Actually, unexplained cures are typically categorized as 'incorrect diagnoses.' Since the cure cannot be explained, the diagnosis must have been incorrect (despite any evidence to the contrary). :o)




>>the fact of, me(*) to certify with my own life the existence of a cure by the absorbment of all the bible's knowledges and acception of a Savior/Lord (described there)..
>>
>>Ask to any lawyer.. in any court, of occidental countries, it is a fact accepted as circumstancial prove.. But prove.. And, if more than one witness and depending on the level of envolviment, it will be full enough to make the judge/juries decide about the lawsuit.
>>
>>(*)a person with no straight envolvement and no professional relations with churchs or any kind of financial interest on religion stuffs..
>
>
>That is not going to work in a court of law. They are going to present opposing views, as Alan said, and they are going to have expert witnesses. In case of sickness, an expert witness would probably be a medical doctor. Would you say a medical doctor would agree?
>
>You are telling the judge that you got cured (you don't specify ailment above), by "the absorbment of all the bible's knowledges and acception of a Savior/Lord (described there)"? Good luck.