if we don't have a proof, why would we assume that one is not possible? as soon as we switch from belief and spirituality to faith, we admit that proof is impossible. that is not an acceptable basis under which to approach human interaction, since it denies the possibility of achieving a real answer at a later point. i can't think of anything that "must never be absent of doubt", nor can i think of anything where the sole means of arriving at a conclusion should be the conviction that proof is unnecessary. talk about imposing restrictions on human interaction...
Last edited by 'trane; 05-20-2011 at 09:12 AM.