Challenging the Atheist belief

[Vadakin]

I'm saying unexplainable events like the ones mentioned related to NDE's (our best understanding of the existence of life beyond this life), mixed with the existence of the unknown to the senses point to the existence of a possibility that maybe there's more to life than we can perceive, yet atheists choose to ignore this logic. That's what confuses me.

And some of these responses confuse me more. How can one acknowledge your view when your response is: rejection or insults backed with nothing more than that?

NDE's aren't unexplained. They've actually been recreated by scientists. So have Out Of Body experiences.

And that illustrates the problem with your line of thinking. Just because something hasn't been explained, doesn't mean it can't be. Back when a virus was called a curse, people didn't know about micro-organisms. They couldn't explain why people got sick so the only obvious solution to them was a supernatural cause as to their knowledge, there wasn't a natural one. Well, we know better.

Do we know what existed before the universe? No. Will we ever know? Probably not (chances are, we'd have to be outside the universe to fully answer the question). Does that mean there is no natural, scientific answer? No.

But since you issued a challenge, let me return the favour and issue one of my own. It's often said that you can't prove that God doesn't exist. But I think what you can prove is that he isn't necessary.

So here's my challenge. Let's suppose that the human race continues to advance and our knowledge continues to grow. Let's suppose that within the next decade, a scientist somewhere is able to combine the right amino acids in the right way to successfully recreate life and prove once and for all that life's origins are natural.

Now, let's expand beyond life, to the universe as a whole. Let's suppose we keep making discovery after discover after discovery and many many years from now we can accurately explain the origins and nature of the universe, of life and everything in between and with each discovery, that's one more thing that had no requirement for God.

Now jump forward a million years and let's suppose that in a million years, human being discover almost everything there is to know about the universe, from how it was formed to was there before, what will be there after, the origins of life, of consciousness, everything we could possibly want to know, all without ever encountering any evidence of God.

Now let's pull back. Let's say that we don't know absolutely everything about existence. We know 99.9999% of everything, none of which involves God. Which is more likely? That the remaining .0001% is where God resides or that like everything else, it's part of the natural order, that we simply haven't discovered yet? Which is the more logical conclusion to make?