Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

To: Forest Keeper
You are if you want to make someone a saint! :) This happens all the time, so you must hold many recent miracles as genuine.

Even those I am not REQUIRED to believe. The Church states that there is substantial and reasonable evidence to prove that a miracle took place. But as a Catholic, I am not absolutely required to place my faith in private miracles, even those declared suitable for belief by the faithful. Personally, if the Church has examined such claims suffiiciently, then I would go along with their findings. However, there is always room for some doubt on such matters BEFORE that happens - there are too many phonies out there.

Since they did not have in vitro technology, why can't science disprove a virgin birth 2000 years ago?

How are you going to disprove it? It was not observed by science. All of science's hypothesis, laws and theorums are based on observation. Using observation, they come to a conclusion on what will LIKELY happen in a similar circumstance, either from the past or the future. Since science did not observe and record the Christ's conception, science cannot disprove anything. They base their theories on presumptions of observation of other similar events - which doesn't mean that a unique event could happen that is outside of their observational datum.

Regards

4,174 posted on 03/30/2006 4:08:30 AM PST by jo kus (I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing; therefore CHOOSE life - Deut 30:19)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4161 | View Replies ]


To: jo kus; Agrarian
But as a Catholic, I am not absolutely required to place my faith in private miracles, even those declared suitable for belief by the faithful. Personally, if the Church has examined such claims suffiiciently, then I would go along with their findings.

I was under the impression that new Saints are declared every year, is that true? I am assuming that the Church would have to adjudicate in favor of the private miracles for that to happen. Off the top of your head, do you happen to know where JPII stands in the process? As an outsider, I always liked him.

FK: "Since they did not have in vitro technology, why can't science disprove a virgin birth 2000 years ago?"

How are you going to disprove it? It was not observed by science. All of science's hypothesis, laws and theorums are based on observation. Using observation, they come to a conclusion on what will LIKELY happen in a similar circumstance, either from the past or the future. Since science did not observe and record the Christ's conception, science cannot disprove anything.

Consider the following: Somewhere in the world, in the year 1478, someone dropped a hammer. Under your argument, no scientist today could possibly tell us what happened next. Did it fall to the ground? Did it hover in mid-air? Or, did it sprout wings and fly around the room? No one can tell us because a scientist wasn't there to observe it. Imagine further that we line up 1,000 scientists and give them the same hypo. How many would agree with you and say "no one can know what happened to the hammer", and how many would agree with me that it fell to the ground?

4,375 posted on 04/04/2006 2:04:10 PM PDT by Forest Keeper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4174 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson