Don't let the presence of a thousand religions dilute the reality that there is a God. Just because man does not understand God doesn't mean he isn't understandable in meaningful ways. I get that you and I disagree on that point, but I can't help but feel you have a lot of prejudices when it comes to faith.

... there's much in this life that I will never be able to understand or explain, but I can accept that.

At least we agree on something. :)

Neither do I, but I don't ascribe superstition to things which have a rational explanation in my mind (regardless of what your mind or anyone else's mind sees it as). Do I understand why the hypothetical person died in your example but the other did not, no. But I do have faith in the creator of both people and what I perceive is his plan for us. And I believe that dead or not, we are his children and he desires our happiness. I'm glad you have found happiness with your current belief (or lack thereof).

Danse,

The problem isn't that faith can't measure up to (or be measured by) science. The problem is that faith is harder to obtain than man's knowledge. A lack of faith does not mean 'more credible' just as having faith is not the same as irrational. What you call rationalization I call understanding. Faith is useful to me and provides me with happiness in this life, regardless of the existence of an afterlife. In the end, I have not harmed you because of my faith and you have not harmed me because of your lack of it. What matters in both perspectives is how we treat each other now, in this life. Does it not?

The problem you are describing is one of perspective. Yes, any I answer I receive I attribute to God, because of the faith I have. That doesn't mean I'll get an answer at all, but the eye of faith does see the world a little differently. The other problem is that we can't have a control for God. One where we know that God exercises his power and one where he does not. That part, I admit is not testable. However, the point of faith is not to obtain proof, so in reality, the argument for scientifically testable faith falls down before the experiment begins. In the end, science and faith are not mutually exclusive, but you can't necessarily use one to prove the other.

Keep in mind two things. One, Science is a construct of man and is inherently lacking in ability to measure Deity. Two, Having faith does not make a person less credible in scientific matters.

How do you know? I have personally experienced dozens of miracles of that nature. Surely I am not unique? My wife and her family, my own family and extended family, friends and other fellow church-goers have related similar experiences. It may be anecdotal, but as compelling as a particle physicist in Switzerland claiming to find the Higgs Boson or something equally unfathomable to me.

I'm not sure I understand what you are getting at here. "Unexpected exception" to what? Miracles are not exceptions. Judeo-Christian religious texts frequently talk about miracles and Jesus even said (I'm paraphrasing) "Miracles will follow them that believe in me". Why do miracles have to be rare?

I'm still not understanding the whole schism thing and how it relates to miracles.

I prove faith every day. Maybe your problem is that you can't prove something you don't have?

B. S.

I may be able to specialize enough to understand the science of one field like say, particle physics, but things like rocket science or material engineering would have too little overlap and have too steep a learning curve for me to master and understand in any meaningful way. That's the whole point of TFA. Laziness has nothing to do with it. No one can learn everything in a lifetime, no matter how talented or long-lived.

Fair enough. I can't fully explain how someone who had a traumatizing brain injury seen on an X-ray taken at one hospital and then a blessing was performed, the patient shipped to another hospital and all trace of the injury vanished on the next X-ray, but it happened. Just because it hasn't happened to you, doesn't mean faith-based healings or other miracles aren't real and repeatable. Maybe I don't have the theological training required to explain it, but I don't need to. It's something useful that happened to me and millions like me.

The key difference between science and religion isn't testability, it's the subject of TFA: Faith. In order to experience miracles, you have to first believe in the power behind the miracle. Yeah, it's a paradox, but I didn't set the system up. People who bandy about the "it's science if it's testable" line don't care to understand faith-based workings because it requires them to give something up -- their pride. Next time you are in a car accident or get a major illness and feel like testing your faith, let me know and I'll be glad to perform a demonstration.

Got some good reviews on Amazon. He self-published and apparently delivers the spiral-bound gems hand signed. I'm thinking the MIB will be visiting him shortly, but if not, it means whatever is in his book is probably not noteworthy.

If I was one and I worked in Amazon's legal department, I would say something like the following:

If you do this, you will be sued, regardless of the legality of your actions.

Yeah, but have the NRC sampled the radiation flux in my mom's basement? I suspect no sunlight means less dose. Which slashdotian wants to calculate and subtract the rad flux from sun exposure, then account for my mom's cement walls and heavily iron-laden soil to give an approximate BED for me?

Er... perhaps you should read a little something in TFA about limitations on law suits.

The bill would affect retailers that make $50 million or more in annual sales and that have a direct contract with the manufacturer.

That's more like medium business, not "small".