Thomas said The laws, as we construe them, of the empirical universe. We might be obliged to revise them, in which case even our laws are ephemeral. Aupmanvav responded Sure, no need for premature conclusions (such as that there is a God . _________________________________________________________________________ Aup's response was, obviously meant as a joke. It got me thinking though (always dangerous). Where do our knowledge bases come from? How sure can we be of their accuracy? Why do we trust them? Which brings me to my point. The one genuine difference between science and religion is that what we believe we know is forward thinking information in the former. And backwards thinking information for the latter. As most of you know I have always had an issue with the facts that we use as the foundations for our religions. It never really crystalized for me why until this moment, and my doubt, in a nutshell, is what I just mentioned. Science is based on current 'facts' based upon redefining facts that have been proven wrong. What we think we know is accurate today, we may find is wrong tomorrow. The trend is always moving forward with more accurate theories, better equipment to test those theories. With religion, all the facts that we have, all the facts that we will ever have, is thousands of years old. People living today who choose to believe in religions accept the 'fact' that Iron Age and Bronze Age peoples had the capability to understand and correctly interpret truly remarkable events that they really did not have the resources to do so. Please, this post is NOT about science versus religion. It IS about where we acquire our information and how much we can trust it. As a Deist, accepting facts from thousands of years ago as accurate strains my credulity. Obviously for Theologists, this is not a problem. I would like to understand why. My only response is that Theologists accept as a given that these early religious texts are unique in that they speak with accuracy of Godly events. All other texts upon any other subject from the same time period will be looked at with caution with the understanding that humans had very limited knowledge about how reality worked. So my question is why do we give these religious texts a special treatment that we would give nothing else? Again from my point of view, it is a very arbitrary decision based upon a desire to believe they are true. Because to believe in our religions, we must believe that our sacred texts are genuine. Our belief is based upon nothing (that I can perceive) beyond our desire to believe in them. Input on the subject from all would be appreciated, particularly from the theologists on the forum.