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

I'd like to note this is my second debate and English is not my first language, I apologize in advance for any grammar or debate structure mistakes. Just analyze the inverse of what you ask. What happens to a theist would not have been understood as a miracle for an atheist. The theist INTERPRETED it as a miracle, while a mind that tends to the logical would find some other types of reasoning and explanations. If you were Indian, it would have been Karma for whatever you did you thought was a good enough deed. Just to give you an example using your own article: the baby had Herpex Simplex, (http://usatoday30.usatoday.com...) which one of its most known characteristics is going into remission, where the visible symptoms disappear. So, proving that events interpreted as miracles by a theist is pointless, because it for sure happened to someone else that did not interpret it as a miracle. The doctor validates this by saying that there was a 50% percent chance of survival, for arriving to this statistic, other surviving cases must have happened, and in these last century, there haven't been that many dead Popes. For the debates sake, my approach will be different than what your other opponents have used, I will give you some of the examples you want, but I will not focus on them. I will prove that the inverse of your argument is false which renders the original argument also false. It is very easy to show that the heavily documented and supposedly scientifically inexplicable nature is an assumption and even without being an expert in whatever relevant field, a scientific explanation could be given. Examples of 'miraculous events' to non-theists (I'll try to find events very similar or at least of the same caliber as your past arguments. They have focused on medicine.) http://www.nytimes.com... http://www.dailymail.co.uk... A man falls 47 stories from a scaffold with his own brother and survives and recovers, while his own brother who was with him dies. Pretty much all accidents it would have been difficult to pray before they happened, so one has to assume they could also happen around non-religious people. A well-known atheist and theoretical physicist Stephen Hawking: http://www.latimes.com... Diagnosed with motor neuron disease at the age of 21. At the time doctors gave him a life expectancy of two years. He is 71 now. As you mentioned, alternative explanations (especially scientific) could be found for these examples the same as the ones you've given in your past debates: http://www.revelife.com... A woman is relieved of pain when an unknown old man smiles at her at the hospital. (The Placebo Effect is well documented especially with pain, which is a highly psychological and subjective symptom). http://www.mindpowernews.com... A man’s cancer goes into remission after visiting a saint’s tomb. (Assuming the tomb visit is the cause of the cure is jumping to conclusions, the same weight should be given to the fact that he was getting treatment such as chemotherapy and radiotherapy) Because my opponent seems so dissatisfied with her past opponents regarding this issue, I’ll address every part of her arguments and try to avoid semantics as requested. -‘scientifically inexplicable, apparently supernatural things occur, but not to atheists. these are apparent miracles. ‘ I find interesting that you now use the word apparently and supernatural (different from theist); I’m not going into semantics, but I think you have realized people tend to interpret their world through a filter made of their beliefs. This concept is very important in our debate because what one decides to interpret as a miracle is mostly based on the preconceptions of what a miracle should be. The most crucial effect of this bias is that one tends to favor information that confirms one’s beliefs or hypothesis and unconsciously ignore or invalidate evidence to the contrary. This effect, called confirmation bias, is usually stronger for emotionally charged issues and for deeply entrenched beliefs. To summarize, this means theists will tend to interpret unusual events as miracles, and atheists (or agnostics, scientists, logical personality types) will tend to explain it by what they think is rational or logical thought (i.e. scientific). -‘Please show something that happened to an atheist, that would have been called an apparent miracle had it happened to a religous person, because of its scientifically inexplicable nature.no semantics pleas’ Continuing from the last paragraph, one can easily assume then that these supposedly inexplicable events will happen with the same frequency to the non-theist population. I’ve given a few examples and I’ll add a larger list at the end. Very important also is that the term ‘scientifically inexplicable’ term is actually seldom used by most scientists. To a scientist, nothing is unexplainable, because logical hypothesis can be raised to explain any situation based on evidence, the limit will almost always be the limits of current technology in measuring whatever needs explaining, or the impossibility of reproducing what needs study. Most natural phenomena has been heavily explained in the last century only. The currents “unknowns” of current science are either too small to measure with current tech (I.e. particle physics), too big or too far away (astro-physics), or invisible to our current instruments (dark matters). My point is that to scientists (the majority also tend to be non-theists) unknowns in our world such as miracles are more like a challenge to solve a puzzle. People have to learn to live with the fact that there will always be people that want and can explain ABSOLUTELY EVERYTHING with science, especially people with beliefs. So because I am your opponent in this debate, I have to take the position that scientifically inexplicable events do not exist. I am simply presenting unusual events, interpretation is up to the reader. -‘what are thought of as miraculous events are heavily documented and readily available. there are tons of examples for theists, in previous debates i shown them. ‘ As explained before, I reemphasize that these documentations of miraculous events are indeed very common but they still are an interpretation of an event, by definition, a theistic intervention is impossible to prove. -‘most credible people don’t dispute hat things appear to be miracles, just that they claim there's alterative explanations.’ What are the requirements to be credible? Because this is mostly opinion so I won’t argue for or against it. -‘im not going to do a bunch of work to find them when it's readily available. . ‘ I don’t mind searching for evidence myself, as I enjoy very much discovering or learning new things or clearing doubts. I think in this debate setting, bringing the evidence yourself will certainly raise the validity of your statements; saying you won’t do the work harms your credibility. You did present 2 sources in one of your other debates.**** I have run out of space, if my opponent desires to leave her second round blank it's OK with me. I assure the Pro all her points will be adressed in the remaining text. ****