'Splain this one Atheists...

[Seth]

How do you plea?

I don't.

[piscator]

Let the record show Defendant enters a plea of: Nolo contendere.

[pErvinalia]

How do you plea?

I don't.

Well you need to prove you aren't a buffalo fucker. There's mounting evidence that you are.

[JimC]

How do you plea?

I don't.

Well you need to prove you aren't a buffalo fucker. There's mounting evidence that you are.

Evidence of mounting?

[Seth]

How do you plea?

I don't.

Well you need to prove you aren't a buffalo fucker. There's mounting evidence that you are.

Do I? Is there? I think not.

[Seth]

Let the record show Defendant enters a plea of: Nolo contendere.

No, I "plea" not at all.

[pErvinalia]

How do you plea?

I don't.

Well you need to prove you aren't a buffalo fucker. There's mounting evidence that you are.

Do I? Is there? I think not.

There's heaps of evidence. That you refuse to accept this evidence is proof of your religious adherence to scientific evidence.

[mistermack]

The troll's main point that he repeats over and over again, is that it's hypocritical to to claim miracles don't happen, without proof that they don't happen. While demanding proof of any claimed miracle.

That would be fair enough, if miracles were being witnessed, and proved genuine, on a regular basis. Under those circumstances, it would be reasonable to require proof that some apparent miracle was a natural occurrence, before dismissing it.

If amputated legs were regularly re-growing, after prayer, or 5,000 people were regularly being well fed using a few loaves and fishes, I would personally say ''prove it'' if someone dismissed an apparent miracle.

Funnily enough, the higher that standards of recording and investigation have risen, the vaguer the ''miracles'' become.

There are seven thousand million people on the planet. And the scientific method has been documenting things to a high standard for more than a hundred years.
There should be millions of well-documented miracles on record. Pick one of them, troll.

As far as I'm concerned, the default position is that everything has a natural explanation.
Because so far, nothing has ever been reliably shown to break that rule.

Turn up one genuine exception to that rule, and that would all change.
That's why we require proper evidence. A genuine miracle would completely alter my beliefs.

A pile of shit, posted by a troll, quoting a blog on the website of a particularly shit newspaper, doesn't qualify.

[Tero]

Er, that's your job. I'm sure you can track down the hospital and doctor and investigate further if you are interested in disproving the claim of divine intervention.

But of course you won't.

And again what we are left with is evidence of a miraculous spontaneous healing, source and mechanism unknown, that neither medical science or you can explain.

As for me, my response is, "What a wonderful story, if true. I have no idea how or why it happened, but that it did happen (if it did) is an exciting and heart-filling mystery that I take great joy in hearing about. If it's a lie, oh well, it's still a nice story."

Er no. It's like God. Your claim, your proof. Waste of my time to prove your claims.

[Seth]

How do you plea?

I don't.

Well you need to prove you aren't a buffalo fucker. There's mounting evidence that you are.

Do I? Is there? I think not.

There's heaps of evidence. That you refuse to accept this evidence is proof of your religious adherence to scientific evidence.

Yeah? Big deal. So what? Who cares? Not me.

[Seth]

The troll's main point that he repeats over and over again, is that it's hypocritical to to claim miracles don't happen, without proof that they don't happen. While demanding proof of any claimed miracle.

Mmmm...not quite, but close. It's hypocritical to demand that a person claiming that a miracle has occurred provide scientific proof when one at the same time refuses to provide scientific evidence that the event under examination did not occur or was not "miraculous" in origin.

That would be fair enough, if miracles were being witnessed, and proved genuine, on a regular basis. Under those circumstances, it would be reasonable to require proof that some apparent miracle was a natural occurrence, before dismissing it.

Well, the point is that there is evidence that miracles are happening and are being witnessed on a regular basis. It is skeptics who refuse to prove that such events, including the OP, are the product of "natural" forces rather than simply dismissing the event because it's claimed as a miracle precisely because there is no scientific or medical explanation for what occurred. I doubt if you are seriously claiming that spontaneous remissions never occur because medical history is replete with such events that have never been adequately scientifically explained. But something caused these events, and in the absence of a medical/scientific explanation there is nothing impeding a "miracle" being the cause of the events. Of course, it may turn out that the "miracle" is actually explainable by science, or not. The point being that it is irrational to deny that the cause of the event could be some agency or intelligence beyond scientific understanding or knowledge when a) there is no scientific explanation; and b) there is zero evidence to suggest that such an agency or intelligence does not exist.

If amputated legs were regularly re-growing, after prayer, or 5,000 people were regularly being well fed using a few loaves and fishes, I would personally say ''prove it'' if someone dismissed an apparent miracle.

Well, the problem is that you are setting criteria for your skepticism that an intelligent agent is not obliged to comply with. The fact that such an agent declines to regrow limbs or feed crowds with manna from the skies cannot rationally be interpreted as proving that the agent does not exist or does not perform other acts that have no apparent scientific explanation because that agent may deliberately choose NOT to act in ways that allow you to subject the acts to the sort of verification you suggest. Obviously a voluntary act by an intelligent agency is voluntary and is not subject to the kind of scientific reproducibility of a "natural" physical phenomenon that science is both intended to, and limited to proving.

Funnily enough, the higher that standards of recording and investigation have risen, the vaguer the ''miracles'' become.

Really? This "miracle" doesn't seem particularly vague. Dead girl recovers. That's pretty explicit. Now it's up to you to explain how that happened if you can.

There are seven thousand million people on the planet. And the scientific method has been documenting things to a high standard for more than a hundred years.
There should be millions of well-documented miracles on record. Pick one of them, troll.

I did. This one. Now show us using the scientific method that it's not a "miracle."

As far as I'm concerned, the default position is that everything has a natural explanation.
Because so far, nothing has ever been reliably shown to break that rule.

And why would intervention by an intelligent agent with powers and abilities that you are incapable of understanding be anything other than a "natural" explanation?

Turn up one genuine exception to that rule, and that would all change.

It should, but I doubt it would because of your religious belief that science knows everything about everything.

That's why we require proper evidence. A genuine miracle would completely alter my beliefs.

So scientifically explain how this girl recovered. If you can't, then you have to admit that there are things you don't understand or know about the universe which may include an intelligent agent capable of healing such injuries using methods outside of the knowledge science and medicine currently have.

A pile of shit, posted by a troll, quoting a blog on the website of a particularly shit newspaper, doesn't qualify.

Ah, there's that religious zealotry showing up again. You don't understand it, so you dismiss and disparage it in an entirely religious and entirely unscientific manner.

[Seth]

Er, that's your job. I'm sure you can track down the hospital and doctor and investigate further if you are interested in disproving the claim of divine intervention.

But of course you won't.

And again what we are left with is evidence of a miraculous spontaneous healing, source and mechanism unknown, that neither medical science or you can explain.

As for me, my response is, "What a wonderful story, if true. I have no idea how or why it happened, but that it did happen (if it did) is an exciting and heart-filling mystery that I take great joy in hearing about. If it's a lie, oh well, it's still a nice story."

Er no. It's like God. Your claim, your proof. Waste of my time to prove your claims.

But it's not my claim. I'm citing the evidence, that's all. It's up to you to disprove the claims according to the scientific method if you dispute the claims. Therefore you must show that what happened has a "natural" explanation and what that explanation is. Otherwise you're just evading the question because you cannot answer it and you know it.

[pErvinalia]

I don't.

Well you need to prove you aren't a buffalo fucker. There's mounting evidence that you are.

Do I? Is there? I think not.

There's heaps of evidence. That you refuse to accept this evidence is proof of your religious adherence to scientific evidence.

Yeah? Big deal. So what? Who cares? Not me.

That's coz you fuck buffalos.

[pErvinalia]

Er, that's your job. I'm sure you can track down the hospital and doctor and investigate further if you are interested in disproving the claim of divine intervention.

But of course you won't.

And again what we are left with is evidence of a miraculous spontaneous healing, source and mechanism unknown, that neither medical science or you can explain.

As for me, my response is, "What a wonderful story, if true. I have no idea how or why it happened, but that it did happen (if it did) is an exciting and heart-filling mystery that I take great joy in hearing about. If it's a lie, oh well, it's still a nice story."

Er no. It's like God. Your claim, your proof. Waste of my time to prove your claims.

But it's not my claim. I'm citing the evidence, that's all. It's up to you to disprove the claims according to the scientific method if you dispute the claims. Therefore you must show that what happened has a "natural" explanation and what that explanation is. Otherwise you're just evading the question because you cannot answer it and you know it.

What "evidence"?? How do you know he prayed to God and not Krishna? He might be lying. The intelligent flying teapot might have heard this joker's prayer to God (or whoever) and decided to step in and save this girl's life. So, there's the evidence that the intelligent flying teapot saved this girl's life. It's up to you to disprove the claims according to the scientific method if you dispute the claims.

[Tero]

Er, that's your job. I'm sure you can track down the hospital and doctor and investigate further if you are interested in disproving the claim of divine intervention.

But of course you won't.

And again what we are left with is evidence of a miraculous spontaneous healing, source and mechanism unknown, that neither medical science or you can explain.

As for me, my response is, "What a wonderful story, if true. I have no idea how or why it happened, but that it did happen (if it did) is an exciting and heart-filling mystery that I take great joy in hearing about. If it's a lie, oh well, it's still a nice story."

Er no. It's like God. Your claim, your proof. Waste of my time to prove your claims.

But it's not my claim. I'm citing the evidence, that's all. It's up to you to disprove the claims according to the scientific method if you dispute the claims. Therefore you must show that what happened has a "natural" explanation and what that explanation is. Otherwise you're just evading the question because you cannot answer it and you know it.

What evidence? Where is the science paper? I used Google Scholar, and nothing came up. Newspaper accounts are not valid. Many many many doctors believe in miracle and reporting them all the time. None have been proven so far. Cancer cures are cellular processes and the fact that the immune system on rare occasion wins with no human help is not a miracle.

next time, test your miracle here
https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=e ... 8&as_sdtp=

or just https://scholar.google.com/