Mrr: " The whole point of faith is belief without knowledge. If it were from knowledge, it wouldn't be belief"

I think you are confusing the term 'knowledge' with the term 'empirical data' or using them interchangeably.

Someone may have 'knowledge' of God or of the metaphysical world without that knowledge necessarily being demonstrable according to current scientific empirical standards. It should be obvious that this does not make it knowledge any the less.

You also say "Sure, there are cures that defy current explanation. These are not, however, evidence of the supernatural. Just because what we know now of the natural world as learned through science can't explain something does not mean that the answer has to be supernatural"

Of course. But both the circumstances and the dramatic nature of the cures against all medical and scientific odds defintiely demands our closer attention. These were not just common colds cleared up by the power of positive thinking. Something much more dramatic has occured here. In both cases the subjects were also sceptics who demanded, half in scepticism, that God act and interevene. They did not spend hours in thoughtful prayer or build up to the cure over months of religious preparation. And in both cases in the very moment when the two subjects challenged God to act, something physical did indeed occur.

The general reasoning of your post seems to be that one distant day empirical science will be able to explain everything that currently is classed as supernatural. It may have done so in many cases, but there's no guarantee it will be able to do so in all cases.