There is scientific proof of the Bleeding Eucharist, and teams of medical panelists (of varying beliefs) have deemed several miraculous cures medically inexplicable.
http://www.indefenseofthecross.com/Eucharistic_miracles.htm
Here is also a video of a eucharist allegedly on fire.
Whether the Miracle of the sun was supernatural or merely a sundog is left to debate, but it's fact that the girl correctly peedicted several phenomena. This even isn't contested at all, the skeptics themselves know this, we even have photos of the girl.
Or take the Spring of Lourdes for example, you may argue that the miraculous cures are not related to the water, but no one denies that the girl correctly predicted where the spring was.
In fact, no one, not even the skeptics are denying that these several people who had marian apparitions correctly predicted several occurences, the debate is whether these occurences were supernatural, or if the apapritions were from a supernatural source.
You're trying to discard truths which the skeptics themselves accept.
I also think you're missing my point. I'm not trying to argue that these occurences fit your criteria, I'm arguing that your criteria is incorrect. Essentially, your criteria accepts only incidents with naturalistic explanations for them, because only naturalistic occurrences will provide forensic evidence. So really, you were never open to accepting the supernatural in the first place.
You also seem to act as if the occurences I mentioned are the only ones there, when in reality there are hundreds, I just can't list all of them.
The thing is, even the ways in which the supernatural occurences occur correlates to the way Catholics believe that God reveals Himself. He doesn't provide His premises in the Bible through one or two lines of scripture, it's when you put everything together you start to see the whole picture. This is the criticism of Protestantism, they are often selective what scripture they use.
It's the same with these alleged miracles. One alone will not convince you of the faith, but when you look at the whole picture (ie. the hundreds and hundreds of miracles that have occured, most of which correlate to the Church), you see the bigger picture.
It's exactly the same as when I became Catholic (I'm not anymore). I started having unusual occurences in my life. One or two wouldn't convince me, but when you get a string of 20 or 30 in quick succession (which I had), all relating to the Church, and each one specifically relating to something current in your life, it makes you question it. The thing is, several other people say this has happened to them as well.
I'll give you an exmaple of one. A friend of mine (a Catholic), wears a necklace wit ha cross on it. Recently, she began to get 'impure' with a guy, and her cross somehow fell off her neck. The thing is, nothing touched it at all, it somehow fell off. It's not as if the neclace was ripped either (which would have happened if she ripped it off accidently), it was simply undone at the joint, with seemingly no external influence at all. She realised she'd gone too far, and vowed not to be impure again.
On it's own, that occurence is nothing. Considering that I've had about 20 or 30 of those (not just physical things breaking of course) and I know of others who have experienced the same thing too, it becomes logical to assume it's more than just a million in one coincidence.
Actually let me glance over a couple of correlations to Catholicism
-We know that several unrelated people, all claiming marian apparitions, have correctly predicted multiple million in one occurences
- We know of hundreds of medically inexplicable cures. Ironically, most, if not all were in relation to a signifocant Catholic figure, whether be a spring or a saint etc.
-There is alleged scientific evidence of the Bleeding Eucharist
- The early Church/Bible claimed that the Church will remain infallible, to this day it has.
-The early Church/Bible claimed that the official teachings of the Church won't change, to this day they haven't. Yes Popes have been corrupt, but they never changed the teachings in 'Faith and Morals' doctrine. The one Pope who intended to do this died just before he could.
-We have historical evidence that Jesus existed, it's just not evident whether he was the son of God or not.
-Several historical, non-religious sources provide similar accounts to those portrayed in the Bible.
-Instances claimed to be demonic possession or obsession (eg. writing evil things with your eyes closed, different handwriting, never taking hand off page) correlate precisely to how the Church predicted how teh devil operates.
-It's been claimed theological fact that the devil can't se einto the future. To this day, no instance of demonic possession or obsession has allowed insight into the future.
There's alot more of course but I'm mentally drained now lol.
My point is you don't need forensic evidence when logic can give you the answer instead.
There are hundreds more miracles, and alot more correlations than what I've said. I believe to refute every miracle and correlation individually (which are at least in the hundreds), requires you to go beyond a point that is logical.
So again, my argument is based on logic rather than blind faith or pursuit of comfort. I'm sick of people in the DH social thread saying my arguments have no grounding. I never contradicted any scientific fact, I only argued issues which science has no explanations for. Just because my arguments aren't scientific doesn't mean they're not well-founded.
I've referenced some of the most influential thinkers in history (Aquinas, Aristotle, Kant, Chesterton, Cicero plus those of lesser significance such as Samuel Clarke, Levinas) people who have revolutionised western culture. Iu nderstand people disagreeing with me, but to say that my arguments aren't well founded is to say that these people are inferior debaters to you, which is laughable.
