scientifically inexplicable, apparently supernatural things occur, but not to atheists

"i've seen plenty of other people who define things that con has the burden of proof, pro only does by default if nothing else is defined otherwise." The burden of proof for a claim is always on the person making the claim; otherwise, you must accept that not only Jesus but also Allah, Krishna, Thor, El, and every other supreme being that has ever been claimed to exist are all real and all simultaneously THE most powerful being in the universe, until you can prove that each and every single supposed supreme being that mankind has come up with over the years is false. Furthermore, if the person making the claim does not have the burden of proof, I could disprove miracles and god simply by saying that miracles don't occur and that god doesn't exist, and any supposed evidence for either is either a lie or misunderstood. That would be logically fallacious in the exact same way that your argument is. One could certainly claim a personal belief in the divine without whilst still being rational. But you are not only claiming that the evidence you see has led you to the conclusion that miracles occur, you are claiming that is a objectively verifiable fact that miracles occur, and refusing to defend that claim when pressed for evidence. "i'm not in the mood to find more examples, but again there are hundreds of thousands if not millions of examples." You've got so many examples of miracles occurring, that the only evidence you could find of one happening is an infant surviving a disease that a great many infants in the past have survived. You claim this this is a miracle, and that his survival was a result of intervention by god, and yet, he was receiving medical treatment for this disease. You entirely discounted the notion that it was the medical treatment that saved his life, and instead assumed and asserted that it was god that healed him. "again though, credible people don't dispute that these things apparently occur, they just have their own explanation for it." You haven't stated what "these things" are. Yes, credible people do in fact dispute that "miracles" occur, because all too often, supposed supernatural powers are little more than stage magic.[1][2][3][4] "doesn't have any examples that would be called a miracle had it happened to a theist." Every single war victory, every single major political victory, every single recovery from a life threatening disease, and even every single unlikely success could all be claimed to be miracles by a theist. Since there is no objective standard for measuring "miracles", whether an event is determined to be a miracle or not is simply a matter of personal interpretation. "to be more generic, he can't even find soemthing scientifically ienxplicable that appears supernatural." First off, "scientifically inexplicable and apparently supernatural" is not the same thing as "divine miracle". "Divine Miracles" are only one type of supernatural incident that has been claimed to happen. Secondly, whether or not an event/object is "apparently supernatural" is a matter of the observer's opinion, not an objective standard. An atheist could still believe in the supernatural; unbelief in a deity and belief in magic are not mutually exclusive. A theist could believe that the divine is part of or is the natural world, and for that person, there would be nothing supernatural or even apparently supernatural. Thirdly, I already cited three things (gravity, time, and black holes) that could be considered "scientifically inexplicable and apparently supernatural". We do not have an adequate scientific explanation of any of those, and since all of the above are mysterious and powerful, they could all be considered "apparently supernatural" by an observer. Gravity, like the force and duct tape, holds the universe together. Time is the only good reason that everything doesn't happen all at once. Both of these most certainly affect atheists. I cited both of these previously. You would have had to have not read my argument in order to say that I couldn't find an example of something "scientifically inexplicable and apparently supernatural". "con is just wasting time, bickering about trivial stuff, engaging in semantics etc...., as he doesn't have the evidence requested. that's the bottom line" I have provided evidence that supposed "supernatural" events actually have natural causes (in the sources section). I have provided logical support for my position, as well as examples that show how your argument is incorrect. All you have to argue for your side are unsupported assertions. [1] http://bit.ly... [2] http://bit.ly... [3] http://bit.ly... [4] http://bit.ly...