What would you do if you found out God existed

[Catholic_Lady]

Well, dont we know through science that natural disasters are caused by winds, temperature fronts, tectonic plate movements, etc? Don't we know that murderers, and other evil acts are caused by people, not some magical force? Perhaps there are some religions that believe God causes all that in some supernatural way, but I can't speak to that because it isn't what I believe.

I do believe there have been instances of miracles, yes. In those cases God is intervening. But i do think these miracles are extremely rare, and they are the exception, not the rule. If God were to intervene every time something bad was about to happen, we'd be puppets  living in a very different world I think.

We only determine something is a miracle when there is no other possible explanation for it. Example, a man suffers from severe headaches and seizures. He has a mass in his brain consistent with a stage 4 brain tumor as seen by multiple doctors in various imaging tests, MRI, and CT scans. He goes to a church and prayes his heart out. The next day he has another appointment and more imaging tests are done in preparation for surgery. The mass is completely gone, when it was just there a few days before. He hadnt yet started any sort of treatment yet. The surgery is cancelled. His headache is gone, and he never again suffers another seizure. A case like that would get investigated for the possibility of being a miracle, and may be officially proclaimed as one.

I guess some people are very quick to call every little thing a miracle when it could have just been good luck, but there's nothing official about that, so I can't really comment on it. I'm not one of those people.

Fair enough, but how do you determine that we've exhausted every other possible explanation?  Especially when considering the miracles that have happened more than a century ago, when our knowledge of science was nothing compared to what it is today (and going back further it gets even worse), were those people with their limited knowledge validated in concluding that they had run out of every other possible explanation?  Would someone today be reasonable in saying they've run out of every other possible explanation, if a new explanation might be around the corner in 20 years with new technology?  That's the big issue I have with calling anything a miracle, even if it's an event that seems miraculous to us at this point in time, because we don't know what sort of new investigative abilities we'll have in the future - it seems premature.

And you mentioned determining the cause of weather/murder/etc.  There are plenty of events that could be explained by natural/material forces that are still held up as miracles, even 'official' miracles accepted by the Catholic Church.  For example, the miracle recognized by the Vatican for Mother Teresa's canonization beatification was the apparently miraculous healing of an Indian woman's abdominal tumor after she rubbed a picture of Mother Teresa over the area.  She was being treated by doctors and was undergoing therapy for her disease for nearly a year, and even her husband said the miracle is a hoax, and that the thing that cured her was modern medicine (conveniently, the medical records were confiscated by the Missionaries of Charity).  

The above 'miracle' is officially recognized by the Catholic Church - but it seems to fit your description of something that is NOT a miracle - we have a physical, material explanation with a mechanism for how the result (tumor healed) was achieved.  Do you think the Catholic church was wrong in considering this a miracle?  Could you give an example of a miracle that you consider to be genuine?

EDIT - beatification, not canonization

I guess it's impossible to determine that. Maybe 100 years from now we will discover that a certain type of scent immediately makes brain tumors go away if we inhale it or something lol. And that's why the guy in my example was spontaneously cured. I haven't looked into nor am I familiar with many Church approved miracles, but if I had to guess I'd say some of them were probably caused by completely natural causes. I definitely do believe in the Fatima sun miracle. I see what you mean about proclaiming something a miracle "prematurely", and considering we will never understand everything about the world, every miracle made official will be premature in that sense. I suppose for lack of a better way to put it, it's "harmless" to believe that something was a miracle. With the exception of the miracles of Jesus, the immaculate conception, and others in the Gospel, official miracles are still not dogmatic. This means that they are not infallible teaching that all faithful Catholics must adhere to. Actually it's perfectly fine for a Catholic not to believe in the Fatima miracle or any other miracle of the like. Probably for the very reason you listed.    

I'm not too familiar with the abdominal tumor miracle, but I'll look into it and let you know what I think. The "rule" for officiating a miracle like that is that there cannot be possibility of the cure being caused by medical treatment. So it strikes me as strange that they'd officiate it.

[FatAndFaithless]

Fair enough, but how do you determine that we've exhausted every other possible explanation?  Especially when considering the miracles that have happened more than a century ago, when our knowledge of science was nothing compared to what it is today (and going back further it gets even worse), were those people with their limited knowledge validated in concluding that they had run out of every other possible explanation?  Would someone today be reasonable in saying they've run out of every other possible explanation, if a new explanation might be around the corner in 20 years with new technology?  That's the big issue I have with calling anything a miracle, even if it's an event that seems miraculous to us at this point in time, because we don't know what sort of new investigative abilities we'll have in the future - it seems premature.

And you mentioned determining the cause of weather/murder/etc.  There are plenty of events that could be explained by natural/material forces that are still held up as miracles, even 'official' miracles accepted by the Catholic Church.  For example, the miracle recognized by the Vatican for Mother Teresa's canonization beatification was the apparently miraculous healing of an Indian woman's abdominal tumor after she rubbed a picture of Mother Teresa over the area.  She was being treated by doctors and was undergoing therapy for her disease for nearly a year, and even her husband said the miracle is a hoax, and that the thing that cured her was modern medicine (conveniently, the medical records were confiscated by the Missionaries of Charity).  

The above 'miracle' is officially recognized by the Catholic Church - but it seems to fit your description of something that is NOT a miracle - we have a physical, material explanation with a mechanism for how the result (tumor healed) was achieved.  Do you think the Catholic church was wrong in considering this a miracle?  Could you give an example of a miracle that you consider to be genuine?

EDIT - beatification, not canonization

I guess it's impossible to determine that. Maybe 100 years from now we will discover that a certain type of scent immediately makes brain tumors go away if we inhale it or something lol. And that's why the guy in my example was spontaneously cured. I haven't looked into nor am I familiar with many Church approved miracles, but if I had to guess I'd say some of them were probably caused by completely natural causes. I definitely do believe in the Fatima sun miracle. I see what you mean about proclaiming something a miracle "prematurely", and considering we will never understand everything about the world, every miracle made official will be premature in that sense. I suppose for lack of a better way to put it, it's "harmless" to believe that something was a miracle. With the exception of the miracles of Jesus, the immaculate conception, and others in the Gospel, official miracles are still not dogmatic. This means that they are not infallible teaching that all faithful Catholics must adhere to. Actually it's perfectly fine for a Catholic not to believe in the Fatima miracle or any other miracle of the like. Probably for the very reason you listed.    

I'm not too familiar with the abdominal tumor miracle, but I'll look into it and let you know what I think. The "rule" for officiating a miracle like that is that there cannot be possibility of the cure being caused by medical treatment. So it strikes me as strange that they'd officiate it.

Bolded mine - that's pretty much what I was getting at, yeah. If one can't definitively prove that there is no other explanation, then one is not justified in citing god as a cause, and unjustified in calling it a miracle.

I don't really agree that its completely harmless though, since any misinformation or support for a flawed way of thinking or making decisions is undesirable in and of itself, in my opinion, and could be the basis for flawed thinking in making other decisions as well. But that's a discussion for another time.

Just on the tumor miracle - the doctors said her recovery was nothing abnormal and followed the expected response to treatment that they'd done before - not a single one of the medical staff responded to the Vatican's call for someone to support it as a miracle. That's just the most blatant one that comes to my mind, I'm sure other people are more informed on other miracles.

[Catholic_Lady]

I guess it's impossible to determine that. Maybe 100 years from now we will discover that a certain type of scent immediately makes brain tumors go away if we inhale it or something lol. And that's why the guy in my example was spontaneously cured. I haven't looked into nor am I familiar with many Church approved miracles, but if I had to guess I'd say some of them were probably caused by completely natural causes. I definitely do believe in the Fatima sun miracle. I see what you mean about proclaiming something a miracle "prematurely", and considering we will never understand everything about the world, every miracle made official will be premature in that sense. I suppose for lack of a better way to put it, it's "harmless" to believe that something was a miracle. With the exception of the miracles of Jesus, the immaculate conception, and others in the Gospel, official miracles are still not dogmatic. This means that they are not infallible teaching that all faithful Catholics must adhere to. Actually it's perfectly fine for a Catholic not to believe in the Fatima miracle or any other miracle of the like. Probably for the very reason you listed.    

I'm not too familiar with the abdominal tumor miracle, but I'll look into it and let you know what I think. The "rule" for officiating a miracle like that is that there cannot be possibility of the cure being caused by medical treatment. So it strikes me as strange that they'd officiate it.

Bolded mine - that's pretty much what I was getting at, yeah.  If one can't definitively prove that there is no other explanation, then one is not justified in citing god as a cause, and unjustified in calling it a miracle.

I don't really agree that its completely harmless though, since any misinformation or support for a flawed way of thinking or making decisions is undesirable in and of itself, in my opinion, and could be the basis for flawed thinking in making other decisions as well. But that's a discussion for another time.

Just on the tumor miracle - the doctors said her recovery was nothing abnormal and followed the expected response to treatment that they'd done before - not a single one of the medical staff responded to the Vatican's call for someone to support it as a miracle.  That's just the most blatant one that comes to my mind, I'm sure other people are more informed on other miracles.

I googled around for the tumor miracle. Looks like there's a lot of conflicting reports. 

The story goes that she was being seen by doctors for a mass/tumor in her abdomen caused by some kind of infection secondary to tuberculosis. Apparently her belly was distended because of it. This much seems to be confirmed. 

She said she was still not getting well despite medical treatments (which consisted of antibiotics she took for almost a year), and on the anniversary day of Mother Theresa's death, still feeling extremely sick, she was helped to a church where they prayed for Mother's intercession and rubbed a medal over her distended belly. She fell asleep and when she woke up her belly was flat and the pain was completely gone, never to return again.  

Apparently three doctors did decline to testify for a miracle (as you said), but there were supposedly other doctors who treated her who did back up her claims. She was set up for surgery to remove the tumor but was too sick to be put under general anesthesia so she never went through with it.     

Her husband initially called it a hoax but later said he believes it was a miracle, which I found odd. 

Anyway, I'm not sure what to think of this one. On one hand she was receiving antibiotics for a long time, on the other hand it seems odd that she'd be cured so suddenly overnight, precisely because she as getting treated for so long and apparently not getting better. And it is interesting that she'd be cured on the exact anniversary day of the saint she prayed to, but that could just be a crazy coincidence. I'd have to get an explanation from the church investigators as to why they don't think this overnight cure was medically possible. As of now I'm not entirely convinced.   

I looked through several articles about this, but these were the two that stuck out to me most:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/asi...0bc2086e86

and video: http://www.bbc.com/news/av/world-asia-in...-my-tumour

What do you think? Do you think she could be lying or exaggerating a bit?

[FatAndFaithless]

Bolded mine - that's pretty much what I was getting at, yeah.  If one can't definitively prove that there is no other explanation, then one is not justified in citing god as a cause, and unjustified in calling it a miracle.

I don't really agree that its completely harmless though, since any misinformation or support for a flawed way of thinking or making decisions is undesirable in and of itself, in my opinion, and could be the basis for flawed thinking in making other decisions as well. But that's a discussion for another time.

Just on the tumor miracle - the doctors said her recovery was nothing abnormal and followed the expected response to treatment that they'd done before - not a single one of the medical staff responded to the Vatican's call for someone to support it as a miracle.  That's just the most blatant one that comes to my mind, I'm sure other people are more informed on other miracles.

I googled around for the tumor miracle. Looks like there's a lot of conflicting reports. 

The story goes that she was being seen by doctors for a mass/tumor in her abdomen caused by some kind of infection secondary to tuberculosis. Apparently her belly was distended because of it. This much seems to be confirmed. 

She said she was still not getting well despite medical treatments (which consisted of antibiotics she took for almost a year), and on the anniversary day of Mother Theresa's death, still feeling extremely sick, she was helped to a church where they prayed for Mother's intercession and rubbed a medal over her distended belly. She fell asleep and when she woke up her belly was flat and the pain was completely gone, never to return again.  

Apparently three doctors did decline to testify for a miracle (as you said), but there were supposedly other doctors who treated her who did back up her claims. She was set up for surgery to remove the tumor but was too sick to be put under general anesthesia so she never went through with it.     

Her husband initially called it a hoax but later said he believes it was a miracle, which I found odd. 

Anyway, I'm not sure what to think of this one. On one hand she was receiving antibiotics for a long time, on the other hand it seems odd that she'd be cured so suddenly overnight, precisely because she as getting treated for so long and apparently not getting better. And it is interesting that she'd be cured on the exact anniversary day of the saint she prayed to, but that could just be a crazy coincidence. I'd have to get an explanation from the church investigators as to why they don't think this overnight cure was medically possible. As of now I'm not entirely convinced.   

I looked through several articles about this, but these were the two that stuck out to me most:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/asi...0bc2086e86

and video: http://www.bbc.com/news/av/world-asia-in...-my-tumour

What do you think? Do you think she could be lying or exaggerating a bit?

Exaggerating?  Absolutely.  The woman's personal story about what happens is just about worthless when it comes to determining how she recovered, because she has absolutely no medical knowledge - she's just saying what she felt and giving her opinions on what sort of supernatural stuff she thinks caused it.  Meanwhile, the doctors who actually treated her (from your article) 

have long maintained that Besra had been suffering from a cyst, not a cancerous tumor. The doctors have said she recovered after she received tuberculosis treatment for several months at a government hospital in Balurghat, about 270 miles north of the city where Mother Teresa spent decades ministering to the destitute and dying.

“I’ve said several times that she was cured by the treatment, and nothing has happened,” one of the doctors involved, Ranjan Mustafi, said in a brief telephone interview.

No offense to the lady, but I'll take the medical interpretation and diagnosis from the doctors over her own.  And the others involved in her medial treatment that apparently came forward to support it being a miracle?

Catholic Bishop Salvatore Lobo, who chaired the local committee that investigated Besra’s case for the Vatican, said they repeatedly asked Mustafi and the two others to testify but they never appeared. Meanwhile, he said, several other doctors involved in her treatment confirmed Besra’s version of events. He declined to provide their names.

So they definitely have medical professionals related to the case that support it being a miracle...they just won't give their names.  Convenient.

And I can't find anything about the husband recanting his skepticism of the event - could you provide me a source for that?

If you're asking my opinion, I think it's pretty glaringly obvious that she was cured by medical science - as agreed upon by every named person involved in this case except for her.  Regardless, if you're still on the fence, then this still must not qualify as "ruling out every other possible explanation" and certainly can't be called a miracle.

EDIT: ugh, text formatting.. too lazy to fix the fonts.

[Catholic_Lady]

I googled around for the tumor miracle. Looks like there's a lot of conflicting reports. 

The story goes that she was being seen by doctors for a mass/tumor in her abdomen caused by some kind of infection secondary to tuberculosis. Apparently her belly was distended because of it. This much seems to be confirmed. 

She said she was still not getting well despite medical treatments (which consisted of antibiotics she took for almost a year), and on the anniversary day of Mother Theresa's death, still feeling extremely sick, she was helped to a church where they prayed for Mother's intercession and rubbed a medal over her distended belly. She fell asleep and when she woke up her belly was flat and the pain was completely gone, never to return again.  

Apparently three doctors did decline to testify for a miracle (as you said), but there were supposedly other doctors who treated her who did back up her claims. She was set up for surgery to remove the tumor but was too sick to be put under general anesthesia so she never went through with it.     

Her husband initially called it a hoax but later said he believes it was a miracle, which I found odd. 

Anyway, I'm not sure what to think of this one. On one hand she was receiving antibiotics for a long time, on the other hand it seems odd that she'd be cured so suddenly overnight, precisely because she as getting treated for so long and apparently not getting better. And it is interesting that she'd be cured on the exact anniversary day of the saint she prayed to, but that could just be a crazy coincidence. I'd have to get an explanation from the church investigators as to why they don't think this overnight cure was medically possible. As of now I'm not entirely convinced.   

I looked through several articles about this, but these were the two that stuck out to me most:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/asi...0bc2086e86

and video: http://www.bbc.com/news/av/world-asia-in...-my-tumour

What do you think? Do you think she could be lying or exaggerating a bit?

Exaggerating?  Absolutely.  The woman's personal story about what happens is just about worthless when it comes to determining how she recovered, because she has absolutely no medical knowledge - she's just saying what she felt and giving her opinions on what sort of supernatural stuff she thinks caused it.  Meanwhile, the doctors who actually treated her (from your article) 

have long maintained that Besra had been suffering from a cyst, not a cancerous tumor. The doctors have said she recovered after she received tuberculosis treatment for several months at a government hospital in Balurghat, about 270 miles north of the city where Mother Teresa spent decades ministering to the destitute and dying.

“I’ve said several times that she was cured by the treatment, and nothing has happened,” one of the doctors involved, Ranjan Mustafi, said in a brief telephone interview.

No offense to the lady, but I'll take the medical interpretation and diagnosis from the doctors over her own.  And the others involved in her medial treatment that apparently came forward to support it being a miracle?

Catholic Bishop Salvatore Lobo, who chaired the local committee that investigated Besra’s case for the Vatican, said they repeatedly asked Mustafi and the two others to testify but they never appeared. Meanwhile, he said, several other doctors involved in her treatment confirmed Besra’s version of events. He declined to provide their names.

So they definitely have medical professionals related to the case that support it being a miracle...they just won't give their names.  Convenient.

And I can't find anything about the husband recanting his skepticism of the event - could you provide me a source for that?

If you're asking my opinion, I think it's pretty glaringly obvious that she was cured by medical science - as agreed upon by every named person involved in this case except for her.  Regardless, if you're still on the fence, then this still must not qualify as "ruling out every other possible explanation" and certainly can't be called a miracle.

EDIT:  ugh, text formatting.. too lazy to fix the fonts.

Yes, Dr Mustafi was one of the 3 doctors who declined to testify for a miracle. He went public with this case so I assume that's why we have his name and not the names of the other 2 who declined or the ones who participated? 

Unless there's something I'm missing, I'm not convinced that this can be called a miracle. I'd have to hear an argument as to why they don't think her tumor could be cured due to the antibiotics. If what Dr Mustafi is saying is true, there should be medical records detailing her recovery and her decreasing tumor.    

As for the husband recanting his skepticism, the article actually said that at the end: 

Although he once told reporters he believed his wife recovered after medical treatment, he now says he was ­misquoted.

“It happened due to the blessings of Mother Teresa,” he said. “She prayed a long time to her. I went to many doctors and she was not getting well. After that day, she was cured.”

 He also mentioned it on this article:

https://www.ndtv.com/india-news/a-ray-cu...le-1454054

[henryp]

You can excuse those things without God with little difficulty by simply not believing people are inherently important.


The trick is reconciling God who allegedly believes people are inherently important and the actions.  I can't do it.  But I can't do a lot of things.  And that's in the real world, let alone a hypothetical world involving infinite amounts of things I can't know.

---

This is the big joke at the end of the rainbow.  The truth, like everything else, doesn't mean shit.  You do not get bonus extra points on your deathbed if you spent your life seeking the truth rather than believing nonsense.

You do. Truth causes awereness - whatever comes at the other side can be better dealt with if Your mental faculties have developed.

My bad.  I responded to your post not realizing you were christian rather than atheist.  As a theist, you obviously should be searching for the truth so you can better serve God and stuff.  My remark was about Atheists who make a big deal about the truth.

[FatAndFaithless]

Exaggerating?  Absolutely.  The woman's personal story about what happens is just about worthless when it comes to determining how she recovered, because she has absolutely no medical knowledge - she's just saying what she felt and giving her opinions on what sort of supernatural stuff she thinks caused it.  Meanwhile, the doctors who actually treated her (from your article) 

No offense to the lady, but I'll take the medical interpretation and diagnosis from the doctors over her own.  And the others involved in her medial treatment that apparently came forward to support it being a miracle?



So they definitely have medical professionals related to the case that support it being a miracle...they just won't give their names.  Convenient.

And I can't find anything about the husband recanting his skepticism of the event - could you provide me a source for that?

If you're asking my opinion, I think it's pretty glaringly obvious that she was cured by medical science - as agreed upon by every named person involved in this case except for her.  Regardless, if you're still on the fence, then this still must not qualify as "ruling out every other possible explanation" and certainly can't be called a miracle.

EDIT:  ugh, text formatting.. too lazy to fix the fonts.

Yes, Dr Mustafi was one of the 3 doctors who declined to testify for a miracle. He went public with this case so I assume that's why we have his name and not the names of the other 2 who declined or the ones who participated? 

Unless there's something I'm missing, I'm not convinced that this can be called a miracle. I'd have to hear an argument as to why they don't think her tumor could be cured due to the antibiotics. If what Dr Mustafi is saying is true, there should be medical records detailing her recovery and her decreasing tumor.    

As for the husband recanting his skepticism, the article actually said that at the end: 

Although he once told reporters he believed his wife recovered after medical treatment, he now says he was ­misquoted.

“It happened due to the blessings of Mother Teresa,” he said. “She prayed a long time to her. I went to many doctors and she was not getting well. After that day, she was cured.”

 He also mentioned it on this article:

https://www.ndtv.com/india-news/a-ray-cu...le-1454054

Thanks for the note on the husband, must've missed that.  I just find it weird that the church wouldn't put forth their evidence clearly and openly if it's indeed conclusive - that would be a much better counter to the skeptics than their current model, if they want more people to accept the truth.

And they had medical records, but they were confiscated by the Missionaries of Charity.  http://content.time.com/time/magazine/ar...89,00.html

Monica's medical records contain sonograms, prescriptions and physicians' notes that could conceivably help prove whether science or the icon worked the cure. But the records are missing. Monica says Sister Betta of the Missionaries of Charity took them away two years ago. "It's all with her," says Monica. A call to Sister Betta, who has been reassigned to another post of the Charity, produced a "no comment."

And please note that throughout this, her doctors said she was responding to treatment - it wasn't just an overnight sudden "no more tumor!" poof disappearing thing.

I'm glad that you say you're unconvinced that this is a miracle.  Just understand that your unconvinced...ness, is how I view all of the miracle claims that have been put forth (so far).  I find their claims and evidence equally as weak and circumstantial as this one. Many times even weaker than this one, if all we have is hearsay and eyewitness accounts, which are infamously inaccurate and fallible.

[Catholic_Lady]

Yeah if they truly believe this was a miracle and the medical records back that up, it seems they'd release them to the public with Monica Besra's permission.

[FatAndFaithless]

Yeah if they truly believe this was a miracle and the medical records back that up, it seems they'd release them to the public with Monica Besra's permission.

And it's not like I can ever make the claim "there was absolutely no intervention by the spirit of Mother Teresa"...because I don't know how on earth I would provide evidence for that.  I just find their purported explanation really unjustified.

[Catholic_Lady]

I've been looking into the case of the Brazilian man with the brain abscesses and I find it is much more convincing. Have you looked into it?

https://thewire.in/18318/in-search-of-mo...in-brazil/