I understand that. This point is valid. What is not valid is saying that Theology do NOT show their thought experiment is both logically valid and relevant to the real world when they do.
Based on what? You see, the fact that I still have to ask this question is more than enough to demonstrate that they have not shown that their thought experiment about God is relevant to the real world. What they have shown is that it's relevant to the Catholic religion and to the people who believe in it, but that does not itself require your god to be a real entity rather than a subjective one that exists only in the minds of those who believe in him. It would be the same with the hypothetical religion about interdimensional Guardians I brought up before - the beliefs and interpretation of real events by those who believe in them does not prove that those beings have an objective/real existence.
I don't see these examples as circumstantial. Could you give me an example so I understand what you are trying to say here? What makes the example circumstantial?
Ps : Your suspicion is right the full list is learned at school.
Consider circumstantial evidence in a courtroom. This is evidence which suggests that something is the case without actually proving it. For example, let's say a murder case was being tried, and the defendant had no alibi for the time of the murder. That would be circumstantial evidence that he might be the murderer, but it would not prove that he was. Direct evidence, by comparison, establishes a clear link. For example, if a scrap of the defendant's clothes were found at the scene of the murder, or if their fingerprints were found on the murder weapon, they would establish that the defendant was most probably the murderer. By that criteria, the examples you gave of things which are used to prove your god caused a miracle are all circumstantial - they are things which suggest that it might be the case, rather than things that directly link him to the healings. Because it's circumstantial, it can neither prove nor disprove whether your god did perform the miracles.
Ok I really don't get what are theses "circumstantial examples" you are talking about. If I take the red Car example. What could be the "circumstantial examples" and the "non circumstantial examples"?
I explained above, but if you still don't understand after reading that, I'll try again.
the fact that something is explainable indicate that it is not God's direct effect. It's humans.
We can explain how lightning works. Does that mean that humans cause it? Does that mean that a lightning bolt could never be produced by your god because we understand the process by which lightning happens? By the same token, the fact that we could explain how a healing happened does not mean that humans necessarily caused it, and it does not exclude the possibility that your god could have done it anyway.
Same thing with the immediate cure. If the cure is not immediate, it indicate that it could be from some other secret procedure or let's say something from something the patient inhaled in the plane back to her place. It indicate that it is not certain anymore that the cure comes from God directly.
The problem with this approach is that they never demonstrated that the cure came directly from God to begin with. That is a big flaw in your reasoning. All they have demonstrated is that we cannot explain it scientifically, and then pointed to circumstantial evidence which suggests (to you and to them) that it might be your god. The problem is, circumstantial evidence does not prove that something is the case (or that it isn't, for that matter). It's the same reason we don't generally convict people based only on circumstantial evidence.
If it does not last indefinitely it shows that the cure wasn't "perfect" hence cannot be from God.
Sorry to say, but that doesn't prove a thing. Some cures explainable by science are 'perfect' by this definition - the person recovers very quickly and doesn't ever relapse. That means you cannot use the 'perfectness' of a cure as criteria for whether your god was responsible or not. Although I suppose you will point to the fact that scientists said that the person was incurable as support for this. That, again, doesn't prove a thing. A person with a low chance of recovery can still recover; there is no rule saying that they couldn't recover immediately and fully. It just isn't likely.
Each criteria proves/disprove that it must be from God like the theory predicted.
The problem is, none of these criteria you mentioned either proves or disproves that your god is responsible. To conclusively prove or disprove your god's involvement, we must have direct evidence that either shows him actually doing it, or shows that he cannot have done it. And no Catholic has ever provided such evidence, at least to the best of my knowledge.
Then you could change it for something else. I don't care. The question is the same. I used the HB example to make it understandable by all. If it's still too complicated for you to understand
This is very insulting. I did not object to your use of the Higgs boson because it was too complicated for me to understand, I objected to it because I am far from convinced that you understand it anywhere near as well as you think you do. However, I am not willing to waste further time and effort locking horns with you over it.
how the argument you give against miracle doesn't make sense you can choose another scientific discovery.
Whatever you want discovered by scientists, only visible through its interaction with something else. Not observable directly. Invisible to the naked eye. (black holes for example)
Then replace "HB" by the new scientific discovery X.
"If there are no X, then no scientific field will ever have any bearing on reality. It does not matter if there is a field of science for the study of a X which does not actually exist; it would be as relevant in the real world as a field for studying Harry Potter, or for Star Trek, or whatever you might name." Do we agree?
I absolutely do not agree. I will demonstrate why I don't agree with a comparison.
Theology is the study of gods. Therefore, if there are no gods, theology is studying something which doesn't exist, and therefore has no bearing on the real world.
Science is the study of the real world. Therefore, if there is no real world, science is studying something which doesn't exist, and therefore has no bearing on the real world.
Do you see the problem? If you don't, I'll explain further, but I want to see if you can spot it first.