After thinking it over a bit, I think tepples may be right. If the business only accepts prepayment and if there's no contract (oral or written) that would compel the customer to go through with the transaction, then there really is no debt on the customer's end. IANAL, either, but it makes sense to me. Thanks for pointing out my error.

You're almost right, but there's more than one kind of debt. As soon as you accept goods or services from a business, you owe them whatever money was agreed upon. While you may not have a written credit contract, you're still indebted. If that weren't so, they would have no legal right to demand payment.

Correction: This works even better in Windows 8.

Very good point. I had the chance to interview at both Google and Microsoft. I found the interview styles to be pretty similar. Google was a bit heavier on the technical. Microsoft was a bit heavier on general problem solving. That's easily explained by the fact that I was interviewing to be a developer at Google and a tester at Microsoft. No big deal. There was one glaring difference between my experiences at the two companies. Google flew me to their Seattle office, set me up with a hotel, rental, car, food, etc., and spent the whole day in interviews with me before the recruiter told me that they don't actually have any openings and they're just building a candidate pool. Microsoft took me to Redmond, gave me a similar treatment, and I got an offer the same day.

Take a look at Office 365. The small business plan costs $6 per user per month. It provides email, a web browser Office suite, an external web site, intranet sites, etc. For those users that need Office client installations, you can add Office Professional Plus for $15 per user per month (or $12 if you have the enterprise plan). I've been told that you don't need to add Office Professional Plus for everyone. You can reduce your costs by choosing who gets it and who doesn't. It's easy. The Office suite has a lot more features than Google Apps. You can get a free trial and see if you like it.

I'm not saying that humans are all that matter. I'm saying that we are the best guages for measuring the impact of the divine in our own lives. If you see someone walking on water, for example, it should certainly get your attention, but it doesn't prove much by itself. Instead, the miracle is an invitation to learn more. The Bible speaks of people of people who deceive others by performing false miracles. And our own perception is sometimes flawed. So, don't be too hasty to accept miracles as proof.

The only miracles that constitute proof are the ones that happen in your heart. These are the ones that nobody else can see. These are the ones that change lives the most.

I completely agree. These are the people who depend on external miracles rather than allowing God to work on them from the inside out.

Faith and science are both backed by plenty of evidence. In science, the lab exists all around you. In faith, you are the lab.

Even the best scientists often disagree with each other. Add to that all the junk science being thrown around out there, and you'll see that your argument about various religions just doesn't stand up unless you're claiming that science is useless.

The real proof of faith comes from the improvements you see in your own life when you follow correct teachings. Don't see the improvement you're hoping for? Then try a different religion. This is starting to sound a lot like the scientific method, isn't it? The main difference is that it's very difficult to describe your internal changes in a quantitative way. This makes it hard to know if someone else has reproduced your findings. But it doesn't prevent you from discovering your own personal evidence of faith.

Miracles don't prove religion. They never have. The real proof comes from the improvements you see in your own life when you follow correct teachings. Don't see the improvement you're hoping for? Then try a different religion. This is starting to sound a lot like the scientific method, isn't it? The main difference is that it's very difficult to describe your internal improvements in a quantitative way. This makes it hard to know if someone else has reproduced your findings. But it doesn't prevent you from discovering your own personal evidence of faith.

There are many conflicting scientific theories. And many people selling junk science. Is that a clue that science, taken as a whole, is not a reliable learning system? No way!

That's exactly why the analogy works. Newtonian physics is a lot of quantum mechanics. And climate forecasting is a lot of weather forecasting. And yet, because of the huge difference in scale, you have to use very different models to predict each one. Just because you understand elastic collisions doesn't mean you know anything about electron tunneling, or vice versa.

Saying that climate science is just a big weather forecast is like saying that newtonian physics is just a lot of quantum mechanics. Doing 5 day forecasts isn't enough to qualify someone to forecast climates. Yeah, it may help, but it's not enough.