Lol. You are asking for the impossible.
And how, pray tell, is it so impossible? It would not be especially difficult to set up a scientific experiment at Lourdes where scientists took a representative sample of the people who travel there and put them under close examination, including examining them rigorously on a regular schedule, in order to catch them healing under the equivalent of a microscope. It would be lengthy and costly, but it would be doable, and thus your claim that it would be impossible is excessively exaggerated.
Now that you realize that you cannot have most direct proof than someone healing right before your eyes you say "hey! no! my eyes are not enough we need an electron microscope!"
That is exactly the point and the problem. You cannot point to someone healing right in front of your eyes and say, "Hey, that's God doing it! Praise be to God!" The human eye is anything but a precision instrument; it can only observe a very narrow slice of the electromagnetic spectrum, it is possible to fool the eyes with patterns or colors to alter what the brain perceives, and the brain actively seeks patterns for things, even things that have no patterns (this is how people can see things like animals and shapes in clouds). The mere fact that you can provide evidence no more precise than "people saw it happen" is a serious problem for your position.
as it was so well said about Zola, I can clearly conclude about yourself that
Your attitude is one of mindless bigotry. It is a striking example of the degree to which perversity of the will can blind the intellect.
I am reporting this accusation of "mindless bigotry" to the forum moderators. You are making this accusation because I am skeptical of your so-called "evidence", and instead of providing more precise evidence that could answer my skepticism, you claim it is impossible and call me a mindless bigot. I am not bigoted towards you - I have tolerated you and your opinions quite well, all things considered. Indeed, I am one of the most patient, tolerant people on this forum, as evidenced by the fact that I am usually willing to keep talking to theists long after most people have lost patience with them.
Yep, basically you don't know shit. You just know that you have to oppose what is in front of you. If not, you would be wrong and that can never happen!
Actually, I have been wrong on numerous occasions. When someone shows that I am, I admit it and modify my position accordingly. It's happened several times on this forum, even. You might want to contrast that with your own behavior. Have you ever admitted you were wrong about anything on this forum? I don't recall a single instance, but I haven't read all of your posts.
I TOLD YOU THE RELEVANT DETAILS you didn't want to trust me so I gave you a link so you could see by yourself. YOU don't want to bother reading and blame the other for YOUR lack of knowledge.
It's clear you misunderstood the point of the question I asked, and proceeded to go off on a strawman tangent, as I will demonstrate below.
if the Vatican opened its records and allowed scientists to fully and freely examine everything it considered a miracle YOU should not have simply say that and should have cite where it (your supposed knowledge that the Vatican do not open its records to scientists) came from because "That's how most people who actually do reports and presentations of things act"
Here is what I actually said: "So you're saying that if the Vatican opened its records and allowed scientists to fully and freely examine everything it considered a miracle, that they could not and surely would not be able to explain them? Not ever?"
I was not claiming that the Vatican had never opened its records to scientists. I was responding to a claim you made:
I am saying that Science cannot and will surely not explain miracles recognized by the Vatican.
A claim which can only be true if scientists are not ever allowed to examine Vatican records. Yet you said that the Vatican does allow scientists to examine its records. Which means it is entirely possible that scientists will be able to provide scientific explanations for events that the Vatican currently considers miracles.
Ps : My source is not the book it's the guy I spoke to the person who was more knowledgeable than me about miracles because it was his life work.
So even if I had read this book of yours, it would not have explained that the Vatican opens its records to scientists? Or did you perhaps mean something else instead?
...but how about the case where an Italian scientist, Dr. Luigi Garlaschelli, was able to create a fake "weeping madonna" that worked so well that many onlookers thought the statue was actually weeping? Furthermore, he showed that the only "weeping madonna" recognized by the Catholic Church, a statue of the Virgin Mary in Siracusa, Sicily, was most likely explainable by the known scientific principle of capillary action. He did so by obtaining a copy of the bas-relief made by the same manufacturer and showing that it was made of thin, glazed plaster with a cavity behind the face. Yet he was unable to examine the original, and as far as I know, he was denied permission to. Doesn't bode well for the Vatican being willing to put an officially-declared miracle to the scientific test.
There was this guy who said that someone simply splashed water on the face "while no one was watching". He tested his theory in front of many people and they were all fooled. Yet he was unable to examine the original. Do you know why?
Dr. Garlaschelli did not make that claim; I suggest you read up about what he did actually say and do before responding again.
Who's the one who doesn't know what he is talking about? Just to make sure, I read again the article I shared with you when it was first asked from me to show you what I know about the HB. Here is what is written :
"Because the Higgs boson decays very quickly, particle detectors cannot detect it directly. Instead the detectors register all the decay products (the decay signature) and from the data the decay process is reconstructed"
Actually, I do know what I am talking about. However, that does not prevent me from being mistaken occasionally, or having to correct myself when I am. I missed that when I originally read the Smithsonian article about the Higgs boson, and it was not often mentioned in other things I used as references.
Do you understand me now?
I still do not agree with your assertion that you can equate the Higgs boson with your god. For one thing, the Higgs boson was predicted to have very specific decay products, that would point to it and nothing else. These miracles that you claim were from your god are not specific, and they do not point to your god and nothing else. Not even the theological rationales that your church uses can make a supposed miracle do that, for the simple reason that those theological rationales are philosophical
in nature. Philosophy by itself cannot prove that something exists; it cannot even prove that something doesn't exist.
The procedure your church goes through is specifically designed to find only healings which cannot be explained by science, and then to use carefully crafted theological rationales to 'prove' that it is a miracle from your god. They may have satisfied their own standards, but it can in no way be considered scientifically proven. And that is why you have made no headway since you brought up the whole miracle business - not because people are 'mindlessly' rejecting your statements, but because we do not accept that your church's conclusions - that X is a miracle, but Z isn't, because of theological considerations - are scientific.