I do not recall, so far, any particularly compelling statements from you (or from anyone else) about what exactly the value of faith is, or why it's a good idea to believe something on faith without any supporting evidence.
I don't understand why you require it or why you might think that anyone should have to provide it.
In an earlier post you said, in part, "...I argued then, and continue to argue now, that accepting things on faith, without evidence, is a mistake." That's what you believe and it's quite acceptable because, like the rest of us, you have a right to your beliefs. Further, neither you nor anyone else is obliged to explain why particular beliefs are held.
Perhaps it's time for everyone to agree to disagree.
ryck
ryck
"What Were Once Vices Are Now Habits" The Doobie Brothers
