Hi Del,

>>>Science says the Unverse is expanding. If you reverse the process all matter comes back to a point such that the origin is the so-called Big Bang. Science also says the Universe is cooling, with no new energy being created. Had this gone on eternally (looking back in time), then why hasn't all the energy burned itself out by now?
>>Sure, there is much to explore yet and therefore there is a lot of room for intepretation of the unknown, even for scientists. There is an awfull lot we don't know, and perhaps never will know. So there is a lot of room for religion. But religious people will have to accept that things they now explain by the word of god might be narrowed down by science in the future. After all a real scientist is looking for scientifical answers rather than explaining it by a god.
>
>As a good scientist should do. We don't have a problem there. That doesn't preclude one from having faith in God. Your assumption is that religion (in my case, Christianity) must reject science. I'm here to tell you the two are not mutually exclusive.

No, I'm not saying that. Religion should embrace science.

>>As long as it is not proven, it is not science. Scientifically, there is not prove of something like a God.

>Nor is there anything within science that disproves the one true God.

Nor science does disprove multiple gods, nor reincarnation, nor we will get to heaven with 17 virgins to our command, but that does not neccesarely mean I have to believe in that.

In science there are even no indications that a god exists. The existance of spirits might have better chances to be proven. In any way you put it science is the only way to prove if something exists or not.

Walter,