Just to give you another point of view on the arguments of the religiophobes, as I refer to the "new atheists", I'd recommend to you to watch this video of John Lennox talking about the subject.
science and god
Those who claim to believe something to be true can only have the burden of providing evidence for their belief, as defined in the collins dictionary:
" Evidence is anything that you see, experience, read, or are told that causes you to believe that something is true or has really happened,",
not proof, as evidence is the basis of a belief. Belief without evidence cannot exist as evidence is required to start a cognitive process. However, they cannot be expected to have proof, as proof unlike evidence is the basis of truth knowledge, not belief. If you require proof to form a belief you are by definition an idiot as you cannot obtain knowledge from something being proven to you. Thus, to expect a believer to deliver proof of what he believes in is intellectual dishonesty - or just lack of intellectual capacity to understand epistemology. If you understand science and the concept of falsifiability, and the limits of experimental evidence being finite, you will be aware that the burden of proof lies with the skeptic who does not belief what is the accepted status quo, as the only proof we can do in science is to falsify an existing theory. Thus as a scientist you would be proud to take on the challenge to prove an existing theory wrong. It is however not helpful to do so by using straw man arguments, such as a concept of prayer that involves our will to be done or demands God to act in an irrational manner. To a God who created an ordered universe the demand to falsify the order he created would render him irrational as to deny his own laws, thus would render him impotent, not omnipotent. To postulate a God that is Santa's big brother, e.g. a personal God who changes reality according to our wishes expressed in prayer, ideally rubberstamped by the words "and this I ask in the name of Jesus", is a joke with regards to the God that Jesus taught about. He taught us to pray for his will to be done, e.g. to make us do what God wants us to do, not the other way round. And if people do not understand that to pray in the name of Jesus does not mean to use the phrase as a sign of the sincerity of our wishful thinking, but to pray like he would have prayed, it only shows their intellectual immaturity.
Anyhow, enjoy Lennox and do not worry about Marshall Brain's materialistic understanding of prayer and healing. Use his GII videos to educate your fellow Christians how to pray and what healing is about. Healing is not to get the body you wish for but to accept the body you have. Otherwise you will always fall short of your wishes and define those with bodily imperfections as not healed. The idea that only a healthy body could harbour a healthy mind considering those failing the materialistic definition of "healthy" unworthy of living still has a horrible ring to it from the 3rd Reich. When God heals amputees he does not grow them new legs but when you see how they put us able bodied to shame you will understand that he gives them wings to overcome adversities that make us falter.
May the Lord bless us to be the occasional piece of wing for those in need, particularly in this Christmas period, that instead of promoting Santa and his reindeers we promote the angels that appeared to those shepherds in the field and that tell others not of elfs and material pleasures for Christmas but of the sombre conditions of the birth of Jesus. A child not born as wished for by men, but because a man and a woman had decided to raise a child not of their own creation. Jesus was born in obedience to the word of God to love thy neighbour like thyself. In a time of being under roman military occupation and in a society were lack of virginity let alone pregnancy was under the death penalty - in case the woman did not kill herself for being pregnant without having an explanation - it does not require excessive fantasy to imagine what it would have meant to be pregnant without presenting the father. Sure it sounds okay to think that those primitive goat herders of the time believed in magic any time because they did not know how biology worked, never having heard of biologos and evolution, so they accepted any magic explanation of becoming pregnant by magic. Happened every day
Do we think the word of God more powerful for popping a baby in existence without involving a father? Parthenogenesis exists in the animal kingdom - so does that account for a miracle?. Or would it be harder to imagine the involvement of a roman soldier impregnating Mary against her will. Would it be a miracle that the word of God turned flesh in turning an act of hate and oppression into a beacon of love and hope. Which interpretation would make us look at the word of God with more reverence would make God lowering himself further and make us admire Mary and Joseph more as to being blessed by God? The choice is ours, but it will say a lot about our understanding of a God and if it is logically coherent.
Have a peaceful and thoughtful Christmas and rest assured that there will always be some God hypothesis that fail. Science has also come up with a variety of hypotheses about atoms and their structures and just because a lot of them did not stand the test of time did not mean atoms were a failed hypothesis, only that some were inadequate to describe them properly. So just feel amused if someone claims to be a scientist and insists the atom must look like Dalton's billiard ball or Thomson's plum pudding and even more if they try to use science to prove that reality has no reason and that this "unreasonable" universe has caused reality to become reasonable, e.g. rationally comprehensible.Without accepting an ultimate reason that transcends reality and has put it under a law they loose any justification to do science, but then they really only believe they do science