How Do You Conclude...?

[POI]

Christians might often make statements such as (paraphrased):

"God answered my prayer(s)"
"God helped me with this/that"
"God guided me in the right direction"
etc etc etc etc etc etc..................

For Debate:

How do Christians conclude God answers any prayers, or helps anyone with anything? What mechanism(s) is/are used to discern God's hand at all, verses not?

[AquinasForGod]

[Replying to DaveD49 in post #105]

I mentioned this miracle to POI.

Of course, the problem is, it is the only story of a human limb returning in "modern times."

So if we accept it, then we have Jesus doing it in the gospel, and this case. So I wouldn't expect a limb to grow back by praying for it. It seems to be an extremely rare event, but we cannot claim it is an impossible event.

[JoeyKnothead]

[Replying to DaveD49 in post #105]

I mentioned this miracle to POI.

Of course, the problem is, it is the only story of a human limb returning in "modern times."

So if we accept it, then we have Jesus doing it in the gospel, and this case. So I wouldn't expect a limb to grow back by praying for it. It seems to be an extremely rare event, but we cannot claim it is an impossible event.

We can't claim it's impossible for waffles to spontaneously sprout up out of the ground either.

So we rely on what's most plausible, most logical.

That missing limb, not found where the guy said it should be, is compelling evidence he done snowed him a mess of folks.

But the believer's able to comfort themselves in the astoundingly impossible, simply by declaring a sliver, a mote, a spec of possibility borne of the impossibility of proving a negative is all they need to hold onto such ludicrous, laughable beliefs.

[DaveD49]

Yes, the theory that he didn't actually lose the leg at all was in the Wikipedia article as well, but the list of the testimony of a number of doctors and scientists of the day should put that to rest.

The testimony from the trial also states there was no buried leg to be found where the guy said it should be.

There's nothing more than a desire to believe going on here.

It was not the guy who buried the leg but rather the officials. And they recorded where they buried it.

The fact that there is recorded history of the event and the people involved lends absolute credence to the story, even though it was from 4 centuries ago.

There's "recorded history" of dead folks hopping up, global flooding, and all manner of godly shenanigans. They share in common an inability to confirm. [/quote]

How worthy is the evidence of those events. Certainly some of those are from the Bible, but it cannot be used as "evidence" that the event actually occurred in the manner described. What we are talking about here is completely different. Scientific evidence and testimony still exist to this day of the event and that the man actually did lose a leg. It was not until two years after the leg was surgically removed that it somehow reappeared, and when it did it was the same leg that was cut off and buried two years earlier. The man had to undergo rehab to regain full use of it. Granted I do see how the story has the loophole that the man could have been faking it and just had his leg tied up for two years... he still would have needed rehab to use it. But what is compelling here is the testimony of so many people, including the doctor who removed the leg and had it buried. I acknowledge that the story is 400 years old, and who really knows what actually happened? But if you rely only on the evidence of the case which has been preserved you arrive at an inescapable conclusion.

FYI I do not put much trust in sites such as "Skeptoid" that are created for the sole purpose of trying to dismiss miracles and the like. All the reports I have read from such sites rely only on conjecture with no true evidence given.

The true evidence from your own reference says that missing leg couldn't be found where ol' Jesus 2.0 said it was, yet you happily accept all other parts that support the miracle tale. [/quote]

According to the story a new leg didn't all of a sudden grow back on but rather it was the same leg that supposedly had been removed and buried, complete with bruises and scars that were on it before. And yes, I see how that can be seen as evidence that the guy was faking it as well. I do have my doubts. If it were not for the testimonies I would probably agree with you.

In as far as the deaf boy event, yes I recognize that my experience of the event was my experience and not "proof" to anyone. Can I prove it happened? No. But did it happen? Yes. And I personally witnessed it.

Don't it beat all, you swear it up and down, but just can't offer us a means to confirm it happened as you aver.

I have no doubt you're presenting the tale as honest and truthful as you can. Unfortunately you offer us no other supporting, confirmable data to go on.

What church and when? Who was the preacher / miracle inducer, and do we have their recollections? Who witnessed these events, that we could cross examine, besides you?

Let me make myself clear here... I respect the fact that you present what data you can for analysis (where so many shy from challenges). This, if only to me, does present as a person of honor and integrity. Of that I have no doubt. I just doubt your concludings.
[/quote]

I did give the who, what, where and when. Fr. Ralph DiOrio, early '80s, Worcester Auditorium. Here is the result of google search of his name: https://www.google.com/search?q=fr.+dio ... e&ie=UTF-8 He was the author of several books. The last I heard he was retired and must be in his late'80s or '90s now.

[DaveD49]

[Replying to DaveD49 in post #105]

I mentioned this miracle to POI.

Of course, the problem is, it is the only story of a human limb returning in "modern times."

So if we accept it, then we have Jesus doing it in the gospel, and this case. So I wouldn't expect a limb to grow back by praying for it. It seems to be an extremely rare event, but we cannot claim it is an impossible event.

I did not see your mention of this, so sorry if I stole your fire, but I agree with what you said, except that according to the story a new limb did not grow back but rather the same limb "reappeared". This in my mind is far more compelling to doubt the story rather than believing it. But, as I said in another response I wouldn't accept it if it were not for the evidence and testimonies that back up the story. The fact that I haven't personally seen this evidence but have just seen it referred to still does give me pause.

[AquinasForGod]

[Replying to DaveD49 in post #105]

I mentioned this miracle to POI.

Of course, the problem is, it is the only story of a human limb returning in "modern times."

So if we accept it, then we have Jesus doing it in the gospel, and this case. So I wouldn't expect a limb to grow back by praying for it. It seems to be an extremely rare event, but we cannot claim it is an impossible event.

I did not see your mention of this, so sorry if I stole your fire, but I agree with what you said, except that according to the story a new limb did not grow back but rather the same limb "reappeared". This in my mind is far more compelling to doubt the story rather than believing it. But, as I said in another response I wouldn't accept it if it were not for the evidence and testimonies that back up the story. The fact that I haven't personally seen this evidence but have just seen it referred to still does give me pause.

I agree. It is difficult to not be a little skeptical.

[DaveD49]

[Replying to DaveD49 in post #105]

I mentioned this miracle to POI.

Of course, the problem is, it is the only story of a human limb returning in "modern times."

So if we accept it, then we have Jesus doing it in the gospel, and this case. So I wouldn't expect a limb to grow back by praying for it. It seems to be an extremely rare event, but we cannot claim it is an impossible event.

I did not see your mention of this, so sorry if I stole your fire, but I agree with what you said, except that according to the story a new limb did not grow back but rather the same limb "reappeared". This in my mind is far more compelling to doubt the story rather than believing it. But, as I said in another response I wouldn't accept it if it were not for the evidence and testimonies that back up the story. The fact that I haven't personally seen this evidence but have just seen it referred to still does give me pause.

I agree. It is difficult to not be a little skeptical.