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

Voters look it up for yourself, you can get treatment for any disease, and most cancers can go into remission naturally. Let's also talk about bias and dishonesty. Her links are to christian organizations, that's not biased? Why is it that most medical professionals and scientists don't take faith healing seriously? Because it's utter nonsense. When parents rely on faith healing, but then their child dies, no one says anything, but on the off chance faith healing appears to work they're like "see I told you". http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org... Now the motion isn't: "Scientifically inexplicable things occur". I agree with you in that regard. You must think though, how long will they be scientifically inexplicable? Science is progressing very fast. The problem occurs when you say supernatural. You have not demonstrated that anything supernatural can happen. Your magician metaphor fails. Magic is not real, and you're trying to establish faith healing as credible by comparing it to something incredible. I can explain to my grandmother how she survived the car crash, but she'll never think it's not a miracle. If my atheist friend had AIDS and it was cured he wouldn't think it's a miracle. Oh and I do know an atheist who won a bout with cancer, is that a miracle? Not to him. You are trying to objectively analyze something that is subjective. Who are you to say what is and isn't a miracle. You're cherry picking. At least I'm consistent by saying all is chance. Science can't tell you why you're here. It can say how but not why. Does that mean your existence is supernatural no? In conclusion: Pro has not demonstrated the coherence of anything supernatural. All she has done is offer a self refuting analogy. Pro has not demonstrated the coherence of miracles. Pro has not demonstrated that anything is immune to chance. Remember I said that any single event can take infinity infinity probabilities. Pro has not even addressed how a single event can be outside of that range. Also pro has the positive position, she has the burden of proof. I merely have to refute her arguments. Which is basically an appeal to coincidental faith healing. Which is refuted in my links. For her to really satisfy her burden of proof, she would have to be omniscient. The bottom line is if the supernatural doesn't exist everything she has said is complete non-sense. I have demonstrated the incoherence of the supernatural, and she has not adequately dealt with my analysis. To know if something is supernatural, we would have to have a sort of methodological supernaturalism, but this is even more incoherent. We have methodological naturalism, because we live in a natural world. To have a methodological supernaturalism, we would have to live in a supernatural world. A further objection is that we call it the natural world, because we live in it inherently (naturally). Suppose there are creatures inherently existent in a supernatural world; I think they would be in the same predicament. We perceive it to be supernatural, but for them it is the natural world. One last note. Voters before you vote I ask you to reflect on history and observe how many things were thought to be supernatural, but they were not. Remember Thor the thunder god or Zeus the lighting god. We now have scientific explanations. Why is there any reason to think that the things she has posted are not. And the worst part is that they are explainable through chance, and science, further explained in my links. However if you don't want to accept them, just wait a year or two and the chances are science will have found an even better and further explanation. The supernatural always fails, and science always prevails. Thank you.