OK - I've not quoted your full post this time but on a side issue your use of a large font doesn't help when reading a thread either - 🙂

You might not have said you didn't follow nor understand - you did however say, "I'm not going to try to give an explanation as I don't know enough about it".

In other words you can't prove anything but you do know a source you trust that can do so.  Exactly the point I am making. 

Not being able to prove a particular assumption but accepting that assumption as a fact with which to make further deductions is common in science.  Science is essentially a matter of obervation from which rules can be deduced and then checked by predicting results and then comparing those results against the prediction.  Those rules are then generally accepted as facts until such time a situation arises that doesn't comply with the predicted results.  Hence the saying, the exception that proves the rule" - proof in this context being defined as 'establish the truth or test'.

If scientific 'facts' weren't continuouly questioned then we wouldn't have progress such as that demonstrated by Galileo, Rutherford, Einstein and Higgs.  It is because individuals such as these questioned the accepted 'truth' that new 'discoveries' are made.  The vast majority of people, including myself, are not of that ilk and accept as truth pronouncements made by the scientific community that fit with our own perception and observations.

The problem that I see with religion is that whilst they may well have some core truths in their beliefs most seem stuck in time and refuse to question those truths and worse still refuse to accept new 'truths' as they are discovered.  If they had then I think there would probably be one common belief by now.