R C Macaulay wrote:
Actually, the NYT does not state the man was " cured." By reading
the report given, one is induced to become seduced by the untruth,
which is what the NYT does best.
That's incorrect. The man is completely cured, as far as medical
science can tell. There is probably not a single live AIDS virus in
him, just as there isn't in me. It is impossible to establish that
beyond all doubt, but all tests are negative, and they are very
sensitive these days.
The method used to cure the him could never be used on a large scale,
because it cost a fortune, it nearly killed him, and it requires a
special bone marrow donor who happens to have the right genetic
makeup. But it proves that in principle the virus can be eliminated.
Medical science can "afford" a cure but the miracle of curing
remains in the realm of the spiritual rather than the physical.
Miracles cannot exist, by definition. If something happens, that
proves it is allowed by the laws of nature and therefore it is not a
miracle. See David Hume:
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/hume-miracles.html
Quotes:
A miracle is a violation of the laws of nature; and as a firm and
unalterable experience has established these laws, the proof against
a miracle, from the very nature of the fact, is as entire as any
argument from experience can possibly be imagined. . . .
The plain consequence is (and it is a general maxim worthy of our
attention), 'That no testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle,
unless the testimony be of such a kind, that its falsehood would be
more miraculous, than the fact, which it endeavours to establish....'"
- Jed
