"Journalist: According to you, the term "proof" does not apply to God. You prefer the term "sign". Why? God is not an entity of the same order as an atom or a galaxy. The existence of the atom is corroborated by theoretical schemes and experimental evidence. Almost the entire scientific community recognizes its existence. God, at least from my Christian point of view, is not a matter of demonstration. He is a personal God with whom we can establish a relationship. This is an act of faith and freedom. The word "proof" does not apply to the existence of God, because proof is a matter of logical reasoning, not of personal choice. When faced with a mathematical proof, we do not have the freedom to accept or reject the result. Even in physics, where there is no absolute certainty, scientists reach situations of consensus. The theory of general relativity, for example, is accepted by almost all scientists. But this is far from the case with the existence of God! A sign, however, requires interpretation. And interpretation refers to the freedom of the interpreter. If we have a pleasant encounter on the street, we can see it as a sign of God's benevolence or simply as a result of chance. It is a question of freedom of interpretation. No demonstration can conclude that we should have met that person on that day and at that time. The believer can be free to find signs of divine action in the structure of the universe. Isn't it a sign of something that the universe is so coherent? There is room for debate here. But this is not proof."