You see? That is a perfect example of a counter argument that is not supported.
No, it's an example of me being skeptical of something that you're claiming is true with little in the way of evidence to support it.
You should explain how would someone should "demonstrate that something is a miracle" then how it doesn't actually go that way and who that someone else (preferably an expert) is supporting your claim.
No, I should not, because I am not the one making claims about miracles in the first place. You are the one trying to claim that these healings at Lourdes are miracles. For you to tell me that I should show why they aren't miracles is telling me to prove a negative, which is impossible. It is up to you to provide sufficient evidence to show that they are; if you cannot, then you have no real business making the claim in the first place.
What else would you add?
How about you show evidence of some particular kind of energy which is present only in the people healed, and not present in the others? That wouldn't necessarily show that it was a miracle, but it would at least show that there was some basis for concluding that there was a difference between those who were healed and those who weren't.
Again "what they do after is not scientific" is a claim that should be supported. And for that you should be able to tell us "what they do after" and support your claim with quotes from experts that knows "what they do after" then show us why it is not scientific. Finally present us how it should be done to be scientific.
It is up to you to show that what your priests do is scientific. I have already conceded that the process is scientific up to a point - specifically, where the scientists involved conclude that they have no explanation for why those people healed. It is up to you to show that the process your priests go through is also scientific, which you have consistently and repeatedly failed to do. To do this even by your own rules, you must show that your priests are experts in science (which, notably, you have never actually done). If they are not experts in science, they cannot take over from actual experts in science who concluded that they couldn't explain something.
Your counter argument here is "the final verdict is handed down by priests and theologians".
Which it is.
When I presented the scientific method I indeed presented these expert as a source for the final verdict. I understand how it can be misunderstood.
Your priests and theologians are experts on the rituals of the Catholic church
. That does not make them experts on miracles, nor does make their verdict (that something is or isn't a miracle) unimpeachable. I can understand why you might confuse the two - it's because the Catholic church has a ritual for deciding whether something is or isn't a miracle. But that doesn't make a bit of difference as to whether it actually is or isn't a miracle. It simply means that they followed the ritual which, to them, decides whether it is.
But it doesn't have to be them. You can declare something to be a miracle by following the same rules they do and then present your findings to experts. They will surely acknowledge your work and you will have found a miracle recognize by the Church.
In short, if I follow the same rules that your church does, including submitting my findings to that very same church after determining that scientists had no explanation for what happened, they would again decide that it was a miracle? And you don't see the problem with this? Tell me, do the words "conflict of interest" mean anything to you?
Basically, you are placing the decision on whether something is a miracle in the hands of an organization which has a vested interest in promoting miracles as the actions of your god. And you are telling other people that all they have to do is follow the same procedure, including placing the final decision in the hands of that same organization, and they'll get the same result. What you aren't realizing is that you're basically asking the same organization to confirm that it was right the first time. That's the equivalent of asking a scientist who did an experiment to do it again and, when they get the same result, expecting that it proves something.
There's a reason scientists have to have their peers review their work, including people who don't agree with them. However, for that to work here, your church would have to let other religious organizations, including non-Christian ones, get in on the act. I'm sure even you can see the problem with that.
You can also find a miracle not recognize by the church but you wouldn't be 100% sure that it is God's doing.
And what happens when someone goes through all that rigamarole with a miracle recognized by your church, but takes it to some other church, which declares that it was not actually God's doing, but a demon's doing? This is a big problem that you haven't faced; your method requires accepting the authority of your church, but what happens when someone doesn't accept it?
Like if you find proof of a Higgs Boson in your backyard, you wouldn't be 100% sure it is one as long as you don't submit your findings to experts.
I would ask if you were serious, but I'm unfortunately sure that you are. This is why I'm virtually certain that you have no clue what the Higgs boson is, and thus why your attempts to use it to support your miracle rhetoric don't work. There is no chance whatsoever of someone finding a Higgs boson by accident in their backyard, or even on purpose. Finding one isn't like digging up a dinosaur fossil or a gold nugget or something like that, where it can be confused for certain other things and thus you have to be sure it's not one of those things. The fact that you don't understand this yet persist in trying to use it as an example anyway demonstrates that you don't understand what you're talking about well enough to be taken seriously.
If it's not about that. What is it about then? Why do you try to refute the proofs of God's existence if you don't want to refute the existence of God?
Because I don't believe that these proofs you're offering are actual proofs of anything except the ignorance of the people making them. I told you, I care about honesty, which means I'm not willing to countenance the pretense that a person who doesn't know any better can declare that something is the work of a god. It would be different if they had evidence of an entity that we actually knew about doing it. But they're using the fact that we don't know what caused something as justification to turn it over to priests who have a vested interest in promoting belief in their god, and then acting it's meaningful that said priests say that it actually is their god.
What would be the scientific way?
I've tried to explain to you how science works, and you've only come back trying to claim that what you're doing is too
scientific! You've demonstrated that you know next to nothing about the Higgs boson, and yet you keep trying to use it to support your belief in miracles even though it's patently ridiculous to use something you don't know much about to justify something else you don't know much about. All you've succeeded in demonstrating there is that you understand neither miracles nor the Higgs boson.
The problem is, the one way which would be scientific - which is to allow one's peers to review and repeat your method and procedures - wouldn't work here, because it would require your church to allow its peers - that is, other churches, both Christian and non-Christian - to review its claims of miracles in order to verify whether they were real or not. Truthfully, if, say, Lutherans, or Baptists, or Muslims, or Hindus, were to go through this and concluded that they weren't actually miracles from God, would you be even slightly likely to listen to them?
I don't get what is your counter argument here? Everyone has his opinion? That's not new. That doesn't make something true, less true. It is not because someone think that it is from another God that makes miracles coming from another God. It's not because you think that it's simply brains doing that it does best that it is not God's doing. You have to support your claims, preferably with people recognize by their peers as knowledgeable when it comes to miracles.
you don't get it. That would require you to consider that your church might not actually have the authority to declare that something was a miracle, simply because we didn't know what actually caused it. It would require you to consider that might not be any "miracle experts" in the first place, because to be an expert on something means that a person has to be able to understand it, not just pass it off as the work of some entity that they don't understand either. You're making the same mistake that people from time immemorial have made - that their priests are experts on whatever god or gods they believe in. What those priests are actual experts on are the rituals of whatever religion they were trained in. Being an expert on Catholic rituals does not qualify someone to declare that something was a miracle from God any more than being an expert on computers qualifies me to declare that a computer fixing itself for an unknown reason was a miracle from God.