Evidence for a god. Do you have any ?

[RoadRunner79]

And you are the one claiming that it is not... which means that you share a burden of proof to show that is true.  This appears to be nothing more than pseudo skepticism and your comment about scientist nothing more than scientism.  You don't need a scientist to tell you what to believe.  They study specific things, and share that information that they gather with you, the same as anything else.  They don't see any better than any other random person.

You don't need a scientist to tell me anything, but what I mean is why hasn't this happened to anybody or even a group of people who can record this accurately? Why is it always, at least in the modern day, happening to those in third world countries where the rate of religion [and scamming people] is very high? Why does things, that aren't then like "oh please lord, let me win the lottery"  for people in America/England or any country where this seemingly never happens? Do certain places on earth have more "holyness" that others? I mean, the point is: why is this either a) something that ONLY happened 2000+ years ago or B) happening today, but to complete rando's in the middle of nowhere, where nobody who is reliable in any sense can confirm or deny anything? I can 100% tell you right now, nobody from america or england who is legitimately and medically confirmed to be crippled, has suddenly got out of bed and walked again. It's never happened. So why not?

The burden of proof is solely with those that mean to prove it. I have to prove nothing, because there is nothing for me to present. I say miracles don't happen.....because they don't, so what am I supposed to give you in return? Much like unicorns, I have nothing to prove "nothing" doesn't exist, so therefore you have to prove me, and everybody else wrong. That's how that works.

If you are making a claim (such as miracles don't happen) then you have a burden of proof to support that claim.  A common misconception among atheists seems to be, that they can make claims, and have no burden of proof to support them.  I also don't think that where the claim originates has anything to do with it's validity.  Are you saying that people in third world countries don't see as accurately as you (or the scientists).    I'm not saying, that people don't lie or are never mistaken.  I also don't go to the other extreme of saying that testimony is not evidence (I find that people who do, do so selectively).  It's not that it should be received uncritically, however I don't think that rejecting evidence, simply because it doesn't fit your world view is correct and good for learning about reality either.  I mean, if I dismissed any evidence for evolution, because I found it unbelievable, and called people liars, I would suspect, that there would be a few people who would make accusations of being in an echo chamber.   You can't dismiss evidence, because of what it points to, and then say that there is no evidence.