Sure, what we wish, but if I were to disbelieve something that's been proven, I'd be wrong. I don't see how I could be judged wrong here based on the character of the evidence presented. I don't see where anyone has used the word "invalidated" in the discussion; could you clarify?
I am simply stating what surely is self-evident; the event contains a great deal of data that is accepted as evidence. If you or others choose to disbelieve the account, or the evidence presented, than, if this is a rational discussion, it is incumbent of the protagonist to show how the evidence is invalid - otherwise I cannot see any basis for a discussion.
Indeed, there might not be a basis for discussion in that case. My point is that the bar for rebuttal of this evidence is very low. It was a one time event, and unverifiable assertions have been made about its cause. To accept the evidence is a matter of belief in itself. Disbelief is a rational position without further demonstration.
On the wider question of faith, we get back to the familiar point - how would someone who states an "absence of faith" be in a position to discuss faith?
I don't see that that term has been used in this discussion either. However, absence of any particular characteristic wouldn't seem to preclude one from discussing it.