Thorne. The point is not that I am gullible, but that until you prove faith is powerless, I am entitled to believe, if I want to, that it will give me the keys to heaven, and that nothing is impossible if my faith is pure. No scientist has the right to gainsay me until he can demonstrate, scientifically, the opposite. He has to agree to disagree, as you seem to do in other threads.

I reject utterly that I have "copped out" of something or other: if science cannot prove God does not exist, He might. If, as you say, no scientist will ever claim that science has the answer to everything, what are we arguing about?

No doctor has ever brought back anyone from the dead. If you know of one claiming to have done so, and you are sure he is not the Messiah, refer him to your Medical Council so they can strike him off as a quack. Some medics may have restored vital functions before it was too late, but not afterwards. There have been reports of people "reviving" after all medical support had been stopped. But the doctors can't claim that by not helping the patient they restored him to life, can they? No - those revivals are scientifically inexplicable. (I fancy that the revivals were due to a delayed response to earlier efforts to save the patient, but as I cannot know, it is no more than a notion.)

Faith is not flying in the face of the truth - that is fanaticism. Faith is believing in something that has not yet been proved or disproved. Faith in science is believing that it is capable, eventually, of answering everything within the laws of nature, some of which may yet await discovery. When science is able to provide all the answers, that faith will have been justified. Until then, you have to accept the possibility that God is responsible for something that science cannot explain, even if you will not believe it until it has been proved.

And now we're going round in circles.

TYWD

Keep the bridge: we never liked it anyway.

Now Tower Bridge ... that's a different story. | |/ \| |