When I was in graduate school, I took part in the regular meetings of a group called “Apologia” which consisted of a number of believing graduate students from various disciplines. I remember spending many hours on Hume’s philosophical critique. The more we explored the argument, the stranger it seemed to me. I asked one philosopher who had been deeply impacted by this argument: People with an attenuated sense of what is possible will bring that conviction to the Bible and diminish it by the poverty of their own experience. In fact, Keener begins his book with the story of Barbara Cummiskey, who as a teenager was diagnosed with multiple sclerosis, and who, from the age 15 to 31, spent 75% of her life in the hospital. She suffered from chronic pulmonary disease, had frequent infections and pneumonia, and many of her organs just didn’t work, to where she had to be hooked up to various machines. She was described by one of her doctors as “one of the most hopelessly ill patients” he had ever seen. Long story short, on Pentecost Sunday, June 7, 1981, while some friends who had come to visit her after her church’s worship service were reading to her some cards and letters people had sent to her, she heard a voice say, “My child, get up and walk!” And she did—it was an instantaneous healing, and even though she hadn’t used her muscles for years, they were not even atrophied. Keener says that when he interviewed her in 2015, she had been fully healed and had led a normal life for the past 35 years. Many spiritual faiths claim to be based on love. Yet what passes for "love" on this planet is the shabby substitute the Course calls "special love," in which two partners trade favours for mutual benefit. We humans could not understand the awesome universality of Heaven's true Love. Thus, the Course does not even attempt to explain love, but presents forgiveness as its closest earthly approximation. The key to the Course's forgiveness is accepting our fundamental Oneness. By seeing our essential unity with all other people–the shared innocence of brothers and sisters–we learn that forgiveness is the only sane response to any offence, which is merely a cry for help. I was assured that “no” it would still be several billion versus 5,000 in each case. It would not matter if I and all my friends witnessed 100 miracles; the result would still be the same. As I thought about it, the question emerged: “Why do the instances that establish natural law have to count against a reported miracle?” Rather than weighing the evidence for a miracle, natural law, the usual way things work, was being used to exclude the unusual (miracle). Lewis says:

I am a seeker of Truth, and am most grateful this book came into my life. Those who seek Truth know what I mean, and are probably the only audience this book has. So I will speak to YOU guys: Kilgallen, John J. (1989). A Brief Commentary on the Gospel of Mark, Paulist Press, ISBN 0809130599Mr. Keener set out to erase the foundation of academic prejudice against acceptance of the immaterial realm. Though he knows his task is difficult, he lays out a strong case, researching high and low, near and far to gather the strongest evidence he can find. Readers will draw their own conclusion about Lucas simply maintained that on the substantial issue, Lewis was right and that, for the sort of reasons Lewis had put forward, a thoroughly naturalistic philosophy was logically incoherent. An outcome of that debate was to make it perfectly clear that, at the very least, Lewis’s original thesis was an entirely arguable philosophical thesis and as defensible as most philosophical theses are. Impossible Exorcising a boy possessed by a demon ( Matthew 17:14–21, Mark 9:14–29, and Luke 9:37–49)—A boy possessed by a demon is brought forward to Jesus. The boy is said to have foamed at the mouth, gnashed his teeth, become rigid, and involuntarily fallen into both water and fire. Jesus's followers could not expel the demon, and Jesus condemns the people as unbelieving, but when the father of the boy questions if Jesus could heal the boy, he replies "everything is possible for those that believe". The father then says that he believes and the child is healed. [34]

This whole method of adding evidence (from natural law) rather than weighing evidence (for each reported miracle claim) has not been sufficiently explored. Add to this that even natural laws (as understood in a particular period) have had to be revised by anomalies that needed a better explanation. If there is no way of recognizing exceptions to laws, no way to believe others (or your own) direct observation of a miracle, no way to alter the natural law, then you might wonder if you had a defective view of probability. Establishing a natural law and evaluating miracles’ claims are different kinds of things, but not the same thing. For instance, in Hinduism, the principle of non-distinction (All is One) rules out any validity to the distinction between natural and supernatural. Since all is “maya” or illusion, how can it be important to demonstrate power over the illusion? Granted, there have been claims of gurus levitating or healings in New Age circles, but within the system of thought how important are these “illusory” acts?Otherwise, the book is repetitive (I got very tired of the constant restatement of his arguments) and the miraculous events go on ad nauseum, contained in a (to me) muddled organizational structure, which brought up the same or similar occurrences over and over (accompanied with restatements of the same arguments).