Why I'm Not an Atheist: The Case for Agnosticism

[AtheistCrusader]

219. "but we do know some plausible ways that it might."

Krauss, Dawkins, and the rest all know they can never prove that there is no god. For instance, a truly omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent being that created the universe but does not wish to be directly perceived, CANNOT, by definition, be directly perceived. (Otherwise it wouldn't be very omnipotent, would it?)

Krauss and Co. aim to show how the universe works, and if that means each mechanism in the chain of it's coming into existence can be shown to be natural, then there are no more gaps for a hypothetical supreme being to hide in. That's what is being done; showing that the universe is natural, and operates and exists by understandable natural principles, sans supernatural powers/origins.

That's all.

Lets say we DO figure out every tiny detail of how the universe works, and how it, and time/space itself came to be. And lets say it is 100% natural and non-metaphysical.

Still doesn't disprove god. It just puts the ball back where it belongs, in the court of said being to establish its presence, of its followers to establish its presence, etc. No more cover for believers to hide behind incredulously denying natural processes, insisting it is too complex to not have a designer, simply because we don't understand it, therefore 'god did it'.

Just chipping away at that cover. No big deal.