CADRE Comments

Shrine at Lourdes

The issue of healing has risen through a challenge from a troll and taken up by our friend and loyal atheist opponent Pixie. This is a pastiche  fro various arguments made over the years. The healing i discuss here can be considered miraculous because they are proven by medical science to be conditions that are not explained by science,

Marian Library (Ibid.)

"In the last one hundred years, over 6,500 individuals have reported cures to the Medical Bureau. Of these, at least 2,500 cases are considered truly remarkable, but they lack some requirement needed to allow them to advance to the next stage--witnesses, evidence, lack of agreement on the nature of the ailment. In the last twenty years, there have been reports of about twenty cases of extraordinary cures or healings, about one a year. Mr. Bély's healing is the 66th cure occurring at Lourdes which has been officially recognized by ecclesiastical authorities. The recognition by church authorities has been a…

I never argue to prove to the existence of God anyway, but to demonstrate the rational nature of belief. Arguing to prove that God exists[1]gives one an unnecessary burden because since God is beyond our understanding there’s really no way to prove there is a God. Nor should we want such a thing because that would mean that God is subject to our calculations. If we can make God an object of our observations we have demoted God to the level of being a thing in creation. The potential for such arguments depends entirely upon the assumptions we are willing to make and the perspective from which we view the marital supporting the arguments. The point here is that our presuppositions govern the way we see to answer the question of God and the proper presumptions are philosophical and not scientific; we must do philosophy to answer the question of God.             The modern view of physical law understands “law” as more or less a metaphor. Even though text books still speak in the languag…