'Splain this one Atheists...

[rainbow]

You cannot prove it.

I don't have to, they prove it every day. Ipse dixit, quod erat demonstrandum

Drivel, it is like saying that invisible pink unicorns exist because rainbows are their farts.

[Svartalf]

pfffttt, with enough bad faith and faulty logic, he can demonstrate I don't exist

[Forty Two]

This atheist cannot explain it.

Question for Seth - Can a nontheistic Tolerist explain it?

No.

Followup question for Seth - Does the inability to explain it mean something? If so, what?

It means that I acknowledge that my knowledge of the universe and it's characteristics and functions is imperfect.

So do I.

Another followup question for Seth -- Taylor and her family are, according to the article, convinced that the girl cheated death because of divine intervention. The only facts presented in the article for divine intervention are that a chiropractor put his hand on the back of her neck and prayed (he says) for her recovery. Hours later, she awoke, and has since made what appears to be a full recovery. The chiropractor said that he thinks the only explanation is divine intervention. Is that the only explanation? If not, what other explanations might there be?

I don't know.

You don't know if that's the ONLY explanation?

Let me ask it this way -- other than divine intervention, is there another possible way Taylor emerged from a coma?

Another followup - is divine intervention the only possible way to emerge from a coma and make a full recovery?

[Forty Two]

Sadly, they do. Poor things.

You are a non-theistic Tolerist.

Now, in my understanding, that means the following:

Nontheistic -- not having or involving a belief in gods.

Not exactly. I have beliefs about god(s) that, at this time, do not involve a firmly held belief in the existence of god(s).

Well, o.k., I think the phrase "belief in gods" refers to believe in the existence of gods, and not beliefs about a god or gods. But, I think we are in agreement on our beliefs there -- I have beliefs about gods which have been believed in by others. Like, Odin had one working eye, and he rode an 8 legged horse, was hanged or nailed to a tree and such -- father of Thor, etc. But, I don't believe in Odin's existence.

nontheism is a broad term, of which atheism is one form. As an atheist, I am a nontheist too. As nontheism can include agnostics and ignostics, ietsism, pantheism, and such. So, since only you can tell me what nontheism means to you, I would ask you to explain what you mean by being a nontheist. I don't want to assume anything.

So, when I say I am a nontheist, I mean that I don't believe in gods, which means that I don't think they exist. I don't think they exist mainly because there has not been any evidence advanced (of which I am aware) to support the contention that they do exist. If there comes a time when a sufficient basis becomes known to me so that I am convinced, then I will have to change my mind.

So, when you say you are a nontheist, what do you mean, specifically?

Tolerism - Toleration; universal toleration -- to allow without interference differences of opinion, viewpoints, religions, preferences, ways of life, etc., even those which one disagrees with.

With provisos, yes. The fundamental proviso is that I tolerate only the peaceable actions and beliefs of others.

What other provisos do you have?

What do you mean by peaceable? On dictionary.com the definition is "inclined or disposed to avoid strife or dissension; not argumentative or hostile." If you lack toleration for things that are argumentative or hostile, then I can definitely see why you would be intolerant of online, forum-discussion atheists. They do a lot of arguments and express some hostility toward religious folks and religions in general. By the same token, a great many religious folks are very argumentative on the internet, and also express hostility toward others (whether other religious denominations or the nonreligious).

Do you operate under a different definition of peaceable?

Do me, I definitely tolerate strife and dissension, and I tolerate argumentative and hostile people. I think message boards like this would be boring without those things. I especially like strife, dissension and argumentativeness from people I disagree with. Hostility pushes it, but to me, as long as the hostility involves the written word online in forums, I am quite tolerant of it.
\

Based on those definitions, I am both nontheistic and a tolerist.

Do you wish to join Tolerism™? Please PM me for information and costs associated with being a member of this religious organization.

No, certainly not.

I have no idea what you mean by "Tolerism" with an upper case T. In common English usage, capitalizing the word generally turns it into a special term with special meanings. Before I would even consider joining an organization, I would need a complete definition of it, and a complete statement of its platform of what it does and what it stands for. I have no blanket objection to joining a religious organization, but if it is a religious organization then it would generally have a set of beliefs, principles, and perhaps rites/rituals, etc. I would definitely need to know what those are.

Since you claim trademark rights in the mark "Tolerist" or "Tolerism", I would also like to know where you have used the mark in commerce.

Yet, I'm an atheist, because I am a person who does not believe in a god or gods - disbelief in the concept of a god or supreme being.

Glad to hear it. But are you also an Atheist?

Clearly define "Atheist" and then I can tell you.

You have branded Tolerism with a TM as if you're claiming a trademark in it. What's the significance, in your view, of using the TM next to Tolerist?

The names "Tolerist™" and "Tolerism™" are, like "Scientology™" trademarks of my religion, and yes, I am claiming trademark status for them because I coined them and actively use them as part of my religious activities.

O.k., fair enough. I notice you haven't applied for registration with the US Patent & Trademark Office. TESS doesn't have any record. You don't have to file in order to have trademark rights, of course. However, i am curious to see where you have used it in commerce.

[Forty Two]

I guess it was the moment the OP demanded atheists answer a medical question which has nothing to do with atheism. It would've been more productive to email the doctors involved directly than ask random internet people. But how did it get from a barely interesting example of unexplained remission to what it is now?

The usual way: Atheist misdirection, derail, denial, evasion and mendacity of course.

This is quite typical of Atheist argumentation. Rather than actually address the OP in a rational manner they engage in every sort of evasive tactic known to man because they know full well that they cannot actually address the OP because they don't have a "scientific" answer and so any actual intellectual participation in the debate would make them look foolish precisely because they cannot simply admit that they don't know what happened and that what happened could be the result of "divine intervention" because, of course, they do not actually know whether God exists or not, can not provide any sort of credible scientific proof that God does NOT exist, but are unable to simply admit this fact and admit that there are things they don't know or understand.

The utterly irrational moral certainty with which Atheists defend the non-existence of God is the entire point of the thread, and all of the specious and off-topic rhetoric you see is proof positive of my claims with respect to the utter inability of Atheists to engage in rational and reasonable debate on this subject.

So, what's your "scientific" answer?

Oh, you want people to admit that "they don't know what happened and that what happened could be the result of 'divine intervention'?'" That's interesting, because the OP article states that it was claimed by Taylor, her family and the chiropractor that the ONLY explanation was "divine intervention."

Is divine intervention the "only" explanation? Could it be that she suffered from a severe head trauma, was placed into a medically induced coma, and ultimately survived to come out of the coma through natural processes?

The reason I don't say "this was a miracle and the only explanation is divine intervention," is because it appears to me to be quite plausible that she made a surprising, but natural, recovery that did not involve divine intervention. Her situation is not unique in the world, and people have been in comas in which doctors have predicted little to no chance of recovery, and yet they've recovered.

How is it "rational" to say that the "ONLY" explanation is divine intervention? I don't see any real evidence for this having been divine intervention - we have a chiropractor who prayed over the girl and a girl's family who prayed for her recovery and then she recovered. That single anecdote of a recovery after prayer doesn't provide much evidence, especially in light of the fact that in many, many more times people pray like crazy over and for their family members, and they don't recover. So, in terms of the causal relationship between praying and recovery, there really isn't any good evidence (that I've seen), and this one instances doesn't prove anything.

Since the prayers are the only evidence given in the article for divine intervention, then I'm not really clear on why we are expected to credit divine intervention here. The mere fact of recovery in an unlikely circumstance is all we have left. However, can we rationally say that because circumstances looked very, very bleak and recovery was considered virtually impossible (in fact, the doctors thought there was no way she could recover), that it was divine intervention? I don't think so. I don't think it follows from "doctors think recovery is impossible" to "recovery must be divine intervention."

It does not operate of proof of a divinity existing, and it doesn't operate as proof that a divinity actually exists.

I don't think that anyone engaged in misdirection, mendacity, evasion or derail here - did they? If so, could you please specify a post that fits this description?

I do "deny" the assertion that the ONLY explanation here is divine intervention. I freely accept that one "explanation" that can be offered is that it was divine intervention. However, I can certainly think of another explanation. Do you accept that a natural, albeit unexpected, recovery is another explanation?

[Forty Two]

You cannot prove it.

I don't have to, they prove it every day. Ipse dixit, quod erat demonstrandum

You can prove they SAY things, but don't you acknowledge the possibility that they are lying?

[Animavore]

42, I have that piece of trolling crap on my ignore list. Please don't quote posts of his responding to me, or at least don't quote my post within so I don't know. I have no interest in what that shit-stirring, obnoxious and rather unpleasant low-life has to say about me.

Thanks.

[Seth]

You cannot prove it.

I don't have to, they prove it every day. Ipse dixit, quod erat demonstrandum

Drivel, it is like saying that invisible pink unicorns exist because rainbows are their farts.

It's hardly that abstract. One need only observe any atheist forum on earth for all the evidence one needs.

[Seth]

I don't know.

You don't know if that's the ONLY explanation?

I don't know. I have insufficient credible evidence to indicate whether it is the only answer or merely one of many possible answers. I can speculate on the matter, but that is all.

Let me ask it this way -- other than divine intervention, is there another possible way Taylor emerged from a coma?

I don't know. Neither, evidently, do the medical experts. Could be space aliens with a "healing ray" of some sort I suppose, but that's just rank speculation.

Another followup - is divine intervention the only possible way to emerge from a coma and make a full recovery?

I doubt it.

[Seth]

I guess it was the moment the OP demanded atheists answer a medical question which has nothing to do with atheism. It would've been more productive to email the doctors involved directly than ask random internet people. But how did it get from a barely interesting example of unexplained remission to what it is now?

The usual way: Atheist misdirection, derail, denial, evasion and mendacity of course.

This is quite typical of Atheist argumentation. Rather than actually address the OP in a rational manner they engage in every sort of evasive tactic known to man because they know full well that they cannot actually address the OP because they don't have a "scientific" answer and so any actual intellectual participation in the debate would make them look foolish precisely because they cannot simply admit that they don't know what happened and that what happened could be the result of "divine intervention" because, of course, they do not actually know whether God exists or not, can not provide any sort of credible scientific proof that God does NOT exist, but are unable to simply admit this fact and admit that there are things they don't know or understand.

The utterly irrational moral certainty with which Atheists defend the non-existence of God is the entire point of the thread, and all of the specious and off-topic rhetoric you see is proof positive of my claims with respect to the utter inability of Atheists to engage in rational and reasonable debate on this subject.

So, what's your "scientific" answer?

I don't have one.

Oh, you want people to admit that "they don't know what happened and that what happened could be the result of 'divine intervention'?'"

No, I want people to examine their prejudices and logical faculties and learn to speak the truth logically and rationally, which in this case calls for some iteration of "I don't know." I don't insist they declare what it could be, merely that they refrain from stating what it cannot be based on unreason and illogic.

That's interesting, because the OP article states that it was claimed by Taylor, her family and the chiropractor that the ONLY explanation was "divine intervention."

Have I ever claimed that their explanation is either logical or rational?

Is divine intervention the "only" explanation? Could it be that she suffered from a severe head trauma, was placed into a medically induced coma, and ultimately survived to come out of the coma through natural processes?

Could be. Many things "could be." The question is which of those possibilities "cannot be," and why.

The reason I don't say "this was a miracle and the only explanation is divine intervention," is because it appears to me to be quite plausible that she made a surprising, but natural, recovery that did not involve divine intervention. Her situation is not unique in the world, and people have been in comas in which doctors have predicted little to no chance of recovery, and yet they've recovered.

I don't disagree.

How is it "rational" to say that the "ONLY" explanation is divine intervention?

Did I say it was? I think not. But one irrationality does not justify another. Atheists and purported persons of reason and science really ought to hold themselves and their rhetoric to a higher standard than those they love to excoriate for their failures in reasoning.

I don't see any real evidence for this having been divine intervention - we have a chiropractor who prayed over the girl and a girl's family who prayed for her recovery and then she recovered. That single anecdote of a recovery after prayer doesn't provide much evidence, especially in light of the fact that in many, many more times people pray like crazy over and for their family members, and they don't recover. So, in terms of the causal relationship between praying and recovery, there really isn't any good evidence (that I've seen), and this one instances doesn't prove anything.

Actually, it could be proof absolute of divine intervention and the existence of God. That it might not meet your standards of evidence is meaningless insofar as the absolute truth or falsity of such a claim. You see, the fact that a thing cannot be proven true does not make it untrue by default. This is a bit of logic that far too many Atheists either fail to understand or refuse to acknowledge. That which is not proven to be true and which is not proven to be untrue is indeterminate, which is why "I don't know" is the only logical, rational and scientific response to such claims.

For Galileo to say "Because the existence of a sub-atomic particle called a "quark" has not been proven to exist by science, this "quark" thing cannot and does not therefore exist" is pretty clearly fallacious reasoning, is it not? Just because nobody in Galileo's time had any idea what a quark is and had no way of even investigating the nature of sub-atomic particles doesn't mean that those particles did not and have not always existed.

Exactly the same thing is true of the existence of God. There is no scientific evidence that God exists, and yet there is also no scientific evidence that God does not exist. It may be that at this point in our evolution, we humans simply do not have the tools or intellect to detect, observe or quantify God. It is therefore irrational and illogical to say, or even suggest that God does not, much less cannot exist.

Since the prayers are the only evidence given in the article for divine intervention, then I'm not really clear on why we are expected to credit divine intervention here.

They may wish you to credit divine intervention, but all I ask is that you think and expound rationally and logically.

The mere fact of recovery in an unlikely circumstance is all we have left. However, can we rationally say that because circumstances looked very, very bleak and recovery was considered virtually impossible (in fact, the doctors thought there was no way she could recover), that it was divine intervention? I don't think so. I don't think it follows from "doctors think recovery is impossible" to "recovery must be divine intervention."

It does not follow, does it? It's as much a fallacy as the Atheist response of "God didn't do it because God doesn't exist." But the theistic believer's fallacy is not an excuse for sloppy thinking and speaking on the part of those who purport to be more rational than their intellectual and philosophical opponents.

It does not operate of proof of a divinity existing, and it doesn't operate as proof that a divinity actually exists.

Agreed.

I don't think that anyone engaged in misdirection, mendacity, evasion or derail here - did they? If so, could you please specify a post that fits this description?

Page after page of pettifoggery and evasion is available for your review. You are the first person to respond in a rational manner in a very, very long time...and not just in this thread, in every thread where the subject of God's existence comes into question.

I do "deny" the assertion that the ONLY explanation here is divine intervention.

Sounds rational to me.

I freely accept that one "explanation" that can be offered is that it was divine intervention. However, I can certainly think of another explanation. Do you accept that a natural, albeit unexpected, recovery is another explanation?

I would think so, given how little we actually know about the human mind and body and its capacity for self-repair.

But all the same, God still couldadunnit.

[Seth]

42, I have that piece of trolling crap on my ignore list. Please don't quote posts of his responding to me, or at least don't quote my post within so I don't know. I have no interest in what that shit-stirring, obnoxious and rather unpleasant low-life has to say about me.

Thanks.

Jahvohl mein Furher! Ve must alvways obey ze orders of ze great Leader of ze forum, ze Almighty Animavore! Seig Heil!

Translation: "Fuck off Animavore, if you don't like what you see, feel free to use your "OFF" button...often.

[rainbow]

You cannot prove it.

I don't have to, they prove it every day. Ipse dixit, quod erat demonstrandum

Drivel, it is like saying that invisible pink unicorns exist because rainbows are their farts.

It's hardly that abstract. One need only observe any atheist forum on earth for all the evidence one needs.

So since there are alien abduction forums, alien abduction is a fact?

You talk nonsense.

[Forty Two]

I don't know.

You don't know if that's the ONLY explanation?

I don't know. I have insufficient credible evidence to indicate whether it is the only answer or merely one of many possible answers. I can speculate on the matter, but that is all.

Do you consider divine intervention a "possibility" or only mere speculation?

That is, the way you come across - and you can correct me if I'm wrong - you seem to say that divine intervention is a possibility. But, if in reality you just don't know and all you can do is speculate, then isn't it true that you don't know if divine intervention is even a possibility?

Isn't it correct to say that you don't know even if divine intervention is a possibility or if any other nondivine possibilities exist? The one thing we do know is that she got better, but you have no idea how that happened, right?

Or, do you credit divine interventions as being a stronger possibility than any other possibility?

Let me ask it this way -- other than divine intervention, is there another possible way Taylor emerged from a coma?

I don't know. Neither, evidently, do the medical experts. Could be space aliens with a "healing ray" of some sort I suppose, but that's just rank speculation.

And, divine intervention is, likewise, rank speculation to that same extent, yes?

Another followup - is divine intervention the only possible way to emerge from a coma and make a full recovery?

I doubt it.

O.k., so then would you consider it a "possibility" that there was no divine intervention in this instance?

And, do you consider it a "possibility" that there was divine intervention in this instance?

[Forty Two]

I guess it was the moment the OP demanded atheists answer a medical question which has nothing to do with atheism. It would've been more productive to email the doctors involved directly than ask random internet people. But how did it get from a barely interesting example of unexplained remission to what it is now?

The usual way: Atheist misdirection, derail, denial, evasion and mendacity of course.

This is quite typical of Atheist argumentation. Rather than actually address the OP in a rational manner they engage in every sort of evasive tactic known to man because they know full well that they cannot actually address the OP because they don't have a "scientific" answer and so any actual intellectual participation in the debate would make them look foolish precisely because they cannot simply admit that they don't know what happened and that what happened could be the result of "divine intervention" because, of course, they do not actually know whether God exists or not, can not provide any sort of credible scientific proof that God does NOT exist, but are unable to simply admit this fact and admit that there are things they don't know or understand.

The utterly irrational moral certainty with which Atheists defend the non-existence of God is the entire point of the thread, and all of the specious and off-topic rhetoric you see is proof positive of my claims with respect to the utter inability of Atheists to engage in rational and reasonable debate on this subject.

So, what's your "scientific" answer?

I don't have one.

Neither do atheists, and neither have they advanced one. Have they?

Haven 't atheists merely stated that there is no reason to think this divine intervention, or that they don't believe it was divine intervention? If someone has said more than that, who and when?

Oh, you want people to admit that "they don't know what happened and that what happened could be the result of 'divine intervention'?'"

No, I want people to examine their prejudices and logical faculties and learn to speak the truth logically and rationally, which in this case calls for some iteration of "I don't know." I don't insist they declare what it could be, merely that they refrain from stating what it cannot be based on unreason and illogic.

Well, first, where has someone declared what it cannot be based on unreason and illogic?

For example, what I've said is that it's possible that a person can recover from a head trauma and medically induced coma in circumstances where the prognosis is dire without divine intervention being indicated by the circumstances. Further, I have said that it is not indicative of divine intervention, in my view, for a chiropractor to put his hand on a patient's neck and pray, together with family and friends praying, and then a few hours later have the patient come out of a coma. I wouldn't consider ancient Roman prayers to Aesculapius followed by a report of the recovery of the patient some time later as being evidence of divine intervention either.

Since I see nothing convincing to show divine intervention, although I have no way to know what physical or biological process occurred to result in the patient waking up and recovering, I do not see any reason to think it did not happen in accord with the natural order of things. Obviously, I don't know how it happened, but not knowing is no reason to think that it is divine intervention.

That's interesting, because the OP article states that it was claimed by Taylor, her family and the chiropractor that the ONLY explanation was "divine intervention."

Have I ever claimed that their explanation is either logical or rational?

I don't know. However, you did entitle the thread "'Splain this Atheists." And, to me, the explanation of the situation is that the girl made a very fortunate, albeit natural, recovery without any divine intervention. We don't know how, but "divine intervention" does not appear to be the "only" explanation for what happened, since all we have to go on to base the assertion that it was divine intervention is "chiropractor hand on neck, plus prayer, plus family prayers" (if, indeed, they recounted the story accurately, which we also do not know) followed by recovery of the patient. To say that this is the ONLY explanation, divine intervention, is completely illogical and does not follow. Coincidence is also a possibility -- a natural recovery that coincidentally followed prayer.

Is divine intervention the "only" explanation? Could it be that she suffered from a severe head trauma, was placed into a medically induced coma, and ultimately survived to come out of the coma through natural processes?

Could be. Many things "could be." The question is which of those possibilities "cannot be," and why.

Since when is that the question? In the OP you wanted atheists to explain the event. You didn't ask which of the possibilities "cannot be" and why.

However, through sophistry we can say that anything is possible. If God exists, we may not know it or be able to show it or prove it, because he is outside of the natural universe, and God may not produce measurable results in his miracles, in that we may never be able to test for the power of prayer because God may only bestow such miracles in a way that is indistinguishable from the natural order of things.

This is exactly the Dragon in Carl Sagan's garage example. Sure, we will never prove there is no undetectable invisible dragon in the garage, and he may well be there. But, that doesn't make him a real possibility. http://www.godlessgeeks.com/LINKS/Dragon.htm

what's the difference between an invisible, incorporeal, floating dragon who spits heatless fire and no dragon at all? If there's no way to disprove my contention, no conceivable experiment that would count against it, what does it mean to say that my dragon exists? Your inability to invalidate my hypothesis is not at all the same thing as proving it true. Claims that cannot be tested, assertions immune to disproof are veridically worthless, whatever value they may have in inspiring us or in exciting our sense of wonder. What I'm asking you to do comes down to believing, in the absence of evidence, on my say-so. The only thing you've really learned from my insistence that there's a dragon in my garage is that something funny is going on inside my head. You'd wonder, if no physical tests apply, what convinced me.

What the chiropractor in the story is doing is saying "God did this" -- "divine intervention." What I am doing is wondering what convinced him? Why does the chiropractor think that divine intervention is the only possibility? Why does the family think that? Because the girl recovered after they'd been praying for her? There is no way to disprove their contention. There is no conceivable experiment that can count against it (even if we were to find a medical reason for the unlikely recovery, the family could say that it was divine intervention that made the seemingly natural, but very unlikely, recovery happen).

The assertion "divine intervention" in this case is immune to disproof and is therefore veridically worthless. Isn't it?

Or, is the contention of divine intervention NOT immune to disproof? If so, how would it be disproved?

The reason I don't say "this was a miracle and the only explanation is divine intervention," is because it appears to me to be quite plausible that she made a surprising, but natural, recovery that did not involve divine intervention. Her situation is not unique in the world, and people have been in comas in which doctors have predicted little to no chance of recovery, and yet they've recovered.

I don't disagree.

Otherwise known as "I agree." And, there is an explanation, and a perfectly logical and rational one, to boot.

How is it "rational" to say that the "ONLY" explanation is divine intervention?

Did I say it was?

The article you posted did, and that's what you asked atheists or Atheists to explain.

I think not. But one irrationality does not justify another.

It is far from irrational to suggest that the body has mechanisms within it that operate to heal itself without divine intervention, is it?

Atheists and purported persons of reason and science really ought to hold themselves and their rhetoric to a higher standard than those they love to excoriate for their failures in reasoning.

You're the one who asked for an explanation, and you've been provided one, and you've even said you "don't disagree" that it's plausible. We don't know how she recovered, but it's plausible that the recovery was via natural processes of the body, and not divine intervention, right? That's plausible?

But, of course, maybe there is a God and maybe it was divine intervention. However, how would we ever know?

I don't see any real evidence for this having been divine intervention - we have a chiropractor who prayed over the girl and a girl's family who prayed for her recovery and then she recovered. That single anecdote of a recovery after prayer doesn't provide much evidence, especially in light of the fact that in many, many more times people pray like crazy over and for their family members, and they don't recover. So, in terms of the causal relationship between praying and recovery, there really isn't any good evidence (that I've seen), and this one instances doesn't prove anything.

Actually, it could be proof absolute of divine intervention and the existence of God. That it might not meet your standards of evidence is meaningless insofar as the absolute truth or falsity of such a claim.

Of course, I have a standard of evidence. So do you. Some people have thought that an eclipse or a comet is a sign of divine retribution. Some people prayed to the Roman god of healing and saw recovery soon after. To some, this may be proof positive that the claims are valid. To me, they are not, and I think under the rules of logic they are not.

You're the one who keeps talking about holding people to standards of logic and reason. If you really are doing that then what is the logic and reason behind the claim that this is divine intervention? Is there a logical inference to be drawn from Premise 1 (chiropractor and family prayed) + Premise 2 (patient recovered) = Conclusion (divine intervention)?

It's not just that the evidence doesn't meet "my standard." It's that ASSUMING WHAT THE CHIROPRACTOR AND FAMILY REPORTS HAPPENED AS TRUE, it does not logically follow that the explanation is divine intervention.

Can you set up a logical inference? A syllogism? Can you even do a simple modus ponendo ponens to make the argument?

You see, the fact that a thing cannot be proven true does not make it untrue by default.

And, no atheist here has said that the fact that a thing cannot be proven true does not make it untrue by default.

This is a bit of logic that far too many Atheists either fail to understand or refuse to acknowledge. That which is not proven to be true and which is not proven to be untrue is indeterminate, which is why "I don't know" is the only logical, rational and scientific response to such claims.

Yes, but that which cannot be proven true ought not be believed. And, saying that one does not believe in a certain thing (which cannot be proven true) is not the same thing as saying it is untrue by default. I don't know. THEREFORE, I don't believe it. If my knowledge increases to the point that I have reason to think I know something, then I will believe it.

Where you go wrong is in thinking that "I don't know" means "everything is equally believable." And you appear to go wrong in thinking that "I don't know" means that a person is irrational for saying they don't believe in the thing they don't know. I don't know if there is life on Mars, for example. I also do not believe in life on Mars. That doesn't mean that life on Mars is untrue by default. It means I don't believe it until there is reason to believe it.

For Galileo to say "Because the existence of a sub-atomic particle called a "quark" has not been proven to exist by science, this "quark" thing cannot and does not therefore exist" is pretty clearly fallacious reasoning,

It is also reasoning that no atheist I've heard here use. The reasoning used here is more like "Because the existence of a sub-atomic particle called a quark has not been proven to exist, I don't believe it exists. However, once presented with some reason to think that it does exist, I will change my belief. Until then, however, i have no reason to believe it."

is it not? Just because nobody in Galileo's time had any idea what a quark is and had no way of even investigating the nature of sub-atomic particles doesn't mean that those particles did not and have not always existed.

Certainly, but they didn't believe in quarks, did they?

Exactly the same thing is true of the existence of God.

Exactly right. I have no reason to believe in God right now, and certainly the chiropractor's example in the OP about the recovery of a girl from a traumatic head injury is not a reason to conclude divine intervention. Therefore, I still do not believe in God. God is not "untrue by default", though, and there may come a time when there is reason to believe in God. In that case, beliefs should change.

Galileo did not have any reason to think that clocks ran slower when flying on a jet than resting on the ground, and he would likely not have believed it, until he was presented with the proofs.

There is no scientific evidence that God exists, and yet there is also no scientific evidence that God does not exist. It may be that at this point in our evolution, we humans simply do not have the tools or intellect to detect, observe or quantify God. It is therefore irrational and illogical to say, or even suggest that God does not, much less cannot exist.

All very true. And, still, a girl recovering from a traumatic head injury does not logically suggest divine intervention, does it?

Since the prayers are the only evidence given in the article for divine intervention, then I'm not really clear on why we are expected to credit divine intervention here.

They may wish you to credit divine intervention, but all I ask is that you think and expound rationally and logically.

I ask the same of you.

And, I have provided logical and rational explanations, haven't I?

The mere fact of recovery in an unlikely circumstance is all we have left. However, can we rationally say that because circumstances looked very, very bleak and recovery was considered virtually impossible (in fact, the doctors thought there was no way she could recover), that it was divine intervention? I don't think so. I don't think it follows from "doctors think recovery is impossible" to "recovery must be divine intervention."

It does not follow, does it? It's as much a fallacy as the Atheist response of "God didn't do it because God doesn't exist." But the theistic believer's fallacy is not an excuse for sloppy thinking and speaking on the part of those who purport to be more rational than their intellectual and philosophical opponents.

Well, you asked Atheists to explain the article. This atheist did so, and one explanation is that it is, as you said, fallacious reasoning for the family and chiropractor to credit divine intervention. That's the explanation.

If you're asking for an explanation as to how she recovered, the answer is "I don't know," but there are non-divine possibilities, and there is no logical reason (based on the facts given) to conclude that it was divine intervention. It may have, in fact, been divine intervention, but there is no logical reason to conclude that it was. It may have been a witch doctor in Africa praying over a rock that triggered the divine rock to cure a random person on Earth just at the time shortly after the chiropractor prayed over the girl and the girl was randomly chosen by the witch doctor's divine rock deity. There is no proof that it wasn't, but there is no logical reason to conclude that it was.

It does not operate of proof of a divinity existing, and it doesn't operate as proof that a divinity actually exists.

Agreed.

I don't think that anyone engaged in misdirection, mendacity, evasion or derail here - did they? If so, could you please specify a post that fits this description?

Page after page of pettifoggery and evasion is available for your review. You are the first person to respond in a rational manner in a very, very long time...and not just in this thread, in every thread where the subject of God's existence comes into question.

Pettifoggery and evasion? Frankly, your arguments smack exactly of that, since getting a position out of you is like pulling teeth (evasion), and you seem to be arguing against people who aren't posting here (a kind of pettifoggery).

I do "deny" the assertion that the ONLY explanation here is divine intervention.

Sounds rational to me.

Right, so what was so hard to explain about the article? Family and chiropractor credit god and divine intervention for daughter's recovery. They're wrong to do that, because doing so would be irrational.

I freely accept that one "explanation" that can be offered is that it was divine intervention. However, I can certainly think of another explanation. Do you accept that a natural, albeit unexpected, recovery is another explanation?

I would think so, given how little we actually know about the human mind and body and its capacity for self-repair.

But all the same, God still couldadunnit.

Or maybe Asclepius, the Roman God of Healing.

Or maybe it was a rock deity who randomly chose this girl after being called upon to work magic by a witch doctor, and the witch doctor screwed up the ritual resulting in a random person, rather than the specific person he was dancing and praying for, being healed.

Might have been a prize in a card game played by demons in hell, and one demon lost and his punishment was the embarrassment of healing a human on Earth. He picked this girl.

Or, it could have been the medical treatment she received together with the natural processes within her body.

Or, God, yes. God could've done it. It's possible.

[Seth]

You cannot prove it.

I don't have to, they prove it every day. Ipse dixit, quod erat demonstrandum

Drivel, it is like saying that invisible pink unicorns exist because rainbows are their farts.

It's hardly that abstract. One need only observe any atheist forum on earth for all the evidence one needs.

So since there are alien abduction forums, alien abduction is a fact?

You talk nonsense.

No, you do.