"theology" has nothing to do with my example of a "College of Miracles" b/c in theology it is ASSUMED that the deity is real, and it cannot be independently verified or checked out by disinterested or disagreeing parties. Conversely, science CAN be independently verified by disinterested parties. That is the difference you need to deal with in this false analogy you keep trying to draw. Thank you for your counter argument. This paragraph sum it up perfectly. It shows also your lack of knowledge.
What is preventing you, median, verify/check out the miracle? Then from your experience and what you know of God conclude if it is him doing that or if it is not.
Do you know that there are atheist attending theology classes? Some even graduate?
Do you know that there are people from other religion than Christian attending theology classes?
Why, apparently, do you believe they do not represent disinterested parties?
And once again you are attempting to derail the subject. It makes no difference if an atheist takes a theology class. Such classes are not verification that the claims are true! These classes do not demonstrate the miraculous each semester. I know this because I have taken many theology courses. So you are presenting a false analogy b/c you desperately want to make "theology" out to be some legit science, when it is not
. The church of Scientology has class, and so do astrologers, New Agers, and people of homeopathy. So what. The miraculous claims of religious doctrines, or those practicing pseudo-science, are not independently verified as actually true in such classes. On the contrary, science courses (in general) DO in fact allow students to independently verify the information provided therein (such as in physics, chemistry, or biology). That is the difference you keep missing. Your theology courses cannot be independently verified as pertaining to anything real or actual b/c we do not have a "God" thing to examine, question, or test independently.
As demonstrated by others here, the lack of knowledge is all yours b/c you clearly do not understand how science works and are falsely attempting to lump science and theology together. And there is nothing preventing me from checking out your claims, and the claims of your church. I have done so, and find you both irrational and in error (as I have previously shown). Furthermore, I do not believe there is a "God". In fact, I do not believe that word actually refers to anything real or coherent. But it is you who is making the claims that a "God" is doing a miracle. Yet your argument is wholly circular because you are assuming what you need to prove. DEMONSTRATION OF YOUR VICIOUS CIRCULARITY:
-What is a miracle?-A miracle is an act of God.
-How do you know God exists outside your brain? -Because there are miracles (acts of God) at Lourdes-So...God exists because God did an act of God???
If your definition of miracle is akin to "an act of God" then you cannot use that as evidence for the alleged "God" existing outside your brain b/c you have placed your conclusion inside your premise - which is viciously circular. YOUR FALLACIOUS REASONING:
P1- God did "acts of God"
C- Therefore, God exists outside the brain
You cannot put "God" (or any term of the kind) in your premises because "God" is the very thing you are trying to prove. See how again you are irrational. EDIT: Just a quick side note on something you wrote above (which I find incredibly laughable):
Miracles are evidence of the existence of God outside your body.
This is comedy! So earlier you said a miracle was an act of God. Let's insert that definition and see how your argument works out, shall we!!
Acts of God are evidence of the existence of God outside your body.
So your evidence of God is...God? LOL. Get real dude. You-are-irrational.