I think you misunderstand my arguments. But I think that what I say will not do any good, as it seems you already have your mind made up about things. The point of difference between such Catholic articles of faith and your examples is simple and can be reduced to a dichotomy: blind faith versus reasonable faith. Blind faith is believing a proposition contrary to reason or without any reason at all. Reasonable faith relies on probable reasons to support the certainty of its propositions. So, for example, I believe the moon not to be made of green cheese because I trust scientists who know more than I do about using light and telescopy to prove this with light wavelengths as well as astronauts who have been there. It is a reasonable belief. Religious belief is of the same species, but slightly different in some ways. I believe that Christ was God because He performed miracles to substantiate His claim. Likewise, His Church continues to perform miracles to substantiate its claim to be from God. These establish a probable foundation for belief. But if we accept this, the belief becomes more than probable; it rather is more certain than any other knowledge because it derives not from a more or less credible human authority, but from God Himself, who is the highest authority.

If you continue merely to assert that such faith is just absurd without reason, I will have to discontinue my conversation.

Yours In Christ, Eternal Wisdom,

StMichael 

"but He would make water into wine. This is an event that ordinarily happens in a natural manner (vines take up water and make grapes, which makes wine, ect.), but in this case of miraculous working, it happens in an utterly supernatural manner (instantly and without any means other than God's power)."

And this is yet only one of the cases where we can prove that the religious accounts of such an event, if you are to be considered correct, are purely literary in their intent. That is to say; If god really did just "speed up" a natural occurrance, there would have been far more in that cup than water. Unfortunately, a cup full of dirty, excrement-filled water isn't exactly romantic. It is how a vine would manage to turn water into wine, however.

If your argument goes further to contend that, because all things are made of the same matter but only the organization differs from element to element, clearly all the necessary ingredients were there to make the wine, we can conclude even more. There is clearly enough matter present in a given space(when one considers the air and the earth as well) to spontaneously create a lambo., and even if it were not present one would have to assume that transporting this matter to the place of need would be trivial. If you're particularly opposed to the claim that an individual can produce a lambo. out of his rectum, would you be opposed to the claim that I personally can turn coal into diamonds with my bare hands? Of course. But why? Because I'm not a trusted source? Surely it isn't because I'm not strong enough; my muscles have nothing to do with it, I'm creating the diamonds through the will of a supernatural power which can accomplish anything.

"They are rational because the source from which we believe such things are themselves trustworthy. Namely, Christ and His Church came displaying manifest miracles to prove that they were truly from God. It is on God's authority as revealing that we understand that these things happened."

Christ and His Church existed and allegedly performed these miracles thousands of years before your birth. Why do you have more reason to believe in them than the alleged miracles of prophets of other faiths?

Doesn't it still boil down to people with agendas that would benefit from these miracles (past, present and future) saying, "Hey, these are really miracles. Trust us."?

Can you please give examples of current miracles? The incorruptables don't cut it in my book, I've provided evidence as to why in another thread if you choose to read it.

What's more, and as others have suggested, how is it that you can *know* something is a miracle, and something else is just something we don't yet understand? Is everything we don't yet understand a miracle? What happens when we do understand?

HOW are they more than unsubstantiated hearsay? you have seen them yourself? you have tested them and found them to be truly supernatural miracles? you have been able to prove their source once you have established they are indeed supernatural? show me how you aren't basing your entire life on unsubstantiated hearsay.

there is no such dichotomy. there is no such thing as "reasonable faith." it is an oxymoron. faith by its very nature is irrational. you cannot have rational irrationality.

this example is fatally flawed, because it is not an example of FAITH. scientists base their conclusions about the composition of the moon on evidence. faith (by definition) provides no such evidence.

but it is absurd and without reason. all faith is without reason. no matter how much you justify your faith to yourself, it will never be reasonable.

Well! Looks like Brian went a little postal in this thread, but I'll admit I find it quite entertaining LOL! Michael & I are currently on the topic of miracles here, feel free to join us. But really quick, rergarding your distinction between "blind faith" and "reasonable faith": You illuminate this dichotomy by the moon of green cheese example. The thing about the green cheese moon belief is that it is falsifiable. There exists a means for determining whether or not the moon is made of green cheese. Yet you yourself acknowledge that the virgin birth and resurrection are not falsifiable. Of course, you cannot permit them to be falsifiable, because, then the god who authored them would be falsifiable, and the whole artifice would come crashing asunder. Therefore, not reasonable faith.

Yarn is correct - you have remained polite. So far, my patience has matched yours...let's see if it lasts.

Unsubstantiated?
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ISBN=0895550660/roberttoddcarrolA/
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ISBN=0879758406/roberttoddcarrolA/
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ISBN=0786404922/roberttoddcarrolA/

Those are three of the four books cited on the main page itself. Follow any of the links, and you'll find even more. While I back up my claims with the opinions of people who obviously know more about this than I do, you simply decree things; you declare my evidence unsubstantiated, yet you have provided no such link of any kind, not even an unsubstantiated one, let alone one which cites many sources.

Further, the fact that one incorruptable *can* be disproven is plenty of evidence to suggest that they all *could* be. You're of the opinion that no scientist will ever come up with a real answer, you conceded the point already, you just don't know it yet.

More than that, it doesn't matter that this or that particular body can be shown or proven to have been preserved. What matters far more is that you don't *only* find these "incorruptibles" amongst christianity. IF you look, you will find them in roughly equal proportion everywhere. But ONLY if you seek to find them in other places. If you seek to convince yourself that it's all saints and other christian folk, and thus this is proof of god, you'll succeed; but only in convincing yourself.

Are you of the opinion that this is some sort of warm-up period? That the "real" debate is coming later or something like that? Because if not, why say " I would point to...", and not actually point there. You've said a whole lot of stuff in this paragraph, but NONE of it matters because you haven't provided me with one iota of proof in your favor. The fact that you seem unable to do so places me in such a position as to think you a liar on the face of it. You probably don't know any of that for sure, even if any of it is true, you're just repeating what you heard from someone else.

If you read that in a book, WHICH book? If on an official website, provide a link. It's not hard, I've done it several times already. Or maybe you don't understand how I've done it, and it's a miracle?

Another fine point, if one is still needed, to affirm that theological faith is unjustified belief, and that attempts to conflate theistic faith with colloquial usages of 'faith' is nothing more than a fallacy of equivocation.

Sorry, I should have put this in my previous reply, but I thought of it late. We have accounts, sure, but that's not the same as proof. There are accounts of all of the pagan gods doing all kinds of things. Does that make them true on the face of it? Someone said it, it must be true! The fact that they've been repeated throughout the ages just indicates people are no less gullible now than they were years ago.

Again, you've failed to provide any actual information to read aside from what you yourself have written. I do not believe every word you say as a matter of principle(don't take it personally, nobody holds that accord in my life, nobody ever will), so why would you think it sufficient to simply bang away on the keyboard and press the "submit" button without providing me with actual information? You telling me that "We do, however, have numerous accounts of saints throughout history who raised the dead to life" doesn't actually provide me with these accounts. If you want me to believe them, I'll actually have to read them first. You really, really, really need to learn how to start citing your sources.

It's impossible to respond to what you're saying because I can't gather any information about it, and you do nothing to provide me with any clue as to what specifically you're talking about. Instead all I can do is respond to the nature of your argument itself. What you've actually argued has become less important than how you've gone about arguing it. You're out of the realm where evidence matters anymore; You say things like "No such test is possible because such was utterly beyond human capacity; it was a miracle, which by definition can only be performed by God" on the matter of determining whether something is a miracle or not. The problem with that statement is it assumes one knows everything there is to know about science. Doctors today who "raise" people from the "dead", are they working miracles? No. They are using science to do what someone without knowledge of such capability might otherwise call a miracle. Am I suggesting someone paddle-shocked Jesus from the grave? No, mainly because I know that no such technology existed at the time, but partly because I don't believe he ever rose from the grave anyways. What I'm saying is that just because you now determine something to be "beyond the realm of science" and therefore determine that the act "can only be performed by God", doesn't meant it is, it only means that you lack the knowledge to understand how it could be done without a god.

First, the miracles that are constantly being manifested within the Catholic Church are not unsubstantiated heresay. That would imply that one heard the event through another with no evidence to support that a miracle occurred. However, we have great grounds to believe that these things occurred, as miracles in the Catholic Church are recorded in cases of canonization hearings with mounds of evidence, miracles at shrines are documented by the shrines themselves (such as the standing International Lourdes Medical Committee), miracles are attested to by the scientists themselves who investigate the miracles in independent studies, ect. The amount of evidence alone indicates something clearly other than unsubstantiated heresay. You might claim that all of it is false, but it is neither unsubstantiated nor heresay.

Second, todangst, you have still yet to provide me with a single reason why colloquial faith is being improperly applied to religious faith. You have no grounds to claim that it is incorrect. The history of theology clearly has been using that definition since its inception, and, frankly, its our term and you can't impose whatever meaning you like on what we believe. You can claim, for instance, not to believe in the Mass and to criticize our belief, but you can't define what transubstantiation is. It is a great big non sequitur.

Third, I have cited medical doctors who published their findings in medical journals. One of the more recent ones I previously cited was in the October 2000 Hawaiian Medical Journal, which involved a case being presented in the canonization hearings of Fr. Damien (who was a priest who worked with lepers in Hawaii). Further, all cases of canonization in the Catholic Church must be exhaustively verified and documented by professionals, preferrably non-Catholics.

Fourth, when todangst claims that

Fifth, I never claimed that faith assumes God's existence. Faith has God's existence as a preamble, which means that faith reveals something about God's existence that is naturally knowable. In this way, faith "assumes" something that can be proven naturally. God chose to reveal His existence, even though we could know it naturally, to allow people to know that He exists with certainty, where if He had not, people would only have discovered it after a long time and with much admixture of error.

Sixth, you say,

Seventh, Scripture holds that faith is not unjustified, as you claim, but rationally justified. Thus, Saint Peter can say, "But sanctify the Lord Christ in your hearts, being ready always to satisfy every one that asketh you a reason of that hope which is in you." Or, for example, the many instances of such phrases as the one on my signature.

Eighth, I would point out that those books you cited against the Incorruptibles, namely the book by Cruz, is actually in favor of them and contains citations of the medical documents which support their claims to authenticity.

Ninth, there have been disputed incorruptibles, like Saint Francis Xavier and the like. But many others have never been so disputed and their particular mode of incorruption defies medical science.

Tenth, whereas there have been various types of incorruptiblity in various cultures (NOT with equal frequency to Catholic saints, I may add), the Catholic saints who are incorrupt notioriously so in the face of extraordinary circumstances where they were buried in situations where bodies rotted all around them, and they alone were left incorrupt, or where their lack of decay was not naturally explainable. There are cases of natural incorruption where one is frozen, or falls into a peat bog, or is placed in a specific type of catacomb under the right conditions, but the miracle is that the incorruptibles have not been in these conditions. Rather, they have been found in adverse conditions which cause corruption and have not been embalmed. Hence, the miracle.

Eleventh, so why doesn't the Lourdes commission matter? I post a link to their website at the shrine's: http://www.lourdes-france.org/index.php?goto_centre=ru&contexte=en&id=491&id_rubrique=491#.
I would encourage reading a list of the cures which were approved by the Church, as well as the methodology by which they decide to call a cure miraculous. You can read the recent decisions and minutes of the International Medical Committee, as well as the credentials of the chair (who happens to be a member of the French Academy of Medicine).

I think that is enough for now. I am sure there is plenty here to discuss

Yours In Christ, Eternal Wisdom,
StMichael

PS - Happy Solemnity of the Presentation of Our Lord (Candlemas)!

Naked assertions are of no value in rational discourse.

If you have a reason for your belief, why even use the word 'faith'? at all?

Recall in our past encouters where I pointed out to you that faith is simply unjustified belief, and you responded by conceding that theistic faith begins with an assumption.

You refuted yourself here. Your failure to acknowledge this is not a refutation.  All you could do was say 'well, it's an assumption, but it's not properly begging the question."  But assuming what you seek to prove IS properly begging the question.

QED 

In other words, no matter what argument I give you, you'll just naysay it, and hold to what you want to believe.

Thanks for the honesty. 

BINGO!

Neither the birth or death of the supposed Jesus character can be replicated or falsified.

You are right, you admit to not having evidence. So why are your here at this site?

I suppose for the same reason I've heard Muslim apoligists try to convince me that the Quran proved that Allah gave them plate techonics.

HERE IS THE BOTTEM LINE,

Like you said, you have no evidence for those claims nor any other fantastic claim in the bible.

You, like Jews and Muslims, merely like what you believe.

But isn't it amazing that you can teach cell division to a Muslim, Christian, Jewish and Hindu student sitting right next to each other IN A LAB!

I find it funny that you burry your admission in the middle of a extreemly long post. It is as if you know I'll read but hope others wont see your admission.

But, like you said, and this is the one thing we do agree on. There is no need to go on because you admited you had no evidence.

Maybe you should examine your own claims. 

I know I you wernt claiming it was personal preferance. I AM TELLING YOU, you have been dupped into wanting to believe it, so now that you do, the mental gymnastics kick in your brain to justify it. I never said that you were aware that you were doing that to yourself.

You cannot repicate the virgin birth anymore than a Hindu can replicate Vishnu anymore than I could fart a lamborginni out of my ass.

You have no evidence, you admited to it. Again, maybe you need to examine exactly what it is you believe. 

We have dead bodies buried in Normandy.  We have shell casings.  We have multiple, independent accounts of it happening.  It is not an article of faith.  It is not something that only catholics or scientologists believe, while hindus and muslims deny, and agnostics are just unsure of.  And no detail of the invasion of Normandy is not hailed as a miraculous event, much less evidence for some old man in the sky who really wishes we would believe in him.   

AND...

It would take only one shred of evidence to raise the notion that the entire invasion was a hoax, and historically inaccurate.   What evidence would you accept to disprove the virgin birth? 

Start the tape... 

You do accept, however, on faith that the invasion of Normandy happened. It is good and probable knowledge, but it is still probable. Somebody could have planted the shell casings. Somebody could have falsified every document on the face of the planet. It could have been a mass hallucination. People have problems accepting that the Holocaust happens and we have equally clear evidence that this occurred. So, no, I don't think it far off to place reasonable faith in Christ's and His Church's doctrines. We have multiple and independent accounts of miracles both by Christ and by His saints that substantiate His divinity and the divine character of His doctrines. Thus, I find it perfectly rational to place belief in this.

Of course, the knowledge of religious faith goes beyond this because, upon accepting God's authority, such objects of belief gain infinite certitude.

However, an evidence to the contrary of Normandy could easily be found, but it would not invalidate the probable belief entirely. For example, I could find a mad Frenchman who was cackling and planting shells in the sand of Normany, perfectly aged and so forth. This would not, however, make me doubt that Normandy happened. It might in some small sense make it less probable, but I still find said belief reasonable. I likewise see no reason to lack reason to believe in Christ's divinity and His Church's divine origin due to the fact that there is an overwhelming amount of substantiating evidence in the form of miracles which have happened, currently happen, and will happen in the future, within the Church. Even if I found a mad monk who forged a couple of miracle stories in the Middle Ages, I think the overwhelming and (just for fun, I'll bold it) multiple, independent accounts of them happening substantiates my belief.

So there you have it.

Yours In Christ, Eternal Wisdom,
StMichael

Now we are talking about the invasion of France?

You already admited you had no evidence for the virgin birth or death of Jesus. You even said that their was nothing left to talk about, yet now we are talking about the invasion of france.

St. Michael, I have never seen such a lack of focus.

Seems to me you are desperate to cling to this belief so badly that even your admission that you cant replicate or falsify your claims, that you have to resort to distractive tactics.

VIRGIN BIRTH AND DEATH OF JESUS,

Ok, is it that hard for you to focus? 

Then why did you even bring up these human events, except as a smoke screen? And I fully agree - since the virgin birth is so much more extraordinary a claim than any human event, it requires extraordinary proof. You are yet to provide it. Squealing "faith" or "revelation" is not extraordinary proof.

Then don't take the discussion off track by bringing up non-miracles to support belief in your "miracle". If the method of finding truth or falsity for a human event is different than the method for finding truth or falsity about a miraculous event, it is useless for you to even mention human events.

There you go.  His belief system does not even permit that he might be wrong. He is more sure of the virgin birth than 2 + 2 = 4. He admits that you must have infinite assent to the beliefs. And to believe in these things as more sure than 2 + 2 = 4 is "a theological virtue".

Who cares what they believed in, "by far"? They were human beings who died. Would it be less of a tragedy if they didn't believe in your christ? How does my lack of belief insult their memories?

Again, who cares? If they didn't believe in god, it would be ok? There were gypsies, homosexuals, and other non-jews/non-christians. Did these ones deserve to die?

Ultimately, the number of christians who died in the 20th century in no way advances the truth of either the virgin birth or the resurrection. So get of your high horse. Fast.