As I've pointed out before, there are two kinds of faith. Rational faith is based on evidence. My dog has loved me every day for eight years, so it is rational of me to have faith that he will continue to love me. But irrational faith is based on nothing but hope, or even sheer desperation. Many people are dejected by the idea that when they die their life is over. This was especially common in earlier times, when life was tough and many people were unable to grasp more than a few days of joy out of it; but even today there are people who just don't manage to make much out of their lives for a variety of reasons, and feel cheated. So these people like to believe that when they die they won't really die, but will be whisked away to an imaginary universe where they'll be greeted by all the loved ones they've lost and spend their days playing lovely harp music. This hope is of course rational, because it keeps them going. But the faith is irrational, because not only is there no evidence to support the belief, but on the contrary there is a significant body of evidence showing that death is, indeed, terminal. If you mean events that can only occur if the laws of nature are violated, such as a man rising from the dead, then no. But if you mean that something that has a very tiny probability of occurring actually does occur, well sure. It happens all the time. But of all the highly unlikely things we can think of, only a very few of them will occur. That may seem miraculous to some, but those of us who studied statistics call it "an ordinary day." Just because we don't have an answer today, doesn't mean that we won't find it tomorrow, or that the people who come after us won't find it in the 22nd century. In 1796, no one could explain why exposing humans to cow pox made them immune to smallpox. Today that is explained to teenagers in high school biology classes, and vaccination is one of the major reasons for the decline of infant mortality in the 20th century from 80% to a fraction of one percent. You keep making statements of this nature, and I keep asking you why you believe that, and I keep not getting a good answer. Science is nothing more or less than a search for the truth. To say that there are some truths we will never find sounds a lot more like religion than science. Now if you want to say that there is an asymptotic limit, meaning that with each truth we conquer, the next one will be more difficult, so our progress will slow and the very last one will take until infinity... well okay. But I'm pretty sure that is not what you're saying. Then how do you observe him? How do you even know that he exists if not with your senses? Does he pipe Muzak directly into your synapses so you wake up singing Handel's "Messiah"? We don't have to. First you have to deliver solid evidence of a miracle, and you have never done that. So far all claimed "miracles" turn out to be just some weird crap that puzzled somebody. Like the scorch mark on a tortilla (one out of billions cooked this year) that is said to be the likeness of a biblical figure of whom no portraits exist against which to validate it. Huh? Humans are unique in having a forebrain so large that it allows us to override instinctive and reactive behavior with learned and reasoned behavior. This is how we can skydive, when every instinct tells us not to step into an abyss! Can you at least try to present a phenomenon that isn't quite so easily explained? This one is a no-brainer. People overcome histories of adversity every day. On every Bell Curve there's going to be somebody way out at the extreme end, and this is our guy. Same phenomenon. Holocaust survivors are dying off (while Holocaust deniers unfortunately seem to give birth to a new generation every 20 years, multiplying like the cockroaches they are), but there are still a few who are in good health and speak to us. A few remind us with a wink that Jews have been overcoming adversity for thousands of years, so what's the big deal about this time? Atheists convert to religion every day, just as believers become atheists. Every now and then, one of them is going to be a brilliant and persuasive author, just like another one is going to be a politician or a chicken-plucker. Duh? And how do you know that? C.S. Lewis's life is well documented, mostly by him. Have you read all that material and still have no clue? What do you say about the people who are "touched" so as to change from believers to atheists. Rather ironic that a supernatural creature or other force would nudge someone in the direction of not believing in the supernatural, doncha think? As I said earlier, the common reason for people irrationally holding onto religion is that something's missing from their life and religion promises to deliver it after they're dead. This would certainly appeal to many an irreligious person too. If your life sucks, you'll grasp at straws. Nothing to lose, eh? Some people say the same thing about the experience of killing another person. Not today, but who knows what kinds of instruments our descendants will have in 100 years. 100 years ago, nobody could have predicted many of the things we can figure out with today's science and technology. Proof of what? I don't understand the question. That combination of words is meaningless, and it also lacks rhyme, rhythm and alliteration, so it's very likely that no one, even a drunken poet, would have stumbled onto it. I don't understand why you think this is remarkable. If you put together a random string of one million characters (I'll even let you limit yourself to characters that resemble writing rather than odd symbols), I'll be happy to wager that it has never been written before. You don't seem to put much value in probability theory, and I don't understand why. I don't understand the question, sorry. Probably because I only spent three years there, then got a degree in accounting instead. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!