While I acknowledge the trend that omactivate mentioned, that science repeatedly has proven miracles to be science and I think it is a good point, I still think that, before we know the truth about something, we are free to call it what we want. Lights in the sky can be called God, they can be called UFOs, they can be called military rockets or something. Until we know the truth, we are free to speculate. Whenever a truth comes up, whenever science proves another miracle wrong, it may not be accepted at first but over time it will be. I stick with the idea that you cannot be blind to a truth that does not exist yet, and that, while there is that trend of miracles being proven wrong by science, until science actually proves it wrong, it can be whatever people want it to be. And it is not like religious people don't work in scientific fields, it isn't like they aren't trying to find answers for things. I know several Christian scientists who believe in God and they believe in certain miracles. Why? Because science hasn't even been able to touch them yet. That's a truth, isn't it? Science has not been able to prove certain miracles for quite a while.
My message seems to not have crossed over to your side. I am not being negligent of the technology we have nor I am believing that miracles are ultimately there set in cold stone.
In science itself, if you try and look at the theory of quantum physics, it tries to tell us that life itself is a chance. In real life application on why those theories even remain to be valid is that we never know when things are going to happen. The numbers don't apply. No matter the device you have, no one has ever been able to foretell when an earthquake is going to happen.
The very theory of quantum physics argues that nothing can be predicted because the universe works in a random way, supporting Darwin's theory of evolution. A basic concept I'm sure all of you will understand, hopefully if you are still willing to go that far, is breakage and cleavage. When you break a glass, try to look at the point of breakage. Break another glass. I bet even if you try to reenact the entire process with an identical glass, the breakage points will never be the same, right? This is the theory of quantum physics. The universe works in randomness.
Likewise, cancer itself is a juxtaposition of the same theory. No one, and I mean no one, is ever able to understand why a person's cancer varies per another person. Every cancer a person gets is different from one another.
The burden of proof I am talking abput is the idea that people who believe to choose the idea of a miracle can never be compelled otherwise if the opposition itself cannot prove such. No opposition have right now exposed the reason of cancer actually occuring from thin air. No opposition have ever deciphered when it's going to have an earthquake. No opposition can guarantee to us that there are always answers to the questions of science. Yes I do admit that there are technicalities trying to work around that but it seems unsubstantial yet for everyone to see that miracles do not uphold.
Additionally, it's not my burden to defend people who become negligent of science because what I am obligated to do is to try and discern your thought and claims which overgeneralizes Catholics.
In my defense, you never try to deconstruct the rationality of the mindset of people believing in miracles. Oftentimes than not, people look at miracles because science itself can't prove it. And they will continue to believe in that; they will continue to believe their own sense of truth because no proof on the other side is yet to be visible.
Apollo8, why would the burden of proof shift to those saying there is no proof? If you claim someone committed a crime and I ask for proof, I am not responsible for proving that the evidence doesn't exist, you have to show that it does.
You also seem to be misinformed about many things. We do know what causes earthquakes. The tectonic plates are the giant plates the continents rest on. They shift over time and, where two plates meet there are fault lines. If they are shifting apart we get volcanoes as the molten core is exposed (like the ring of fire). If they are shifting together we get mountains. No matter which way they are moving, there is a great deal of friction, as you can imagine from two giant pieces of rock rubbing. This friction stops them from moving until the pressure gets strong enough and they slip. That is am earthquake.
Cancer is a mutation of the genes in a cell that causes it to divide out of control. People get it when their cells are somehow damaged. This can be through radiation, chemicals, or simply through genetic susceptibility to these mutations.
Your argument is essentially one of a God of the gaps. Miracles are the things we don't understand yet, but that list gets shorter every year. No longer is the sun crossing the sky a miracle, or thunder and lightning, or so many other things that used to be divinely attributed. That is the argument the topic makes. That those who believe in miracles are closing their eyes instead of looking for the true causes. I cannot prove miracles do not exist, but the responsibility to prove their existence is not on me. I have never witnessed a miracle, so I can't say that they exist. The closest I have come is stage magicians, and while I cannot explain what they do, I am aware that it is illusion rather than divine.
Well we have thought many things are miracles and then we get a scientific explanation for it. Really this trend has continued throughout history and yourefuse to see it
omactivate, i think you're lacking some things. You now have the burden of proving that miracles really don't exist.
The enigma of a miracle is that no one else can ever explain it. Nobody knows how exactly people acquire cancer by chance. People don't know why earthquakes happen let alone how come they appear in one place instead of the others. Even scientists and doctors do not have all the answer to everything. The term 'miracle' was simply coined to generalize these mysteries with a religious veil. As long as these questions cannot be answered by science , as long as you have the burden of proof and is not able to prove such, then ultimatelty, a miracle stands.
If I become sick to the point of near-dying, and the next day I suddenly got better, and science itself can't prove it, then it's a miracle for me. It's me believing in destiny or whatever sh**. At the end of the day you can't disprove it because you can't prove its opposite, assuming you ever find that one. So miracles, when left unchallenged, stand but it doesn't mean the absolute 100% denial of the truth.
The truth is that miracles don't exist
You all have cool arguments. I wonder, of the person who created the debate and of those who firmly agree with no qualifications, what is the truth that Catholics are essentially blind to? Has any truth actually been established regarding miracles? Incorruptible bodies, miraculous healing and alleged levitation during prayer are not backed by science, which I will assume is where you would look to find a "truth". But they are backed by religion. Unfortunately, religion does not come with guarantees the way science does. It cannot be definitely said that the incorruptible bodies that are still around today are kept that way because God blessed them or whatever. But, if believing that these incorruptible bodies remain through God's blessings is blindness to the "truth", then tell me what the real truth is. I would like to know exactly what the truth is that Catholics are blind to. If possible, provide evidence that Catholic's belief in incorruptibility from God, miraculous healing from God, and levitation through prayer from God are not true, and tell me what is actually happening in those alleged miracles.
zoeclare7 agreed and said "no one can honestly know the true truth of the world around us" and went on to say, the same way I believe Apollo8 did in the first message, that it is based on belief. Something that cannot be proven with solid evidence is subject to claims and theories, beliefs.That does not mean that people who believe one thing are wrong and "blind to the truth". If there is no hard evidence against these major miracles, people are certainly free to believe what they want, including linking it to religion.
I am amused at the debate and will be interested to read what the "truth" is as well as evidence supporting the "truth" that Catholics are blind to.
What most people fail to see here is that even Catholics can have progressive ideas and are not restrained by orthodox propaganda. People can believe in miracles and at the same time believe in the entirety of science. Do not disregard that fact.
Counterburden for those who agree to the claim of the statement:
Are you saying that all people that do not consent to their faith is essentially seeing the all perfect truth?
Likewise, are you saying that ALL people who believe in their religion or some by mystical force, consider that the entirety of science is essentially untrue and blasphemous?
Pope Francis has a degree in biology. Not all Catholics are blind like what many of you pressume. Deal with the facts, people.
Essentially, they are not blind, but looking in a different direction.
This is more an argument about the empirialistic truth versus the "true" truth, and no one can honestly know the "true" truth about the world around us. However, every individual has to make a personal decision as to what they believe the true truth is, either basing their views on imperialism (like myself) or the existence of an all powerful force or being (like most religions, including Catholicism)
If I would argue in the side of the affirmative, I would simply cite a quote: "I have therefore found it necessary to deny logic in order to make room for faith."
I do understand that to some extent, it is plausible. But I do NOT think that when we Catholics chose to believe in faith that we necessarilly become ground zero ignorant. Do not compare the entirety of Catholicism with bigotted ones. Because I tell you, even if my beliefs are infringed by scientific discoveries, I still do accept the scientific explanation and maybe along the lines think that there is a reason why we had been interpreted the wrong information or understanding, or more commonly, I think both scenario hold true. That for example the saying that the universe was created in just 7 days is contradicting to science's explanation that it had been billions of years, Catholics can argue that when it was stated that the universe was created within seven days, it isn't necessarily supposed to be within 7 earthly days, because the definition of days extend to such multitudinous scope when spoken by a higher being. Some Catholics even believe that the bible is not the absolute reference to God's intentions. Believeing in miracles has been a way of coping and understsanding something so bizzare that only the numbers of probability could have decided. Believing in miracles is subjective. I do believe in miracles but not to the extent of thinking that breathing in itself is a miracle. If we believe in being able to pass tests out of random possibility, the numbers become a miraculous event. If someone helas that even doctors can't describe, we call it a miracle because no understanding have ever fathomed the situation before.
Aside from that, if you try to look at it, at a scientific perspective with no religion attached, it is even a miracle for there to be life on Earth considering that it's hard to find another planet with a intelligent life because even the disolution of Mars' atmosphere was a misgiving we miraculously did not recieve.
Believing in what we believe is not being negligent to the truth, it's a way of life just like how we choose to live our days.