Saint Teresa

[jeremyp]

Statistically speaking it would be interesting to know how often prayers for healing to god or the saints result in a positive response?

About as often as not praying.

[floo]

About as often as not praying.

That is what I reckon.

[Bubbles]

So how can you attribute a miracle to someone who is dead?

Usually someone says they prayed to her and was miraculously healed.

[Bubbles]

no, it doesn't because the Catholic Church doesn't have a method what are in this case claims of the supernatural. And your position on this does not help then since despite their 'decades' of research you are telling them that their claims are not miracles as how they regard them.

They do have a method, because I remember reading about it once.

It's also here

http://www.catholicdigest.com/articles/faith/praying/2010/01-13/the-mystery-behind-a-miracle

Plus I think the store the bodies in the Vatican somewhere and they don't decompose like normal bodies.

One smelt of flowers apparently

[Nearly Sane]

They do have a method, because I remember reading about it once.

I have already covered their standard on the thread. I don't think it amounts to a method as it is does not establish supernatural, just says anything that isn't explained is supernatural.

[Nearly Sane]

Usually someone says they prayed to her and was miraculously healed.

and there isn't a method to show miraculously healed.

[Bubbles]

and there isn't a method to show miraculously healed.

The method is to show there can't have been a normal reason.

[Bubbles]

They dig you up and stick you in the Vatican

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1381907/Body-late-Pope-John-Paul-II-exhumed-ahead-beatification-Vatican.html

It's full of old bodies.

[Nearly Sane]

The method is to show there can't have been a normal reason.

and how  do you do that if you don't know all normal reasons?

[Bubbles]

I can't find the link I saw about the body that smelt of flowers but there is a bit here about it.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Odour_of_sanctity

If Mother Teresa comes up smelling of violets or roses, they will see that of proof of her position and it will probably validate her miracles.

[Bubbles]

and how  do you do that if you don't know all normal reasons?

They think they know all normal reasons.

[Bubbles]

It's all a bit grim really, opening up a coffin  after 30 years washing the body then plonking them in another coffin, then going to have another look ten years later.

 

I don't  know why they don't stick her in a glass vacuum and then they can see her all the time.

Anyway, the fact she was in such good condition, smelt of flowers and her rosery was in a poor condition ( suggesting her flesh should have rotted) was considered a miracle.

It's all a bit morbid though, keep opening the coffin to look.

 

http://www.catholicpilgrims.com/lourdes/bb_bernadette_body.htm

[Nearly Sane]

They think they know all normal reasons.

so not a method.

[Bubbles]

The concept is called

osmogenesia

[Bubbles]

so not a method.

Ok then, they  have a procedure.

 

[Nearly Sane]

Ok then, they  have a procedure.

 

Which is based on no method so is worthless in establishing what they claim.

[Bubbles]

Anyway they make a big deal of people not decomposing and keep digging them up

http://abcnews.go.com/International/story?id=81350

If you read that you'll see what I mean.

Apparently there are 91 bodies of popes in the Vatican crypts, I suppose it enables them to keep checking ..... Yuk!

I wonder how many times they'll dig up M T ?

It's all a bit yucky! 

[Brownie]

They dig you up and stick you in the Vatican

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1381907/Body-late-Pope-John-Paul-II-exhumed-ahead-beatification-Vatican.html

It's full of old bodies.

Oh gross!  I knew that sort of thing was done in days gone by but not now.  Yeuch.

When you think there has to be a very, very good reason and Home Office permission to exhume a body in normal circumstances, it's scandalous.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

and there isn't a method to show miraculously healed.

How would science deal with a leg that grew back?

Cue Gordon with it will never ever happen then Nearly Sane being eerily silent about the problem of induction.

[Nearly Sane]

How would science deal with a leg that grew back?

Cue Gordon with it will never ever happen then Nearly Sane being eerily silent about the problem of induction.

How would algebra deal with a eyelid that was turquoise?


The whole problem here is, as has been pointed out to you many many manytomes before, is that science is methodological naturalistic. It cannot show evidence for a supernatural claim. That's why you have been asked many many many times before for such a methodology and failed to provide it.

[Sebastian Toe]

How would science deal with a leg that grew back?

Possibly te same way that you would deal with finding that, actually Islam had incontrovertibly got it right?

[ProfessorDavey]

How would science deal with a leg that grew back?

Given that this actually occurs in many, many species (including vertebrates) and science has studied the mechanisms for years then this is hardly news and science has been 'dealing' with this for decades.

Now of course I guess you meant in a human - but failed to make that point - and that demonstrates your human-centric approach (something that science doesn't suffer from). Were this to happen in a human, and I suspect it would be a partial occurrence rather than a fully formed limb - then science would look to what it knows about the mechanisms in other species with a hypothesis that exceptionally unusually similar mechanisms had been triggered. Worth knowing (which I suspect you don't) that the basic pathways and molecules that drive limbs regeneration in other species are also present in humans although their capacity for regeneration seems to be attenuated for reasons we don't really understand yet.

So in regenerative medicine (a field of study I contribute to) the question is more about why limb regeneration occurs in some species but not others despite having similar fundamental mechanisms to control limb growth. And. of course, whether it might be possible to stop the attenuation of limb regeneration in humans in a controlled manner.

So I imagine if a human leg grew back it would be because scientists (using their knowledge of limb regeneration in other species) had worked out how to trigger those mechanisms in humans. So most likely it wouldn't be a 'miracle', but a miracle of science.

[Gordon]

How would science deal with a leg that grew back?

Cue Gordon with it will never ever happen then Nearly Sane being eerily silent about the problem of induction.

The obvious answer, Vlad, is to investigate - in this case I'm assuming you aren't thinking of this happening in humans because of some future limb-regeneration therapies and that you are thinking here of spontaneous re-growth without any medical intervention. If the latter, since the former implies a natural explanation for the re-grown limb, this will require a method that that specifically supports the investigation of 'miracles' - so good luck with that, and we'd love to see the plan.

Of course you wouldn't take reports of a leg that reportedly spontaneously re-grown at face value in the first place: you'd surely need to ensure that these reports of this weren't mistaken or were deliberate lies, since it is known that people are fallible and that some people can fabricate claims. I'm sure you'd agree with me that anyone who accepted miracle claims on the basis of anecdote alone would be naive in the extreme, and especially so where there reports have uncertain provenance, may involve parties with an interest in promoting the claim, may involve retrospective unattributed second-hand reports, aren't recent or where the risks of mistakes or fraud cannot be excluded. 

[floo]

How would science deal with a leg that grew back?

Cue Gordon with it will never ever happen then Nearly Sane being eerily silent about the problem of induction.

I believe that charlatan Benny Hinn claimed his healing had caused an amputated limb to grow back!

[Aruntraveller]

I am having trouble with this whole idea of miracles.

What criteria is used for performing a miracle on any given individual. I am sure that Monika Besra was as deserving as anyone else of a miracle - but more deserving than any other person suffering?

How does this prioritisation of miracles work? Or is it just an example that God delivers through a chosen one to give us all hope?

If so, isn't God setting up the vast majority of people to feel rejected as not worthy to be cured of the illness that eventually will carry us all off?

Very strange. I prefer more rational explanations: Besra's husband and doctors all testified that Monika had been treated by drugs and cured.

Nobody lives forever - now that would be proof positive of miracles. We all die of something.

However, the human race produces many exceptions in the field of ill health where people recover when not expected to. It is an area that is fascinating and needs much more study - but to attribute it to miracles is a step too far.