It's not a fact, Ed, it's an assertion that Steve is making. As assertions go, it doesn't seem to be based on anything except the author's wishful thinking...or a desire that things should be, and therefore are, just the way he already thinks they should be and are.

There have been any number of incidents throughout history where people swore that God (as they understood the term) had appeared to them, answered a prayer for them, worked a miracle for them, given them extra insight, broadened their mind, etc...thousands and thousands of such incidents. Maybe hundreds of thousands. I can't say I've had one, but I know many other people have.

But Steve asks if anyone has demonstrated it? ;-D Well, how could they in such a way as to meet Steve's requirements? Look, the entire French Army in the 1400s felt that Joan of Arc had powerfully demonstrated the assistance of God in helping them to inflict a series of catastrophic defeats on an English Army that hadn't lost a major battle to the French in the previous 50 years! To that French Army the role of God in their victories was absolutely certain. To the English, it was seen as the work of Satan. ;-D

Whether you think something is a demonstration of God's help or not is entirely dependent on your own subjective viewpoint of the event. There is NO demonstration that will serve to convince a sceptic who doesn't want to be convinced. They'll just come up with some other explanation for it....like the English did. They'll come up with whatever explanation makes them happy. The English explanation was that Joan was a witch in league with Satan. They couldn't possibly countenance the notion that an illiterate 17-year-old French peasant girl could lead an army against them without supernatural help of some kind...and achieve such victories. Neither could the French, but the French saw her actions as divinely inspired.

So they each gave it the subjective interpretation that suited their viewpoint of themselves as "the good guys".

There IS no demonstration possible which will convince a sceptic who is set on not being convinced, because he will give the demonstration a different interpretation, that's all. That's what people do. They already believe "thus and so" about life... and they then interpret whatever happens on the basis of their established beliefs and preferences. They are as predictable as trained dogs. They salivate when the bell rings, and growl when they hear the buzzer. Demonstrations are useless for minds that are already made up...unless they are demonstrations of something dead obvious...because it is wholly physical. Like a machine. There's a lot in life that isn't wholly physical, but which lies in the areas we could term "moral", "psychological", "emotional", "conceptual", "idealistic", etc.....and those aspect of life cannot BE demonstrated conclusively to a reductionist mind that will only pay attention to physical evidence, because they are not physical at all...they are workings in consciousness.

Spirituality is about the governance and working of consciousness...for good or for ill. You do not address the workings of consciousness through examining physical evidence, you address them through comprehension, observation, communication, listening, feeling, and perceiving. Consciousness can only be dealt with BY consciousness, not by a camera, a microscope, or a set of calipers.