Faith is that which not only believes in that which transcends physical laws of nature, but also lives in them. Rationalism, which is what atheists etc. follow, is that which believes and lives only in the physical laws of nature.

Examples: the faith of the Eastern Orthodox Church confirms that St Xenia was very much able to live in Moscow, in the middle of winter, with hardly any clothing, shelter or food, and be perfectly at ease. The rationalism of atheism etc. demands good clothing, shelter and food in these conditions; faith confirms that a wholly wooden crucifix (i.e not containing any silver) taken through water ritualistically makes holy water that will never, ever go bad, whereas rationalism has to refrigerate water, and even then it will have a shelf life; faith confirms that St Mary of Egypt walked on water, whereas rationalism, at best, only drinks water, washes in it etc.; faith confirms that when the body of a saint passes away, it remains relatively incorrupt and emits a pleasant odour, whereas rationalism only knows stinking decomposition. For a good example of holy remains, look up the Lavra Caves in the Ukraine, which house the dead bodies of many Orthodox Christian saints, and which have a sweet smell. I could go on, but the main point to take away is to study the miracles of Orthodoxy, which science just can't (reasonably) explain, and not for want of trying.

Objections to this argument might question the honesty of those reporting, in ancient times, the ancient miracles of saints, and if this isn't satisfied by the importance good Orthodox Christians place on honesty and truth, then let them study those things which can be seen even today, such as the incorrupt, sweet smelling corpses, holy water etc.

Evidence of there being more than the physical world ( and its accompanying laws) can be seen in our imagination. Where physics demands that I can't walk through a wall, my imagination can see me doing it, while in the form of a pink and yellow horse. This isn't to say that all imagination is good, but it does show that there's infinitely more than just the physical world.

Next, plenty of perfectly good science makes a Creator God, and a young earth, seem entirely more likely than a billions of years old universe, that came about by chance. A very good book on this is entitled In Six Days, by who I unfortunately don't remember right now. In any case, the book makes clear the irreducible complexity of nature, which makes evolution essentially unfathomable, as well as helps us understand that science, in the end, is incapable of pronouncing on the origin or meaning of life, given its limited role of studying only that which can be observed and repeated. Anything more than this requires a philosiphical input, and modern physics has no place in this.

Next, atheism, humanism etc. believe in humankind being the measure of all things, and yet this has to be a dead-end; for without any objective and external standard for how things should or should not be, there can be no way of knowing whether we are thinking straight or not. In a sense, this is related to an open letter a friend of mine wrote to Stephen Hawking, just before Hawking died, asking him how it is that the universe can be all there is and expanding at the same time - the point being that expansion can only be measured against stillness, but if expansion is all there is, then how do we know of expansion? Orthodox Christianity, however, acknowledges both: the Great Stillness (God) and expansion.

Next, the second law of thermodynamics shows that the expanding universe is dying, meaning that all that is in it is becoming less complex. This speaks to involution, not evolution, and this fits well with the Orthodox Christian view of the world eventually ending. See the Book of Revelation, the Apocalypse, and the numerous Biblical references to the increasing sinfulness of humankind.

Next, truth (which is what we must be aiming for, if all our efforts to express our beliefs are to have any meaning) is intrinsically exclusive in that it says yes to this and no to that. Falsehood, on the other hand, must therefore say yes to everything and anything, except the truth. Comparing Orthodox Christianity's narrow exclusivity, then, to the modern taste for relativism and inclusiveness, I see that the former bears the marks of what is true. That this exclusivity is misunderstood and abused by many is no problem when we understand that throwing the baby out with the bathwater is unproductive.

Next, one thing that Orthodox Christians and atheists might agree on is that being a real live hero - i.e. someone who sacrifices them self (in one way or another) for others - is a great thing. What separates us here is how Orthodox Christianity has promoted self-sacrifice to the level of dogma and doctrine which sees (good) Orthodox Christians (who btw would never actually see themselves as anything special) waiting till marriage to have sex, being completely loyal and forebearing in marriage and parenthood, loving and praying for their enemies, accepting with patience whatever life throws them, giving the clothes off their back to the poor, selling their homes and giving the money to the poor before joining a monastery, turning the other cheek, fasting, complete abstinence from sex, living a frugal life, giving their life for another etc. etc. That not many of us have ever had the pleasure of meeting an actual saint (or hero) is no slight against God or His religion, but simply goes to show how elevated both are. Sure, a non-religious person can also self-sacrifice, but then that would only be their subjective experience.

Next, the best that atheism can offer society is some kind of morality. However, without the objective standard that God and His religion provides, morality becomes only a superstition, based on nothing more than the pleasure principle, and subject to the vast differences in peoples' tastes. This creates a need for philosophical relativism, the logical conclusion of which must allow for anything and everything (except Orthodox Christianity), and should this ever come fully enough into fruition, nobody will be pleased that it did.

Next, and as a corollary to the above, subjective morality and the widespread chaos it inevitably creates, results in a return to more traditional and objective moral standards, even if God isn't brought back into the equation, and this makes a mockery of the relativist ideal, for having contradicted its very principle. Orthodox Christianity doesn't suffer from this (although I know many people, who are not good theologians, think they have seen it).

Finally, there are the saints who have actually seen God. All of them, in one accord, testify to the same experience. All that it takes to believe them is to imagine how a blind man, who has never seen the sky, could believe someone else who has. That isn't a big ask.

BlindWatchmaker, in response to your query, all of the above, and more, is why I have faith in the God of Eastern Orthodox Christianity. While I understand well that a thousand reasons could now be given about the problems people find with the religion, what I would say is that these 'problems' come only from a lack of understanding, which can only ever come from lack of exposure. This is very common these days when many people, of many stripes, believe they understand (even some very complex) things simply because information is easier to come by now. But as for a person who has long studied and experienced Orthodox Christianity, which (especially these days) requires the understanding of all competing fields, this can never be a problem, if only because they understand the competing fields better than the competitors do.

All the best

Vasily Martin - the second law of thermodynamics shows that the expanding universe is dying, meaning that all that is in it is becoming less complex.

Complexity is proportional to entropy, not inversely proportional as you are suggesting.

Vasily Martin - ...the point being that expansion can only be measured against stillness, but if expansion is all there is, then how do we know of expansion?

Your notion of stillness is fundamentally misguided, there is no preferred frame. The expansion is known by the fact that on large scales the rate of change of distance between objects is increasing as a function of time, and the distance between them.
-------------------------------------------------------------
I understand how it can be confusing. But what I find more troubling is your notion that it isn't expanding, after citing its expansion in another part of the same post.

Vasily Martin "Faith is that which not only believes in that which transcends physical laws of nature, but also lives in them. Rationalism, which is what atheists etc. follow, is that which believes and lives only in the physical laws of nature."

You know you can Google word definitions don't you?

Faith
NOUN
1 Complete trust or confidence in someone or something.

2 Strong belief in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual conviction rather than proof.

The secondary definition is the more salient here.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Rationalism
noun
The practice or principle of basing opinions and actions on reason and knowledge rather than on religious belief or emotional response.

So your definitions seem both arbitrary and inaccurate. Not a good start to precede a post you then base a whole string of claims on.