Craig Keener, Peter May & Joshua Brown: Miracle Healing - does it happen today?
Вставка
- Опубліковано 26 січ 2023
- Can a skeptical doctor be persuaded that there is medical evidence for modern day healing?
Craig Keener, author of 'Miracles Today', returns to the show to debate one of his fiercest critics Peter May, a retired medical doctor who says he has never encountered a compelling case of miracle healing after decades of investigation. Craig is joined by Joshua Brown of the Global Medical Research Institute who defends two cases of healing - of a digestive tract and restored vision - which he says pass Peter May's criterion for miracles.
For Joshua Brown: www.globalmri.org/
For Craig Keener: craigkeener.com/
For Peter May: www.skeptic.org.uk/2022/07/mi...
Papers referenced by Peter May:
• “Miracles Today?” A Medical Critique of Craig Keener’s miracle claims. The Skeptic, Reason with Compassion. (on line) 8th July 2022
• “Miracles in Medicine” Science and Christian Belief 2017, Volume 29, No 2, pp 121-134
• “Response to my Critics” Science & Christian Belief 2019, Vol 31, No 1, pp 70 - 77
• “Beatification of Cardinal Henry Newman” Medico-Legal Journal, 2017, Vol 85 (4)
• Faith and Thought (the Victoria Institute), October 2009, pp11-25,
• Claimed Contemporary Miracles, Medico-Legal Journal, Volume 71, Part 4, 2003
• The Faith Healing Claims of Morris Cerullo, Free Enquiry, 1993/94
• Subscribe to the Unbelievable? podcast: pod.link/267142101
• More shows, free eBook & newsletter: premierunbelievable.com
• For live events: www.unbelievable.live
• For online learning: www.premierunbelievable.com/t...
• Support us in the USA: www.premierinsight.org/unbelie...
• Support us in the rest of the world: www.premierunbelievable.com/d...
After hearing Peter's plain refusal to concede, despite the compelling evidence, Craig should not feel bad of not engaging him by sending him 3 of the best cases, since it is clear that Peter does not have a genuine interest or even remote openess to examine the evidence objectively if it means he will have to make a concession. Initially I thought Craig was wrong not to accede to Peter's request of years ago, but by the end of the video it became clear that it would be a waste of time.
There was some evidence of improvements in medical problems, but insufficient evidence of miracles. A miracle requires a clear divine intervention. You cannot guarantee that a prayer produces a divine intervention without a proper scientific experiment.
@@legendno1 I disagree. There is some evidence for miracle healing. It is just bad, deficient, or insufficient evidence to support the conclusion that any miracle healing has ever occurred. Your statement here is an exaggeration.
Bro i want to about a amputee being healed
@@tennicksalvarez9079 You have not constructed a proper sentence here.
I think it’s important to distinguish when you’re dealing with a skeptic versus a cynic. A skeptic has a clear and consistent threshold of evidence and once that criteria has been met, they submit to the evidence. A cynic approaches a subject firmly believing the alternative outcome to be impossible. As a result, no amount of evidence will ever change their mind.
It’s seems based on Peter’s continual moving of his own goal posts and dismissing evidence by either creating hypothetical arguments (not demonstrating any evidence that’s a better explanation) or dismissing it to someone who came to the same conclusion as him but isn’t there to present their argument.
My biggest question back to Peter would be, “Why is it you are so determined to refuse the possibility of a miraculous healing?” I’m genuinely curious what his logic is. Not sure if it’s theological, if he’s seen someone harmed by false claims, etc…
This is the spirit of unbelief that Jesus rebuked in the Apostle Peter. It seems he agreed with this spirit at his own healing
My suspicion is that Peter is a Christian who believes that the age of miracles was completed when all the apostles had died. He has found no strong evidence to support the occurrence of miracles in the modern age. Of course, Justin should have had another guest who was an atheist skeptic physician.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence .
@@tonyatkinson2210 to believe in miracles as a Christian is a natural thing because God answers your prayers! If yourprayers are not answered, question yourself why, what is it that is hindering your prayers? If you honestly examine yourself against the only true mirror onto your soul, the word of God, and obey it's commands, you will soon have the evidence you need!
@@stephen2975 which prayers does his answer ?
I’ve never seen Keener get frustrated before but I don’t blame him. His epistemology and the data was never really questioned. He showed up to wrestle through the evidence not have a rhetoric battle
I have the impression that Keener responded very well and remained friendly and calm.
@@user-li3mv5qx4t oh I think he did as well! But you could definitely tell how we was feeling
there is zero evidence. this gent is reaching hard with what he calls evidence. if you think you can petition the lord please tell me the number of saints who must pray to petition him?
@@legendno1there is no number of saints that must petition to him
Peter might as well have “Psychosomatic” tattooed on his hands and cover his eyes.
Yes but that's occam's razor. Unfortunately the others do the same with the word "god" without a hint of self-awareness
The default is the natural explanation as it should be
@@calmsimon why?
Haha right?! Yikes
😂
After watching all the debate and see the weakness in Peter position, I want to thank this channel for this debate. It has increase my faith seeing that in order to negate miracle you literally have to imagine preposterous ideas to explain them away.
Thanks Justin!
1:04-1:06 is probably the most important part of this discussion. Peter has no compelling argument against the evidential claims of the boy's stomach and digestive healing, so he relies on the logical fallacy of appealing to authority. First, does he recognize that he's insulting Joshua Brown, who is a scientist, to his face?
And secondly, I feel like Joshua Brown's rebuttal to Peter's "appeal to authority" was pretty profound, even if Peter ignored and dismissed it completely. Brown suggests that the scientific establishment maintains an Enlightenment/Hume dogma that faithfully adheres solely and exclusively to naturalistic explanation....It is a belief system about science that ironically cannot be empirically proven, any more than Euclid's 5 postulates for Geometry. No, the Enlightenment view is itself dogma b/c it relies on its own subjective pretenses of faith and worldview. As a result, Joshua argues that the scientific establishment refused to review his paper a priori- not b/c of any concerns about scientific procedure or the validity of the evidence, but b/c the paper's conclusions point to a possibility that extends beyond physical/naturalistic explanation. And that can not be tolerated by the clergy of the white jackets.
Good conversation. A little annoyed that Peter’s skepticism does seem intractable since he can either blame the doctor or the patient or the researcher or the journal that publishes the report as being “crazy” any time he wants to with no proof.
But Peter still had the better explanations. God did not show up for either of the two cures cited. It is impossible to infer that these were miracles.
@@whittfamily1 did he? Explain?
@@joshs2986 I already did explain. God did not show up. If God does not show up and perform some action producing a cure, then nobody may conclude that a miracle cure has happened. It's that simple. What is it that you don't understand?
@@whittfamily1 no, Peter didn't
@@ibelieveitcauseiseentit9630 Yes, Peter still had the better explanations. Why? God never showed up.
It seems that May's biblical and medical criteria for healing miracles are faulty. His presuppositions rule out modern miracles.
I was a photojournalist missionary in Asia (based in Thailand) for many years for a mission organization, we were always looking for story ideas from different missionaries and believers in the region we covered. Sadly many of our leads brought amazing stories to our attention but not all were of the nature that would fit into our publications. One story I regret noting being able to follow up on happened in Cambodia. A missionary (Western) knew some Cambodian believers/Kingdom-workers in a remote area who told of a man having been raised from the dead. This missionary colleague had the chance to interview the family while on a visit to the area sometime after it had happened. He was skeptical as there often superstitious explanations conclusions jumped to among the less educated and rural areas in this part of the world. He was introduced to the family by the Cambodian minister and they told him the story of how the husband had become increasingly distraught over a long period of time, and one day when his wife had left their home/village one day, the husband had hung himself from a tree behind their home. Hours later she returned to find him hanging from the tree dead. She contacted the local minister who came over and felt led to pray for God to bring him back to life. When the prayed this, the man began to breath and returned to life. The missionary having the same skeptical thoughts that most of us would began asking the wife some questions about her experience through it all. Thinking that it was possible that the husband had not hung long enough to have really died and may have only lost consciousness and appeared to be dead, the missionary asked the wife, "What makes you think that he had been hanging there long enough to truly be dead and not just appear to be so?" She said she knew he had to have been there for along time because, "the dung on his pants had already dried by the time I found hi and took him down from the rope."
Do I offer this as "proof" of a miracle? No, and someone like Peter May wouldn't believe this story was valid at all. But I knew the missionary who wouldn't manufacture a story like this. Could the man and woman have crafted this story? Sure, but I'm not sure the benefit for them. I do know this incident had a positive impact on many regarding their devotion to Jesus and more than just the couple and minister were witness to the event. This for me was one of those stories that provided the anecdotal bit that gave it credibility to accept it has highly likely to have happened though I would not argue it as verifiable and certainly "true". Dying by asphyxia or other kinds of traumatic death creates the high likelihood of defecation/urination which isn't something the wife would have likely included unless she had experienced it and seen it in actuality.
Certainly refutable for someone who refuses to accept such things could happen, but also not a certain example of verifiable proof someone could use to back up claims of someone being raised from the dead. Take from it what you will.
And that’s my point with the myriad of examples of resurrection, miracles and the fact that nothing extraordinary happens without a video camera. Do you wonder why we are skeptical?
@@mitchschultz8335 As I expressed that I am skeptical myself despite also believing Jesus heals people today, no, I do not wonder why people are skeptical.
I believe Jesus healed people as recorded in scripture despite the absence of video cameras for "proof". Being a photojournalist myself, I know the power and value of communicating visually to bear witness of what I have seen and experienced but I also know that I've seen extraordinary things that I did not or could not capture, but that doesn't mean they did not truly happen. The absence of "proof" does not make something not true. Even so, I would not try to validate Jesus by arguing the truthfulness of something I'd experienced or seen myself. I also know that it's likely that presenting "video proof" of something would easily be dismissed by someone who simply wanted to disbelieve, suggesting the footage was doctored or faked.
I'm as skeptical as others but I also don't believe that Jesus' reality and life-transformational power rests on whether miracles can be proven today or not. The miraculous that Jesus may or may not affect in this world is not primary, but rather secondary, as in, the "miraculous" is a byproduct of Him and His Work to set people free from the curse of our sin by His Blood. I can still have doubts whether those I've prayed for who appeared to have been healed were actually healed. But I am unmoved in my certainty that Jesus Himself lives today and transformed me when I encountered Him at the age of 21 in one of my darkest and most hopeless moments. I am no skeptic that Jesus has indwelled me with His Spirit, had empowered me to live the life He desires for me, and I fellowship with Him now and always will.
@@noway8731 care to explain your experience at 21?
@@noway8731 Yes I agree with you 100%. I often say that my conviction tells me God does heal, my observation is that he doesn't now. Someone I live with that tension comfortably
@@mitchschultz8335 I have seen 3 healings right before my eyes lol so yes it does happen
Do psycho somatic illnesses present in infants?! I find that suggestion ridiculous. The man has simply decided, a priori, that miracles no longer happen. His hostility toward his opponents is the most telling aspect of his comments.
P.s. If his claim is that only the healing was psychosomatic, he should be clear; and by the way: what's the difference between a healing based upon faith and a "psychosomatic" cure? Nothing except the world view of the observer.
Peter appears somewhere between agitated and angry during this exchange, especially in regards to Craig. It seems personal to Peter, (edited)... who is acting like a rude jerk interrupting and being generally disagreeable throughout...
Peter is a 'typical' GP in that everything is psychosomatic!
Why would a 2 week old baby have a psychosomatic GI illness that continues for 16 yrs...
And I'm pretty sure the blind lady wouldn't appreciate being told it was all in her mind either!
I loved this debate. Well done to Josh and Craig for giving an excellent rebuttal 👍. Great to see these things discussed.
Yeah I was thinking the same thing with the one who had this issue has a baby. To think it was just in there head is flat out crazy.
@PlayStationNintendowin For sure. It definitely is crazy! And it's sad coming from someone who has received healing twice regardless of it being via treatment or not. He has 2 wonderful medical testimonies that lots of people would desire and be thankful for. He didn't seem to come across that way, unfortunately.
@@seascape1059 Care to explain your miracle healings?
@Zephyr-117's Dropzone I need a health miracle....rather than sharing one!
I think the best explanation of the first case is that the GI illness was cured years before the life-changing prayer occurred. The prayer just motivated the subject to relinquish the tubes and eat normally.
Clicked to check it out for 2 mins stayed for 2 hours. Very interesting. I was shocked when peter admits God heals him of leukemia but doesn't believe in modern day miracles 😬
You need to be on one of these debates!
Faith healing is disgusting
When we read cell biologists who have researched the power of Belief and Faith on physical healing, many indicate that “All physical diseases are a combination of soma and psyche”. Bruce Lipton Ph. D. In his book, The Biology of Belief says that all treatment and healing is ‘psychosomatic’. As a retired therapist several of my teachers argued against my claims of prayerful healing as /psychosomatic’. Of course they were correct for that is exactly what we were trying to learn how to do in psych classes. Once we understand contemporary physiology we see that Descartes and Plato were wrong about the body, mind, and spirit split. It is a unity and faithful prayer can unleash a therapeutic/healing energy. God uses our prayers and faith to bring changes. Especially since we have the Holy Spirit with us and in us.
Good to see a return to form by ‘Unbelievable?’. This is the sort of discussion the show does so well.
Dr. Keener is a very soft-spoken man and this should taken into account...kick the audio up a few notches,Just a techinical matter.
I don't see how Peter May was able to adequately back up his scepticism or responses, especially during the case-studies.
The show really needed an atheist skeptic physician.
Peter is an interesting and quite disturbing blend of a real Christian under the burden of inability to see he still holds to some atheistic, scientism presuppositions carried over from his atheistic days.
Yes, it's even possible to detect an accusing attitude in tone of Peter's voice -- possibly a 'left over' from an atheistic mindset..An interesting programme..
I think you are misunderstanding Peter. He is just the type of Christian who believes the Age of Miracles ended long ago.
He's simply not as gullible as some Christians. To call that presupposing scientism or "atheistic" with a negative connotation is just fundamentalist bigotry.
@@betsalprince I agree with you on that point.
we live in an age of 'anti-supernaturalist' presumption. One of these behaviours is that EVERYTHING must be proved in a naturalistic so called scientific method. This shows the whole issue of miracles being something that as to be treated very sceptically. I see miracles of od working in my life most days. They have nothing to do with a limitied pseudo scientific definition. When you want to experience love you often have to love someone first - just saying.
This was much more interesting than I had expected. Thank you!
For the case of the blind woman, it seems Peter wants to have his cake and eat it too. Either there was physical sun damage or it was psychosomatic, it can’t be both.
There is only one true explanation, but either of the two given by Peter is more likely than that God healed somebody. We now know that God does not exist.
@@whittfamily1 If God does not exist, why care at all if there is any evidence that the blind woman was healed? And if we now know God doesn’t exist, is anything real at all? Can we be sure that space exists? Are there really other planets? We don’t know, we’re told there are but can we really trust the Hubble space telescope?
@@whittfamily1is that because you have already concluded that God does not heal?
What would convince you?
@@wazcooper401 WC1: If God does not exist, why care at all if there is any evidence that the blind woman was healed?
GW1: I can’t believe you would ask such a question. We all care about the truth, don’t we? Well, I do, even if you don’t. The evidence presented was insufficient to prove that there was a miraculous cure of the blind woman.
WC1: And if we now know God doesn’t exist, is anything real at all?
GW1: I can’t believe you would ask that question either. Well, of course there are many real things. God just isn’t one of them. We know this now.
WC1: Can we be sure that space exists? Are there really other planets?
GW1: Yes and Yes, of course.
WC1: We don’t know, we’re told there are but can we really trust the Hubble space telescope?
GW1: We do know that space and other planets exist. Define what you think the difference is between believing and knowing?
@@whittfamily1 If you know God doesn’t exist, why care about the truth as any truth has an implied morality?
If you know God doesn’t exist, you would have to have rest with total confidence that nothing produced everything - that there was no X at the time of the Big Bang. That the right amount of energy (physics and mathematical equations) was so perfect and so spot on, that it was capable of producing itself.
You would then have to assume that there are no laws governing the universe, that everything governs and programs itself, including human nature. That would mean right and wrong doesn’t exist either, because human nature governs itself.
Therefore if law is self determined, why does law enforcement and the laws of nature exist - they wouldn’t need to.
Peter's objection to the case of the blind lady eventually deteriorated into plain rhetorical "I refuse to believe it". Really now, there is simply no difference between the account of the blind lady and the blind people's healings in the Bible, and he simply fails to give any reasonable or detailed reason for his distinction between the two instances. Josh actually, point for point, meets up the facts of the case with the Lambertini criteria, and still Peter is "just not convinced" (in his own words). As another commentator stated - you have to distinguish between a skeptic and a cynic - and Peter falls squarely in the category of cynic.
Peter needs to learn to say Thank You Jesus.
Why? Jesus did not show up and cure him.
Why is he so determined there was a wrong diagnosis. It seems he made that decision that it was!
I didn't believe before but I can't limit God and anyone who thinks they can has to answer for that
Dr. May your proposal that it could be psychosomatic is a lazy argument. You should address your own bias of pride, seems your vision needs a check.
There is plenty of evidence of miraculous healing that is psychosomatic. Poorly people feeling better as a result of faith heaters only to return to pre - healing levels of disability after going home .
Is there any evidence that real
Miracles occur ?
I typically do not like commenting in this way since this is a fantastic discussion with some compelling and scholarly arguments. However, Peter's reaction to Joshua's attempt to publish the first case is blatantly biased towards naturalism and his view that natural processes cannot be challenged. Now he states he would accept cases with certain criteria. This case meets the criteria. However, he rejects it because it isn't enough. And argues that since a scientific journal will not accept it, it is therefore a poor case for a miracle. I think Joshua clearly has the upper hand, given his experience in scientific publishing, which is the REAL problem here, and the publishers' naturalistic bias against the miraculous.
May is frustratingly constantly shifting the goalposts and his behavior at the end towards Keener was disgraceful. I won't tell you what to do Justin with your show, but if it were me, I'd never have him on again.
“The most incredible thing about miracles is that they happen. …there is in life an element of elfin coincidence which people on the prosaic may perpetually miss. …wisdom should not reckon on the unforeseen.”
― G.K. Chesterton, The Collected Works of G.K. Chesterton, Volume 12: The Father Brown Stories, Volume I
Great discussion, good job Justin keeping it moving and from getting out of hand.
Peter May is right that his own mis-diagnosis is not a miraculous turn. But it has made him more aggressive than doubting Thomas: “I will not believe unless I see with my own eyes AND it must be restoration of something visibly degenerated.” I don't think God is into performative miracles. I think May is doing an important service in his investigations, but I worry for him (from what I heard) that he may be moving to join those who in Jesus' day saw miracles and did not believe.
Also, his assertion that scientific journals would publish Keener's or Brown's papers if they were good science shows May is living in a bygone era. Scientists have, in the last few decades, promoted themselves as arbiters of all truth (which is, of course, scientism, and ridiculous), and many people today have been misled by this. Those in the gateways don't want to give up that power or esteem. Acknowledging or even considering Keener's and Brown's work would let a divine foot in the door, and they no longer allow it.
You say that you do not think God is into performative miracles, so you do not think God performed miracles in biblical times?
@@whittfamily1 Yes, I think he did. But when people come with an attitude, demanding signs, I think God is unlikely to perform for them. That's what I mean by that term.
@@martypomeroy9734 I disagree. I think you are mistaken. First, I am confident that some of the people who allegedly received miracles in biblical times would have made demands, and so they would be no different than some people today. However, most people merely request these interventions; they don't demand. Secondly, if God did exist and performed miracles, he would be dependable, obvious, and direct in doing so. God would not be shy, reticent, hiding, confusing, or evasive. Thirdly, God would perform some miracles after being asked and other miracles without being asked. And lastly, we now know that God does not exist. This has been proven by me and others.
@@whittfamily1 you seem to be saying, if a "god" does not do things the way you think he should, he does not exist. Is that a fair summary?
Also BTW - you cannot prove god does not exist. You can think all religions are wrong... but this is getting pretty complicated for youtube comments!
@@martypomeroy9734 MP1: you seem to be saying, if a "god" does not do things the way you think he should, he does not exist. Is that a fair summary?
GW1: No, that is not a fair summary at all! I am only one person, and so what I think a god should do is not that impressive. But since I reflect the thinking of a large group of persons who are thinking rationally about the problem, that is very impressive. We must investigate how God could, would, and should behave and not behave, if he did exist. That’s the heart of the matter. I assert that he would PREVENT the Holocaust, and I give sound reasons for this. If you are asserting the opposite, i.e. that he would ALLOW the Holocaust, then present your case for that, and then we can have a wonderful debate.
MP1: Also BTW - you cannot prove god does not exist.
GW1: I certainly can and I have! Haven’t you read my Three-Way Argument Against the Existence of God Based on the Holocaust? Read it, study it, and get back to me.
MP1: You can think all religions are wrong... but this is getting pretty complicated for youtube comments!
GW1: It may be too complicated for you and some others, but not for me and some others. Did I say that all religions are wrong? I don’t think I did
I was given both bi-polar ..and schizophrenia… when I became a Christian at 22….and over 34 years ….I’ve been completely healed …from all addictions and illnesses…and tormenting spirits… and now …..I’m 55 …never taken any drugs ..for over 30 years… I worked over all these years … I’m a do Councelling, and Evangelist Work …around Scotland…and my experiences of tormenting spirits ..casting out demons, addictions, torment, and igniting education and wisdom on the streets of Scotland…is clear …I see miracles every day…. Every day …. The world is falling into darkness…like Sodom and Noah …. The miracles of Yeshua …. Are clear … I’ve no doubt
Josh is kicking butt and taking names in this video.
Peter and Craig were probably gonna come to blows at some point 😅. It’s all good, I am sure they all enjoyed their spirited debates with no hard feelings 😊
This was a really good show.
Peter said that he wrote to Craig five years ago. So these two has a history.
Craig is really good at evading challenges.
@@whittfamily1 Nah - Craig obviously doesn’t want to bang his head against the brick wall of Peter’s senseless bias. What a waste of time.
@@debbiefoster6338 But Craig is banging his head against the wall with his own senseless bias. He is very evasive. He was asked for his three best cases and he refused to present them, more than once.
What challenges was Craig evading? He basically positioned his angle that if you believe the miracles that occurred and were recorded in the New Testament, whether performed by Jesus or the Apostles, then it is reasonable to believe that miracles still happen today.
Peter's blindness to political correctness, even in scientific journals, is astounding. To say that "a quality scientific journal will publish a quality scientific paper," even when that contradicts their naturalistic assumptions, is an assumption Peter does not take a step to prove.
But let me post again what Richard Lewontin noted:
"Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural. We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism.
It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated.
Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door. The eminent Kant scholar Lewis Beck used to say that anyone who could believe in God could believe in anything. To appeal to an omnipotent deity is to allow that at any moment the regularities of nature may be ruptured, that miracles may happen."
Perhaps Peter needs to take naturalists seriously in their attempt to keep naturalism as the overarching framework for evaluating "quality scientific research."
My sister in law had triple negative metastatic breast cancer. A tumor the size of a grapefruit in her chest, cancer on her bones and lungs. Within months she was diagnosed completely cancer free. The tumor shrank to nothing within a few days of receiving prayer, laying on of hands, so much to share. Anyway, it's not the first time I have personally been involved and witnessed such healings.
Good on you , Joshua!
I watched from beginning to the end , and I like the professionalism of Josh by setting the goalpost right. When Peter was out of things to say, all he can do is gesture a "thumbs down". But in 1:47:10 I felt he got himself into a checkmate when he himself admitted he got cured of lukemia by prayer but had not offered an explanation, how it is not a miraculous occurence, nor why it deserves a thumbs down. This man has to know that there is no way to quantify miracles or make a formula for it. " All things are possible to him who believes Mark 9:23 . " For the people who gets healed, none of this matter. I was blind, but now I see!! - says the man blind since birth in the gospels.
A great discussion- thank you. I have been a physician for 40 years and a Christian for longer. However I think we need to consider why God might heal in the light of the fact that we all die. I have seen 3 cases in which I believe there was miraculous healing but ALL could be explained by a physical mechanism. The miracle was in the timing as much as anything. Let us not squeeze God into man’s image.
Why did Jesus heal during his life. Or the apostles.
My hunch your answer to that question can be applied to the here and now.
Out of 40 yeses if practice only 3 miracles . All of which could be explained by a physical mechanism the the sole reason for you believing they were miracles is the timing ?
Do you think it’s possible that with 40 years of practice the timing of a recovery might exactly correlate with prayer at least 3 times by pure coincidence ?
Given the number if cases you must have dealt with - thousands , it seems likely.
@@tonyatkinson2210 what was the physical explanation for the cases in the video. Didn't seem to be any. Well any ones that work?
@@joshs2986 dunno . Could be many . Could be unknown .
No explanation doesn’t make a miracle more likely
@@tonyatkinson2210 you just said "all of which could be explained by a physical mechanism.."
When I ask what that physical mechanism could be, you say "I don't know".
So what we have iin these two cases was at the moment of prayer a person was healed and there is currently no known explanation as to how that could happen.
There is a whole book by Craig keener with stories like these.
I agree no explanation doesn't equal a miracle. But it definitely doesn't lead towards the conclusions: "miracles definitely do not exist"
Excellent format for the show with the cases being shared in advance so that the participants are well prepared. This made for a really in depth and interesting discussion. Great episode and would encourage similar ones in the future! Having said that I have to say that Peter was clutching at straws on multiple occasions with his psycho-somatic defence and had the show gone on any longer he'd need a miraculous rescue himself. I do, however, pray for his health.
God did not show up for either improvement, and those two improvements cannot be classified as miracles.
@@whittfamily1 The case presented by Joshua was compelling and was highly aligned with the pre-agreed criteria. Whether God showed up or not I do not know, but an impartial jury would highly likely determine that he did, judging by the comments I have read so far as well as my own impressions. In any case Peter came away very stubborn and was not able to quite handle the onslaught of well-presented arguments from Joshua.
@@sanjinloncaric1798 SL1: The case presented by Joshua was compelling and was highly aligned with the pre-agreed criteria.
GW1: I disagree. The case was not compelling to me, Peter, or any rational thinking person. The presented criteria are not appropriate for identifying a miracle if they do not include “obvious intervention by a divine agent causing the improvement.”
SL1: Whether God showed up or not I do not know, but an impartial jury would highly likely determine that he did, judging by the comments I have read so far as well as my own impressions.
GW1: If you do not know that God showed up and intervened, then you may not conclude that a miracle occurred. And an impartial and rational jury would not conclude that God showed up. You seem to be inconsistent with yourself - first claiming no knowledge and then claiming having the impression that God showed up. Does this mean that you believe God showed up and intervened, but your confidence in this belief is low?
SL1: In any case Peter came away very stubborn and was not able to quite handle the onslaught of well-presented arguments from Joshua.
GW1: Peter just didn’t handle the defense of his position very well, even though he was correct. Justin should have included an atheist skeptical physician.
@@whittfamily1 Thank you for your considerate response.
"GW1: I disagree. The case was not compelling to me, Peter, or any rational thinking person. The presented criteria are not appropriate for identifying a miracle if they do not include “obvious intervention by a divine agent causing the improvement.”
SL2: Hopefully your characterization of "any rational thinking person" is a hyperbole, otherwise you are borderline committing an ad-hominem. Regardless if I agree with Peter or Joshua or yourself I think that (based on what I have observed) Peter and Joshua (and you) are rational and thinking. This doesn't in itself make anyone right, but being right is not a prerequisite for being rational and thinking. My point is that the group on the show (Peter, Joshua and Craig) have agreed on a specific set of criteria for evaluating a miracle in advance - the Lambertini criteria. It wasn't sprung up on anyone. In fact, that was the whole format of the show: agree common criteria, present two cases and then argue both sides and let the audience decide. Effectively, it was a mini court-room, which is what made the whole show so interesting and engaging (at least for me). If you have a different criteria for a miracle then this is neither here nor there - that is for some other show. In fact I would argue that your criteria are imprecise and inadequate - 'obvious' is subjective, 'existence of a divine agent' sets a higher bar (the existence of the divine) than what is attempted to be shown (existence of a miracle).
"GW1: If you do not know that God showed up and intervened, then you may not conclude that a miracle occurred. And an impartial and rational jury would not conclude that God showed up. You seem to be inconsistent with yourself - first claiming no knowledge and then claiming having the impression that God showed up. Does this mean that you believe God showed up and intervened, but your confidence in this belief is low?"
(For some reason my reply below this line got clobbered and I had to retype it in)
SL2: God showing up was your terminology, not mine. As per my point above this is a slightly different argument than what was at trial here. The two arguments (miracle and God showing up, whatever that means) are related, but not identical arguments. My opinion was on the alignment of miracle cases according to the pre-agreed criteria and not on God showing up.
"GW1: Peter just didn’t handle the defense of his position very well, even though he was correct. Justin should have included an atheist skeptical physician."
SL2: I don't disagree. However, rather than being a problem of faith-based position the other side (Peter) would have benefitted from some additional medical expertise in the cases discussed. Just the fact of having a non-expert atheist would not have made the counter-argument much more compelling.
@@sanjinloncaric1798 SL2: Thank you for your considerate response.
GW2: You are welcome.
GW1: I disagree. The case was not compelling to me, Peter, or any rational thinking person. The presented criteria are not appropriate for identifying a miracle if they do not include “obvious intervention by a divine agent causing the improvement.”
SL2: Hopefully your characterization of "any rational thinking person" is a hyperbole, otherwise you are borderline committing an ad-hominem.
GW2: Yes, my wording was a little hyperbolic. I will reword this way: “The case was not compelling to me, Peter, or any person who applies rational, reasonable, or scientific thinking skills to the evidence at hand.”
SL2: Regardless if I agree with Peter or Joshua or yourself I think that (based on what I have observed) Peter and Joshua (and you) are rational and thinking. This doesn't in itself make anyone right, but being right is not a prerequisite for being rational and thinking.
GW2: There is a difference between being a rational person in general and thinking rationally in a particular situation. I don’t believe that Joshua was thinking rationally about these two cases he presented, although he might make rational decisions in other aspects of his life. His conclusion is not justified by a rational, skeptical, or scientific thinking process.
SL2: My point is that the group on the show (Peter, Joshua and Craig) have agreed on a specific set of criteria for evaluating a miracle in advance - the Lambertini criteria. It wasn't sprung up on anyone. In fact, that was the whole format of the show: agree common criteria, present two cases and then argue both sides and let the audience decide.
GW2: I’ll assume for now that the three (along with Justin) agreed to the Lambertini criteria. First, I don’t think Peter thought the criteria were met in either case. Secondly, I don’t agree that meeting all the Lambertini criteria would establish the existence of a miracle. A miracle requires the clear and obvious favorable intervention by a divine agent, causing the cure! I have studied the subject of miracles and wrote a chapter in a book at it. I am not a novice in this area.
SL2: Effectively, it was a mini court-room, which is what made the whole show so interesting and engaging (at least for me).
GW2: I thought it was interesting, but I don’t think Peter was the best person to oppose the others.
SL2: If you have a different criteria for a miracle then this is neither here nor there - that is for some other show.
GW2: I disagree. It is here, not there! The show was about miracles. So, discussion of the proper criteria to establish a miracle is highly relevant.
SL2: In fact I would argue that your criteria are imprecise and inadequate - 'obvious' is subjective,...
GW2: We can define it objectively if you wish. A divine agent is obviously present if it can be seen, heard, and touched by a group of persons consisting of theists, atheists, and agnostics, and performs at least three miracles while present. There you go. If God did exist and he performed miracles, that is what he would do.
SL2: 'existence of a divine agent' sets a higher bar (the existence of the divine) than what is attempted to be shown (existence of a miracle).
GW2: No, it sets the proper bar. It is possible for a human being to say a prayer which “works” with no divine agent being involved. This would not be a miracle.
GW1: If you do not know that God showed up and intervened, then you may not conclude that a miracle occurred. And an impartial and rational jury would not conclude that God showed up. You seem to be inconsistent with yourself - first claiming no knowledge and then claiming having the impression that God showed up. Does this mean that you believe God showed up and intervened, but your confidence in this belief is low?"
SL2: God showing up was your terminology, not mine.
GW2: Yes. You can’t have a miracle without a divine intervention! And you can’t be sure of a divine intervention without a divine agent obviously showing up, as I described earlier.
SL2: As per my point above this is a slightly different argument than what was at trial here. The two arguments (miracle and God showing up, whatever that means) are related, but not identical arguments. My opinion was on the alignment of miracle cases according to the pre-agreed criteria and not on God showing up.
GW2: Well, your perspective on miracles is just too narrow, IMO. The participants in this show lowered the bar unnecessarily and inappropriately.
GW1: Peter just didn’t handle the defense of his position very well, even though he was correct. Justin should have included an atheist skeptical physician.
SL2: I don't disagree. However, rather than being a problem of faith-based position the other side (Peter) would have benefitted from some additional medical expertise in the cases discussed.
GW2: Yes, he would have. It would have even been desirable for his consultant on the second case to have been there.
SL2: Just the fact of having a non-expert atheist would not have made the counter-argument much more compelling.
GW2: That’s a straw man. I said an “atheist skeptic physician.” Steven Novella or Michael Newdow would have been good participants.
1) Peter is a the textbook example: “if you are inflexibly opposed to miracles, you won’t believe them even if you need to propose the most preposterous things”. His treatment of the second case is shameful. Josh rebutted every objection but he just continued repeating the same thing. What a sad situation in which a believer turns to unhealthy skepticism.
2) the debate with Peter should be in regards to his PRESUPPOSITIONS. He would reject any miracle nor matter the evidence or proofs because he has a worldview that for whatever reason makes him inflexibly skeptical. (On second thoughts, considering his temper tantrums no debate with him is worth the time after all)
3) Maybe Peter has concerns with charlatans and faith healers that discourage medicines and advice crazy stuff. But what’s the point? He wasn’t talking with a naive guy, he was talking with one of the world leading and sober New Testament scholar. Moreover, keener over and over again says in his books that he is not advocating for a view that encourages people to stop medicines without clinical evidence that they are healed. So INDEED it was a red herring from Peter.
4) the last minute temper tantrum from Peter is shameful. He shows his ego and began screaming angrily because he knew his position was inconsistent.
Peter should remind us to guard us and be humble because even as a believer you can fulfil Romans 1:22
“Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools”.
I kinda have to hand it to Peter for his relentless commitment to skepticism - it's honestly impressive. Great discussion, really enjoyed it!
Relentless is understating
After the cases have been presented ,judging by the look in his face, I can tell he was beginning to be skeptic of his skepticism.
I agree. it's rare for a Christian to acknowledge his own religious bias.
Kind of like a Dawkins pretending to be a Christian.
Peter simply does not want to believe. His objections would seem to be purely ideological.
Why would a psychosomatic healing not be a healing?
Because nothing physical has healed . There’s nothing miraculous about it
There are plenty of ways we can reduce the perception of pain using psychology.
@@tonyatkinson2210 I understand that we want to fence the definition of miracle. Just wondering how healing the mind fits in? I think most people would agree that psychological issues are real and often treated with medication and therapy. In which case, relief from one could be considered a healing, and without another explanation, possibly even a miracle. 🤔
Perhaps you could do a video on the miracles under Kathry Kuhlman's ministry. She had a strict critereon for publication of any reported miracle.
The fact that we are having this conversation is a testimony that most people do not see a lot of healing, even if they do see genuine healings. There are believers and even groups of believers that are surprised if people are not healed. That is a fact. If you or I are not seeing it maybe are missing a huge part of the Kingdom. Is the pure gospel being preached. Are people repenting and living for Jesus without compromise? Or at least relatively little compromise? Is church discipline being practiced?
I definitely think that Josh had the better arguments, and Peter came across as particularly not open to the possibility of a miracle. He heavily relied on “psychosomatic” argument, even when a series of experts all agree that psychosomatic causes are impossible.
Nonetheless, I do understand his wish for more examples that were *visible* to the point that psychosomatic explanations would be utterly unthinkable.
I do get his frustration that these are supposed to be the *absolute best* examples that those who have spent the most time investigating have been able to come up with, and yet still leave *some* room for skepticism, without even resorting to accusations of lies or misreporting.
It would be great if the person who regained eyesight didn’t have any eyes, or the person whose stomach was healed has previously had their stomach removed. I know that Craig Keener has some examples in his book that are close to that level, but the fact that he did not raise any such examples gives the skeptic ammunition to claim that there is no evidence.
A miracle was not demonstrated in either case. Why? Because a divine intervention was not demonstrated. A prayer by itself can never be sufficient evidence of a divine intervention.
@@whittfamily1 Respectfully, many of your comments use circular logic. Here you seem to basically be saying, "a miracle wasn't demonstrated because a miracle wasn't demonstrated." Above you write, "There is only one true explanation, but either of the two given by Peter is more likely than that God healed somebody. We now know that God does not exist." There you seem to basically saying, "we know God doesn't exist because it's unlikely God exists." It's a bit unclear though.
Even if I'm mischaracterizing what you argued in the second example, how do you know God doesn't exist? Going from -miracles don't happen and/or there's no evidence of miracles- to -there's no God- is a pretty substantial logical leap.
Also, why can a prayer by itself never be sufficient evidence of divine intervention? Based on what criteria? I ask this as an agnostic.
@@user-iw7ds4vh8j CH1: Respectfully, many of your comments use circular logic.
GW1: No, they don’t. Demonstrate your claim.
CH1: Here you seem to basically be saying, "a miracle wasn't demonstrated because a miracle wasn't demonstrated."
GW1: No, I didn’t say anything like that. You must be using the wrong definition of “miracle.” Present your specific definition.
CH1: Also, why can a prayer by itself never be sufficient evidence of a divine intervention? Based on what criteria? I ask this as an agnostic.
GW1: Because even if the prayer for a favorable outcome is followed by the favorable outcome, you do not know that the favorable outcome was produced by any god. The outcome could be due to accident, a natural process or force, an alien, a human, a demon, a robot, or a god. So many possibilities. So, you would need additional evidence that the cause was a god.
GW1: I am an agnostic atheist and a contra-theist.
CH1: Even if I'm mischaracterizing what you argued in the second example, how do you know God doesn't exist?
GW1: I know that God does not exist because it has been proven in many correct arguments. I will present one to you here.
Notice: After you read the argument, please provide answers to these questions:
1. Do you understand the argument? If not, what specifically do you not understand?
2. Is there an error in the argument? If so, what is it?
3. Do you agree that the argument and its conclusion are correct? If not, why not?
The Three-Way Argument Against the Existence of God Based on the Holocaust: By Gary Whittenberger, 1-29-2023
1. Definition: God is 1) the hypothetical, unique, supernatural, independent, spiritual, normally invisible person, intelligent agent, or sentient entity. He is OMNI lasting (eternal), present, knowing, powerful, intelligent, rational, creative, and resilient (invincible). He is also OMNI loving, compassionate, and moral with respect to other persons. He fills the roles of cosmos designer and producer (creator), occasional interventionist in the world, and afterlife manager who decides the favorable or unfavorable disposition of human souls after they die. or 2) the greatest imaginable possible person (the “GIPPer”) who, if he existed, would surely be worthy of our greatest respect, admiration, and worship. Or 3) the hypothetical ideal person, intelligent agent, or sentient being, i.e. that possible person with all desirable traits to their highest degrees and with no undesirable traits.
The First Way
2. If God did exist, then he would be all-knowing, all-powerful, invulnerable, and perfectly moral.
3. If God did exist, then the Holocaust would not have occurred.
A. If God did exist and allowed the Holocaust, then he would have been immoral. To give human beings the free will to engage in violent acts in furtherance of the extermination of a group of human persons would be immoral in itself. And to stand by and do nothing to prevent or stop an extermination, when you could do so, would have been immoral in itself.
B. But God would be perfectly moral.
C. Therefore, if God did exist, then he would not have allowed the Holocaust and so it would not have occurred.
4. But the Holocaust did occur.
5. Therefore, God does not exist.
The Second Way
6. Furthermore, if God did exist, then he allowed the Holocaust to occur for one or more morally justified reasons.
7. But there are and could be no morally justified reasons for God to allow the Holocaust. Consider these possibilities:
A. One possible morally justified reason for a person to allow the Holocaust is that they did not know about the Holocaust. But this could not be a reason for God since he would be all-knowing.
B. Another possible morally justified reason for a person to allow the Holocaust is that they did not have the power to prevent it or immediately stop it. But this could not be a reason for God since he would be all-powerful.
C. Another possible morally justified reason for a person to allow the Holocaust is that they would have been killed in an attempt to prevent or stop it. But this could not be a reason for God since he would be eternal and all-powerful.
D. Another possible morally justified reason for a person to allow the Holocaust is that they would have been significantly injured in an attempt to prevent or stop it. But this could not be a reason for God since he would be invulnerable and all-powerful.
E. Another possible morally justified reason for a person to allow the Holocaust is that they would have significantly suffered in an attempt to prevent or stop it. But this could not be a reason for God since he would be invulnerable and all-powerful.
F. Another possible morally justified reason for a person to allow the Holocaust is that allowing it would be necessary for them to prevent some greater harm than the Holocaust. But this could not be a reason for God since nothing at all would be necessary for him to allow in order to prevent some greater harm since he would be all-powerful. God would have dominion over all necessities and natural laws.
G. Another possible morally justified reason for a person to allow the Holocaust is that allowing it would be necessary for them to produce a benefit which outweighed the Holocaust. But this could not be a reason for God since nothing at all would be necessary for him to allow in order to produce some benefit that would outweigh the Holocaust since he would be all-powerful. God would have dominion over all necessities and natural laws.
H. Another possible morally justified reason for a person to allow the Holocaust is that permitting it would implement just punishment for every victim. But the Holocaust did not have the features of just punishment for every victim. For example, it lacked advance rule declaration, administration by proper authority, individualized proportional severity, and least effective severity for all victims.
8. Therefore, God does not exist.
The Third Way
9. Furthermore, if any tribunal is investigating or evaluating the occurrence of any horrible harm to a person or group of persons, then anyone who has knowledge of any detail related to that occurrence should present their testimony about what they know. Every person knowledgeable of the occurrence has a moral duty to come forward to the tribunal and testify to what they know, telling the whole truth and nothing but the truth.
10. The Nuremberg Trials constituted a tribunal investigating or evaluating the occurrence of the Holocaust.
11. And so, if God did exist, because he would be both all-powerful and perfectly moral, then at the Nuremberg Trials he would have testified as a witness, sworn to tell “the whole truth and nothing but the truth, so help me myself,” and presented his reasons for allowing the Holocaust.
12. But God did not testify at the Nuremberg Trials.
13. Once again, therefore, God does not exist.
15:10 Tremendous account of an absolutely terrible experience!!
20:20 Wife wrote a book called "testing prayer" candy gunther brown
20:45 said they started to see an increase of hearing thresholds; published in med journals 2010
21:01 went to heidi bakers ministry
25:01 I believe that he was healed but he seems as reserved as you possibly could be
41:01 he presses keener with a very sound point
I don't think Peter will agree to any miracles today no matter what the evidence shows. It would take a miracle for him to accept it.
That’s Hulmes definition .
Jesus commanded his followers to heal the sick! Was he serious? Or did he command something that could not be done!
The whole thing was made up by his followers after Jesus had died ?
@@tonyatkinson2210 It is foolishness to the unbeliever! Sin has blinded their eyes that they cannot see. It is the evil spirit of unbelief at work.
@@stephen2975 says who ?
@@tonyatkinson2210 Why?
@@stephen2975 why ? Because I have no reason to believe you
How peculiar. Tours with phony faith healers, gets healed himself seemingly non-miraculously, and then concludes that nobody is miraculously healed today.
I have had headaches that wouldn’t go away no matter what I took to stop them.
Yesterday, I had a headache. I took 3 Tylenol and said a prayer asking God to remove the pain, The headache went away within 30 minutes. I don’t care what worked. I only care that it went away.
You don't care what was the cause? I hope you find a cure for your deficit of curiosity.
@@whittfamily1 which is more likely ? The tylenol or the miracle ?
@@tonyatkinson2210 Tony, you and I, but not Steve, seem to care what works. It is more likely that the Tylenol caused the reduction in the headache than that a miracle did. I believe that there has never been proof that a miracle cure ever occurred, to my knowledege.
I have had actual miracles occur, more than one, nothing like rising people from the dead, but just super specific prayers that defy natural causes. If we are obedient to God, and believe Him, and are trying to live for Him, this is where i find Him working.
So...God helps you out in little ways that don't really matter, but he neglects others?
This sounds so pathetic of your god.
I believe that Peter has a real problem with God's power to heal today. I understand that we need to be careful with false miracles today. However, I don't think we should be that skeptical as Peter.
Greater things you will do , Jesus said .
Does anyone know of any candidates for sainthood? I am on a mission to meet meet as many as possible.
Peter May is infuriating in this discussion.
Eric Metaxas' book titled Miracles was a good read with many compelling testimonials.
No it WASN'T I gave it one star.
I totally believe miracles still happen today and I was with him all the way up to the miracle involving Benny Hinn.
God will NEVER validate the ministry of a fraud.
He would no more validate Benny Hinns ministry than he would validate the ministry of Simon the sorcerer.
The fact that he overlooked this caused me to delete his book immediately.
God does not validate the ministry of Hucksters, frauds, false prophets, name it am claim it wolf's in sheep's clothing.
Benny and his buddies and family have gotten filthy rich off of LIES and deception by twisting the scripture and preying on the desperate.
Seria interesante que puedieran traducir la charla al español, Dios les bendiga.
Ud puede sacar el transcript, apagar los timestamps, y echarlo al google translate, o quizás lo hacemos en español..
If Peter can’t see that what happen to him were nothing short of a miracle, how is he ever going to believe any documentation from doctor? 1:55:32 Peter needs help. Sounds like he is very upset that Craig did not respond to Peter’s request for 3 cases.
Peter May's confidence in peer review scientific journals is very naive, especially after coronavirus.
AMEN
Peter LOVES the word psychosomatic! Glad he is not my gp .!
I've had diabetic gastroparesis for over 30 years I am 51 and have not been able to actually eat a full meal I might play since then I don't go out to eat to dinner with anyone because it's embarrassing when either my stomach backs up and I feel like I'm going to vomit or go straight through me and I'm frantically trying to get to the restroom so I stay home and just eat little tiny things throughout the day it would be nice to actually sit down and eat an actual bone meal at breakfast lunch and dinner instead of a dab of this or a half a piece of that it's very frustrating
How does Peter May explain the experiences of the likes of John White, another medical doctor (with specialism in psychiatry), who said he saw the healings of various people before his eyes? As a trained doctor he would have had similar knowledge as May in understanding if a medical explanation was appropriate.
He also claims any genuine healing is immediate and full - actually when Jesus prayed for healing of a blind man, initially his vision was only partly healed. Even Jesus had to pray more than once for full healing! It's hard not to conclude that example was given for a reason.
He also concentrates on Jesus' healings. What about those of the apostles and indeed others in the early church? Were they valid? Paul refers to gifts of healing and a gift of miracle-working, and gives no indication these were limited to Jesus or the twelve.
What Bible stories prove Peter May wrong?
There any case of a healing from a genetic disease like chorea huntington. I have a nervous disease which never was healed. Would be great to be the first miracle... Twitching inside and outside... Pain, numbness, sweating and so on.. Healed are always the same diseases like cancer, autoimmune diseases, blindness, deaf and bones...I would like to be the first healing miracle of a nervous disease...so please pray for me! Did you find one case of genetic healing of a neurological disease?
The problem with miracles is the we want to be able to precipitate them at will.
Any comments on miracles that happen in other religions?
Peter May should work for Lourdes. There's somekind of a center at Lourdes that records and keeps track of visitors' medical progress.
Catholic is very strict on miracle claims, especially at Lourdes. Peter would be a great addition, such that a miracle that he approves would be of the highest quality and way beyond reasonable doubt.
Only the Catholic Church surprise, surprise, verifies so called 'miracles' .
In fact many have actually died visiting Lourdes, havinv being run over by buses, falling, tripping over crutches heart attacks ,drowned etc
@@iainrae6159 LOL, what a bunch of BS from fundy atheist. Must be from a fundamentalist church teaching young earth creationist.
@@namapalsu2364
Peter May is justified to question modern day claims of ' miracles' with a reasonable request for evidence to be peer reviewed. The Catholic Church is reluctant for alledged 'miracle claims' to be similarly investigated independently.
No need to be insulting, but I forgive you.
@@iainrae6159 Do you know that the Catholic has a very high bar before officially recognizing a miracle? Even Craig Keener, a non-Catholic, said so in his book.
So, I'm proposing that May work for the Catholic Church so that the high bar gets even higher'
@@namapalsu2364
Thsnkyou for your civil reply, appreciated.
I would suggest the Catholic Church are selective on 'miracle 'claims, is because they don't want to be ridiculed any more than can be helped.
The fact remains that the Catholic church alone verifies its own Catholic adherents miracle claims, which should make any normal person sceptical.
Now, if there was evidence of a limb growing back after a visit to Lourdes with supporting independent investigations then that would be interesting.
I have been told that the reason I have not been healed, is because I don’t have faith. To which, Messiah Yeshua/Jesus supplied this answer: It takes far greater faith/trust not to be healed, living every day with severe chronic pain, yet knowing without doubt that Yeshua/Jesus, GOD, loves me. Only recently, I realized that Sha’ul/Paul wrote, having witnessed the aftermath of all those healed miraculously by Yeshua/Jesus. Messiah Yeshua proved He was/is GOD in the flesh- having all power and authority- that was the purpose of miracles… but true faith is Trust without the miracle. Where were these faithful miracle receivers when Messiah Yeshua/Jesus was executed? I praise Yeshua/Jesus for those who are miraculously healed… my heart is over joyed for them… but more so for those who suffer in obedience still filled with the joy of their Salvation, knowing without doubt that He is faithful… never leaving us nor forsaking us. The miracle isn’t the healing of the body - but the heart, mind, and spirit…. the soul.
My friend, who used to go to a charismatic church was diagnosed with breast cancer and believed she can be healed by prayer and strict diet, which she did for a whole year, spent a lot of money for special unconventional treatment. In the end she had to go through chemo, surgery and radiation. If miracles happen - they are super rare, it's cruel to tell of them to people. Our faith is based on Jesus ans apostles, not on miracles now whether they ever happen or not.
It doesn't make any sense for you to doubt that miracles do happen given the overwhelming evidence they do happen, but accept the resurrection and miracles in bible, since they're based on testimonial and historical evidence. It seems you have a double standard acting at play.
It’s not cruel at all. Science is also a blessing from God. The founders of science were Christians who formed science to understand God. The fact that your friend is alive is a miracle before science it would be unlikely.
There is no need to make scepticism a virtue .
Yeah, lets promote gullibility!
Not sure why May believes in NT miracles without the evidence.
Can the “Doubting Thomas” be allowed to fall back on “in the head” as an explanation? It’s a weak argument. Can he explain what fixed what was “in the head”?
Following Joshua's review of the Lambertini Criteria at 1:14:49, Peter should have apologized to the others and repented of his unbelief. I'm still watching, but I'm guessing that didn't happen.
He is full of pride. He is a Christian, but still suffers from strongholds, such as pride and arrogance.
It gets embarrassing at the end......Peter is full of unbelief
Thank God this lady can see again , Peter!! Go home , Peter.
Say that in front of a blind child, dijk.
Oh my goodness. Peter. Come on man.
Does Peter believe demons are “in the head” issues and what is the explanation for that after a healing occurs?
Maybe demons were responsible for the healings. We already know it could not have been God because he doesn't exist.
Aren’t you a smart one?!🥴
@@stevesmith1493 I am correct in my conclusions about these cases, regardless of your opinions of my smartness. If you disagree, then present your case.
No
@@stevesmith1493 Yes, I am correct, regardless of your opinions of my smartness. If you refuse to participate appropriately in the discussion, that's fine.
As we contemplate Holocaust day, it begs the question as to why no miracles occurred at Auchwicz
Dicky backs being healed in 2022 in Orpington ain't a miracle.
why would this guy immediately doubt the doctor's diagnosis? Why not believe that the doctor's diagnosis was accurate and it was a true miracle.
Because Peter, even though he claims to be a Christian, still holds to naturalistic presuppositions and post-Enlightenment Western skepticism.
Doubt and discernment are a fine line. Without discernment and cynicism, we would let false teachers run wild.
@@mitchschultz8335 True, but Peter takes the cynical doubt to a completely unreasonable degree. There have been several miracles in my immediate family.
I have seen many miracles with my own eyes, and have none on camera. My simple reason is that in the moment I am focussed on loving the person in front of me, and filming would interrupt that. John Mellor has his wife standing back and holding a camera the whole time, thus he has a youtube channel full of healings on video. If you need hard evidence then go check that out.
I’m thinking Peter May is hilariously pre-conditioned for denial as many, many commenters have noted. Is it to do with the name Peter? The attitude reminds me of Lennox vs Peter Atkins (actually they do look alike 😂). If defeated just say it isn’t important! No evidence is enough. Then the red herring at the end - Craig Keener was right. Thanks Justin.
Also Christians would say a healing is all a miracle as it is done by Jesus. Even if they were treated in hospital Christians would say Jesus healed them.
The thing to keep in mind with these stories is, that you can find them across many different religions and also the new age movement. So I think its more correct to view them as unexplained phenomena than specific evidence for one religion over another. If anything, it demonstrates that all religions sort of have it wrong. If you can pray to the wrong God and get the same results, what does that say about the nature of the healing? Personally I'm more inclined to believe new age beliefs, which are that it is the belief that causes the healing, than any specific God granting you this power. Even wiccans and witches who still pray to ancient Gods from Greek or Roman times claim success in their manifestations.
So I think this study really needs to be repeated in Islamic, Buddhist, New Age, and pagan faiths. I'm pretty sure there are already many accounts in those religions or spiritual traditions.
I believe God will honor sincere faith in him no matter what religious ideology a person holds.
I believe and have witnessed the one true God within scripture but I would never discount someone's healing based on their religion.
@@dacehyatt1780 cheers!
If a man cannot even recognise his own healing after himself prayed for it, how then will he except the healing of another, there are those who will accept the logic when it comes to the existence of God yet still do not believe, as Christ said, if they do not believe Moses they will not believe even if someone is raised from the dead.
I think people can recognise when they get well after an illness . I think people struggle undermanning that correlation and causation are sometimes not related
Maybe his leukemia was psychosomatic
Craig has been told by some skeptics that even if they witnessed someone rise from the dead right in front of them, they still would not believe in miracles.
Dr Chauncey Crandall
Smith Wigglesworth
Peter should study up on THESE two men!
Very frustrating to watch. An ordinary person will look at these cases and no pushes them away under the psychosomatic umbrella.
In order to properly investigate one of these cases, we would need to hear from doctors who are specialists in the particular illness, and everybody involved should be available for cross-examination.
Good point. Neither of the two doctors in this session were specialists in the kinds of medical problems which they were discussing.
That evidence will never be available since HIPPA laws will not allow it. Next.
Shocked that the two characters attached to these miracles are Kathren Kuhlman and Heidi Baker, but false teachers, and scammer for selfish gain. Why is there no discussion about the bad and false theology that served as a foundation to these supposed miracles.
About the wrong diagnosis: it was the doctor's conclusion that they had made a wrong diagnosis after finding something different to what he expectedto find, is there any possibility that it was thr right diagnosis but indeed a miracle happened?
It’s always possible . No way if falsifying though
@@tonyatkinson2210 can you please clarify, I didn't get what you mean by "falsifying "? Falsifying what?
Why doesn't God heal amputees. It seems alledged miracles occur where ambiguity exists.
Agreed, and a more interesting question for God is, as Stephen Fry asked,
Bone cancer in children, what's that all about?'
@@iainrae6159 That doesn't disprove miracles at all.
He has. Miracle of Calanda, best attested miracle.
@@zephyr-117sdropzone8 in 1640... Yer that's no more convincing than the alledged miracle of mohmad slicing the moon in half.
Does God still heal these days? If so with all the camera phones in existence it would be effortless to capture an amputee being healed.
@@Daz19 there were thousands of people who verified the person had lost his leg and then regained it. It's not even close to Mohammed lmao
There have been several instantaneous, dramatic physical healing miracles in my immediate family, in addition to literally dozens among my extended family and friends. These atheist trolls on this comment board can deny the miraculous all day, but they, as in their denial of God's existence, are completely and utterly wrong. Trying to explain spiritual Truth to an atheist is analogous to attempting to explain a symphony orchestra concert to someone who is deaf and blind.
No one wants to talk to a fundamentalist Christian anyways.
My man was given like five really well explained reasons for why that woman with an eyesight issue was miraculously healed and Peter was like, "Well it's just not clear is it?"
ROFL
It's like arguing with a flat earther. No matter what you say to them they just have a silly answer for why the earth must be flat.
Skeptics be skeptical I guess.
But the woman wasn't miraculously healed.
Yall are claiming MAGIC happened, aren't showing any magic, have bad evidence, and expect us to believe you?
Peter May is absolutely right.
Watch @ 1:27:00 as Peter is speechless as that he has been annihilated
Psychosomatic at two weeks ???
I would argue that it is impossible to prove miracles occur .
Any event , a spontaneous remission of cancer for example has no known cause . Attributing it to god is an unfalsifiable claim . How would I disprove this claim ?
You can't
I believe in God jesus mother Mary Angel's Saints and miracles but when I hear of some miracles 98 percent are pain related which could be the placebo effect it also puzzles me to why God only now heals very few people unless people are being healed and not declaring it.
So disappointed by Peter May. He started strong and confident but it ended with him simply explaining away evidences submitted to him, not for scientific reasons but clearly for ideological reasons (theological cessassionism and naive acceptance of the good will of the publishing enterprise). Disappointing that the only modern healing he believes are his own personal heals. Everybody else is psychosomatic healing!
What is this criteria that they keep brining up. The transcript shows as Lamborghini which I'm pretty sure isn't right.
But I love how josh keeps bringing it up and putting his case studies to this criteria to show if they can be validated as miracle healings. Peter's only rebuttal is "psychosomatic" which ironically, is quite hard to prove and yet he has no issue using it as an answer.
I think the problem with Peter is that he is pretty stuck in that mindset that institutions like the journals are unbias and thus will only use them as a yardstick. But as James lindsay and Peter Boghossian have shown, that system is biased to the core, as u would expect any institution handled by human beings.
I think it was 'Lambertini'
Peter’s blatant denial is hard to watch. He won’t even look at the evidence himself or listen to Joshua’s answers without getting riled up. It’s almost like he has this blind faith into skepticism 😊
I think it would have been better if it was a Christian, a cessationalist and a athesist not 3 Christians with different views but believe the same
When skepticism knows no bounds... Peter May..... healed twice and still skeptical
People do get better you know, why invoke supernatural intervention?
Pretty remarkable for Peter to basically give a testimony of being healed of Leukemia and still deny that God heals today.
@@davidmjacobson Not remarkable at all. He is right to be sceptical of alledged supernatural intervention on his behalf.
@gekksvide0
The body often self heals and medicine,rest, good healthy nutrition can obviously aid recovery.
No need to invoke the supernatural.
Now if an amputees arm grew back, yiu may have a case.
But the cause of the healings is unknown.
Medically any resurrection is virtually unbelievable!! All those dead cells becoming new !