Modern Miracles, Guadalupe, Fatima

Leo Volont

Registered Senior Member
Modern Miracles

It is the constant din of the Materialist’s argument that the theist has not been able to prove the existence of God. Well, untrue. It is simply that the Materialist will not accept the proofs which are offered. Remember how the Scholastic Church used to dismiss the Heliocentric Models of the Solar System in favor of the Aristotelian Ptolemaic Models of Geocentricity – that they would deny that the Sun was the center of the solar system; and why? Well, they already had their answer. Their model even presented with mathematics, and actual mechanical clock-like devices could be made that could reproduce and predict all the actual movements in the sky, at least well enough to satisfy themselves. And Earth was always in the center of the mix. As far as they cared, they already had the Truth, thank you very much Galileo, Kepler and Copernicus. Well, today the shoe is well on the other foot and it is Religion which demands Empirical Attention to Actual Events, Phenomena and Occurrences which would demonstrate Divine Supernaturalism. But Science dodges the issue by exerting an ‘a priori’ reasoning which goes something like this – since Miracles are impossible, then it is impossible for a Miracle to ever happen, and so therefore Miracles do not happen – they do not exist because they cannot exist, and any God that is predicated upon Miracles likewise would not exist. No need to even look up from out of their logic book. They can refute the Providentiality of the Divine without ever going beyond a formulation of words – it is as though they are attempting to protect themselves by casting a Spell or chanting a magic formula.

You do see what is happening there, don’t you? Logic is being used to dismiss Empirical Evidence, just as formerly a Scholastic Logic was used to dismiss Science. That was when Science, still vibrant in its youth, was still Empirical, before Science corrupted into the very thing it once stood against – a Bulwark of Dogma, in this case using a construct of words, a sophistry of logic, in order to dodge the evidence of eyes, ears, testimony, witnesses, documentation, reports, sworn affidavits, libraries replete with what cannot be honestly referred to as anything but considerable Data confirming the Miraculous, the Calling Card of God.

I would suggest anybody who wishes to be convinced of the Miraculous to do a study of two particular Apparitional Complexes – first, Our Lady of Guadalupe, and then Our Lady of Fatima. Our Lady of Guadalupe is unique in that Miraculous ‘residue’ has been left behind for our scientific examination. Our Lady had created an Image of Herself on a canvass of very coarse burlap that should have rotted away in less than 20 years, but still remains after almost 500 years. The colors that form the Image shift and change, like those of an oil slick, and study shows that no paints or pigments were used to form the Miraculous Image, but that the Image seems to have grown out of the very molecules of the cloth fibers, more like the chemical and molecular processes of a photograph than anything we know of in painting or drawing. And Science has had it close by in Mexico City for the last 4 or 5 Centuries, clear Proof of the Miraculous while they simply pretend it never happened and doesn’t exist.

There is also the remarkable story of what had occurred during one of many of the Revolutions in Mexico, fomented by those tirelessly evil Free Masons. A time bomb consisting of a large flower vase, filled to the brim with nitroglycerin was set off on the very altar of the Basilica just beneath the glass casing of the apparently fragile Image. Well, miraculously enough, especially to our modern sensibility of just how much damage bombs are capable of, nobody was hurt, though windows blew out and chunks of marble wall flew asunder. Mass was being celebrated at the time and so Priest and altar boys and such who were only inches away from the center of the explosion, who would have been expected to be blown to shreds – even vaporized – but when smoke and dust cleared, there they stood, as well as those startled parishioners in the front pews. The large brass crucifix set beside the altar was bent up into an indiscernible twisted piece of junk. But the glass case that held the image, a few feet away, was not even cracked… didn’t even show a smudge. The smoke cleared and everybody present knew of the extent of the Miracle they had just experienced. But Science wouldn’t acknowledge the Miracle… heck, they would not even acknowledge that it was they who had set the bomb.

The second complex of Miracles I would like to point out surround the Apparition of Our Lady of Fatima Portugal, particularly the last Miracle of a series of Miracles that occurred over a period of six months. The Miracle of the Sun of October 13th, 1917 was witnessed, on the spot, by a crowd of 75,000 witnesses, many of whom were skeptics, partisans of an Anti-Catholic Revolution then besetting Portugal… they had come to hoot and holler, but instead they became reluctant witnesses to what they would have preferred not to believe had they not seen it with their own eyes. Then, over a dimension of approximately 500 square miles, people who had chosen rather to stay at home then be involved with the Apparition that had become the constant talk of the entire Country, they were startled when they also were able to look up and witness the Miracle of the Sun up in the sky – a Dancing of the Sun in a splendor of unexpected colors, which included prospects of the Sun diving at the earth as though it were the end of the World. Perhaps part of the Miracle involves the demarcation of the line between those who witnessed a Spectacular Miracle and those a county line away who had an ordinary day and saw nothing. For instance, those in Spain, a few miles away, had not the slightest clue of why those across the invisible line to the West were looking up into the sky.

Little is spoken concerning a strange auxiliary miracle that also happened. You see, it had been raining all the night before and all morning up until minutes before the scheduled Apparition. All of Europe had seen this storm, and the soldiers of the First World War were drenched and cold in their trenches. The people gathered at Fatima were likewise sopping wet, and standing to their ankles in mud stirred up by a milling crowd of 75,000. The Apparition and the Miracle of the Sun lasted only 20 minutes, which means that the constant rain had only suspended itself by no more than a half an hour. But EVERYBODY took note that at the close of the Miracle, they and the ground beneath them were entirely warm and dry. Cars that had been in mud up to their axles a moment before were now raising dust in their drive away. Every coat, shirt and even sock and boot were bone dry. It was not a spectacular Miracle, but just something of a nice gift that Our Lady could leave this vast crowd, that they should reflect upon the Miracle they had just witnessed in reasonable creature comfort.

Then we have the Results. The imminent Socialist Anti-Clerical Revolution in Portugal fizzled out. The World Media, packed with Free Masons, was able to isolate the Miracle’s influence to the borders of Portugal, but in Portugal itself the Media and the Masons a great deal of their atheistic influence and would never entirely gain it back. As a reward for their return to Religion, Portugal would be saved from any of the turmoil of World War Two… indeed, one can note that every Loyal Catholic Country was able to avoid World War Two. All of Central and South America, under the Protection of Our Lady of Guadalupe, and Portugal, Ireland, and to a limited extent Spain – these nations would retain in Peace. All those previously Catholic Nations then ruled by Free Masonic controlled Parliaments were sucked into the War.

There are other Miracles which could be discussed, but any sincere search for such wonderful phenomena can progress well enough without any further comment from my keyboard, though if anybody would appreciate my opinions on this or that which they may uncover… don’t hesitate to ask.

Also, I should point out that Catholic Prophecy foretells of a coming Great Miracle that the World Media will not have the tenacity to ignore. This coming Great Miracle will also leave a Miraculous Residue which will attest to the certitude of its Supernatural Origins. Part of the Prophecy is that a core group of Atheists, though slapped in the face by more than ample Proof, will choose to adhere to their Atheism simply because they have too great an emotional investment in their Doctrine of Hate to give it up simply because it is not true. That had never worried them before.

References:

http://www.fatima.org/essentials/facts/default.asp

http://www.catholicism.org/brmichael-guadalupe.html

http://www.apparitions.org/#codes
 
Leo,

Gibberish - go learn some science before you attempt to describe what science says or does not say since you clearly have no clue.

The best you have are unexplained phenomena - the leap to therefore a god did it is unsupportable.
 
Leo Volont said:
Modern Miracles. But Science dodges the issue by exerting an ‘a priori’ reasoning which goes something like this – since Miracles are impossible, then it is impossible for a Miracle to ever happen, and so therefore Miracles do not happen – they do not exist because they cannot exist, and any God that is predicated upon Miracles likewise would not exist. No need to even look up from out of their logic book. They can refute the Providentiality of the Divine without ever going beyond a formulation of words – it is as though they are attempting to protect themselves by casting a Spell or chanting a magic formula.
Miracles are by definition impossible save but by the hand of God. Its not because they think that miracles are impossible. Its because they do not accept the vast amount of scientific evidence for miracles.
 
Lawdog,

Its because they do not accept the vast amount of scientific evidence for miracles.
Any single example you can name?
 
And just what is the scientific evidence from Fatima that proves a god caused a miracle.
 
define scientific evidence and I will be able to tell you if its scientific.
 
Too late, you've already declared it is scientifc "Its because they do not accept the vast amount of scientific evidence for miracles. " Did you by chance make an unsupported religious assertion again before you knew what you were talking about?
 
Cris said:
Leo,

Gibberish - go learn some science before you attempt to describe what science says or does not say since you clearly have no clue.

The best you have are unexplained phenomena - the leap to therefore a god did it is unsupportable.

I at least said something.

Your only comeback is that I violated Scientific Orthodoxy. Yet no substantial argument against any of my claims.

You are just farting smoke and calling it science.

Oh... come to think of it... I wrote an essay recently on approximately the same subject... here:

Aesthetic Preferences Disguised As Reason

The World now worships Reason. Well, this is what everybody must say to get by in what everybody pretends is a Rational World. But actually, if one examines closely, one finds that Aesthetics actually have the wider sway.

I’ve noticed that often Posts are criticized for not being sufficiently rational. And yet the critiques are not rational in and of themselves. Reasons are not given for why these Critics object, or explanations are not fleshed out with anything substantial. Essays are not answered with Essay of Refutation, but with declarations with no more content then simple expressions of disgust.

Well, this would seem to indicate that the problem these critics have is not one of Logic but of Taste – of Aesthetics, not Reason.

In a sense they are falling back to some very Ancient Trends in Philosophy. It was once thought, by the Platonists and others, that Aesthetic Taste was an indicator of Truth – that Truth and Beauty were one and the same – that what Sounded Good was for that very ‘Reason’ most likely to be correct. But such a Philosophy would assume that there is never any Unpleasant Truth.

Young People especially want with all their hearts to be optimistic and to suppose with a Faith that they would be embarrassed to admit that All Truths are Beautiful, and that anything that happens to offend them must be, for that very reason alone, ‘irrational’, ‘unreasonable’, and ‘illogical’… even though they can’t explain in rational terms why. But their instincts tell them that what violates Taste can never be correct. I suppose they think that no Truth can have any real power over them unless they give it the endorsement of Belief. Again, it is a kind of Religious Behavior which their atheism would be ashamed of if they were more conscious of its dynamics.

One can have sympathy for the sensitivities of such fledgling Philosophers, but it really needs to be pointed out that such Philosophy, as an accepted System was discredited Ages ago, and then every time it has ever resurfaced. Aesthetics is fine for picking out shoes, and shirts, and even for appreciating the Looser Arts such as Music and Poetry, Painting and Photography. But in the Rational Sciences we should adhere to actual empirical observation or experimentation for the mining of our Truths.

No, and not just Logic. Logic by itself is insufficient. Logic, if we think about it, we discover that it consists only of Mathematical Consistency. But Mathematics are based entirely upon purely Conceptual Principles – that is, Imagination. Yes, in a great good many instances, there is some actual correspondence to Reality; however, simply because a sequence of assertions, premises and conclusions follow themselves consistently, we have no certainty that they are anchored into any point of any actual Reality. For instance, Einstein’s graphs and charts representing Time as a forth dimension. Logical? Yes. Consistent? Yes. Representing anything that is in any way true, real or substantial? No. So, Logic and Mathematical Consistency, though clever and fascinating in the same way as a good Chess Game is fascinating, still, such consistency to imaginary principles is no guaranty of any actual Working Truth. Indeed, it is the Fascination with Consistency for the sake of Consistency that makes groundless Logic something of a cousin to Aesthetics – appreciated only because of the warm and pleasant feeling it provides. But for any actual Truth we must consult the Real World. Empiricism. And what the Real World sometimes shows us is not always pleasant.

But we should learn to be grownup about such things and stop our bitching.
 
Cris said:
And just what is the scientific evidence from Fatima that proves a god caused a miracle.

Empirical Evidence.

Like in Court. Witness Testimony.

And at for Guatalupe in Mexico City, there is actual Miraculous Residue -- objects that have no explanation without resort to the Miraculous.

From God? Why that would take a signed card, wouldn't it. We must confine ourselves to what we would call the Supernatural... nugging toward the Divine. But to bring "God" into it changes the issue to one of Theological Interpretation. For instance, do the Powers of All the Divine Angels constitute the Power of God -- does Proving a Divine Corporation prove that there is a Divine Boss? Well, most Catholics, with their basis in Angels and Saints, would be happy to only prove the Divine Corporation and allow the Supreme Godhead some degree of Transcendence.
 
Leo,

Empirical Evidence.
Yes.

Like in Court. Witness Testimony.
No not really; too subjective, unless the testimony can lead to a deductive conclusion, i.e. human subjectivity is eliminated.

And at for Guatalupe in Mexico City, there is actual Miraculous Residue -- objects that have no explanation without resort to the Miraculous.
This is where you fail the simplest logic test. Absence of an explanation for something is not evidence for anything else. Your claimed evidence does not show cause and effect. Extraterrestrial aliens would fit the speculation equally well, or a myriad other imaginative scenarios. As I said all you have is something that isn’t explained, it doesn’t automatically support your particular religious fantasy.

From God? Why that would take a signed card, wouldn't it.
Or anything that demonstrates your god concept as a semblance of reality – don’t much care how it is achieved.

We must confine ourselves to what we would call the Supernatural... nugging toward the Divine.
That presents you with some difficulty since supernatural means outside of our ability to detect since we only know of the natural. As soon as we can detect something then it become snatural.

But to bring "God" into it changes the issue to one of Theological Interpretation. For instance, do the Powers of All the Divine Angels constitute the Power of God -- does Proving a Divine Corporation prove that there is a Divine Boss? Well, most Catholics, with their basis in Angels and Saints, would be happy to only prove the Divine Corporation and allow the Supreme Godhead some degree of Transcendence.
Whatever!!! If a miracle can be defined as having a divine or supernatural cause by whatever fantasy you choose can you demonstrate the cause exists and was instrumental in the claimed event?
 
Empirical Evidence.

Like in Court. Witness Testimony.
that is not good enough. if I said I saw bigfoot, that does not make it true. I could be telling a lie, or have seen an animal, and mistook it as bigfoot.

moreover, can you provide a signed affidavit by each person that saw it? or even a few percent of the people who saw it? unless you can produce such documents, your are relying on someone telling you what someone else saw. furthermore, it is possible that, if the person did see something, that it was not a miracle.

I would hardly say that third (or in the case of you telling us, fourth) party hear-say of an event that was untested, is "evidence"
 
well, I am done. it is obvious that it is only an attempt to start an argument. obvious trolling.

I recommend you, Cris, also don't indulge this persons desire for an argument.
 
Leo,

I at least said something.
No not really. You used a lot of words but you said very little.

Your only comeback is that I violated Scientific Orthodoxy. Yet no substantial argument against any of my claims.
I assume you already know when you are being disingenuous, or do you truly believe your delusions?

You are just farting smoke and calling it science.

Oh... come to think of it... I wrote an essay recently on approximately the same subject... here:

Aesthetic Preferences Disguised As Reason
Interesting but not relevant. Nice attempt at misdirection though. It is still you that is making claims and making no meaningful attempt to support them. When you have something credible then I am certain the scientific community will take a look. But like the introduction of any new piece of real knowledge it takes a substantial effort – I don’t see that your institution has achieved anything along those lines yet.

And so if you don’t like the scientific method can you present something better that has a proven record for revealing reality?
 
Cris said:
Too late, you've already declared it is scientifc "Its because they do not accept the vast amount of scientific evidence for miracles. " Did you by chance make an unsupported religious assertion again before you knew what you were talking about?
This is absurd. You have already declared our evidence to be unscientific. Now the ball is in your court: define your terms.
 
cato said:
what about Italy?

what makes a residue miraculous?

Italy? Honestly, do you need to ask?

Itally was the country that rose up in rebellion againt the Pope's authority in the Papal States, and confiscated those territories away... giving the Pope absolutely no compensation. After all, what is the Vatican Territory -- a Sovereign Nation the size of half of a city block -- but a veritable Prison Cell for the Pope.

No, Italy had turned against the Catholic Church and the Pope.

France also betrayed the Church.

Yes, I am sure that God appreciates that the Little Old Ladies still attend Mass and keep to their Prayers. But when EVERY MAN in the Country is a Free Mason Anti-clericist, then there has to be some Hell to Pay.

I worry about Mexico for the same reason. That whole Macho Thing is not very Catholic, and I have the feeling that their Institutionalized Political Party is just a huge faction of Masons.
 
cato said:
that is not good enough. if I said I saw bigfoot, that does not make it true.

So you are telling me that "if you saw Bigfoot", that it would not be true.

You are one silly little piece of...

You are telling me that you would not believe your own eyes.

You must think yourself quite worthless.

Well, so do I.
 
Leo,

So you are telling me that "if you saw Bigfoot", that it would not be true.
That isn't what was said. Twisting an argument so you can claim something the original didn't say and then showing it is wrong is simple dishonesty. Something we see consistently among apologists like yourself.

The issue, as I am sure you are aware, is that claiming something is true doesn't make it true. And being aware of uncertainty of the claim also doesn't necessarily make it false.
 
Back
Top