Questions for theists.

[The Grand Nudger]

And we've reached the cruz of my objections at this point. I do understand our disconnect, I do understand why you believe what you do (regardless of whether or not I feel that it is well founded or rational). I simply feel that the explanations offered in these cases aren't actually explanations, they beg more questions than they answer. The farther down the rabbit hole we go the larger the pool of unanswered questions becomes. On what basis did we begin the journey down the hole to begin with if nothing tangible can be offered? If these are acceptable "explanations" or valid propositions then it would seem that almost anything could be acceptable or valid. It's such an elaborate concept with nothing to bite into. How did it become so elaborate in the first place? How can so much be claimed about something that (by the definition offered) cannot be known in the first place? Also, if this immaterial thing is beyond the authority of science then why offer up science as a defense of it? You seem to be straddling both sides of the fence depending on which angle I choose to assault the claim from. Either scientific inquiry cannot elucidate this claim by definition, or scientific inquiry has provided us with credible reason to investigate it further. They cannot both be the case simultaneously.