This is not a place for debate, and I'm not in this to debate you. You asked a question, I'll answer. I don't normally debate atheists because debate's the wrong context. But I'll tell you the view I've come to -- from your statements the only difference between you & me so far is that I'm a believer.
I TRULY want to believe in an all-loving God, and that I will see all my loved ones again in Heaven. I can't even imagine the thought of getting married, and loving someone with all my heart, and losing them forever (I was reading the "Life Stages: widow/widowers section" and almost broke down crying).
If you go about pursuing this fond hope in the afterlife,"if you look for comfort you will not get either comfort or truth -- only soft soap and wishful thinking to begin, and in the end, despair." But "If you look for truth, you may find comfort in the end."
I've been there. I had to walk away from that. Because that's not what Christianity is about, and in fact you'd be surprised at how often eternal life is the reason for people
departing from Christianity.
I am an atheist because I see no reason for believing in God's existence, and all rational arguments I have seen in favour of His existence are unsound (and as a philosophy student, believe me I've seen them all). I doubt strictly logical argumentaion will lead me to God, but then what?
I expect you do hear yourself speaking. All rational arguments are unsound, yet you doubt strictly logical arguments will lead you to God. God may intend both.
Remember philosophy: rational arguments are proofs within a context: they begin with known facts, they progress through a language construct invented by Aristotle over 2000 years ago. Lack of proof is not denial, either.
There is a limit to rational thought -- it's just a limit that causes us to quit talking.
Without any sound, rational argument against God there's no reason for being an atheist. Feelings aren't persuasive either way. People didn't feel the existence of the Americas in 1200. And feelings didn't change their existence.
Science and philosophy scope their knowledge as well as present it. They don't lead into all truth as a result. Science doesn't predict the next random outcome. Science doesn't explain the one practicing science. Science doesn't explain the Good. Life. Love. Creation. Philosophy explains -- nothing except its own questions. For me, I found philosophy was no more than the frame around the tapestry of human life. But no examining the frame will tell you the truth woven in the tapestry. To me, what Camus said about science is just as well directed at philosophy -- now including his own. "What need had I of so many efforts? The soft lines of these hills and the hand of evening on this troubled heart teach me much more." Unfortunately, philosophy actually leaves the frame that much more empty. It's so embedded in itsself you start questioning why the frame should exist.
Despite the fact I am an atheist, I have prayed sincerely with all my heart, for a God to reveal himself to me, but I have never felt anything. This is all the more difficult for me because of my skeptical nature (practically anything short of seeing Jesus waving outside my window would leave me not wholly convinced). I mean people often say they "feel" God, but this is sort of unclear. There are many times when something nice happens to me, and I feel overwhelmed with emotion, but I don't think this counts as God's presence, because I could just as easily say it's some sort of brain process. If I could believe in God I feel I would be happy beyond words, so please, anyone who can help me, I would be forever grateful.
The lack of physical data tells us more about the God we believe, than about the lack of God. We would even agree with you. From the Christian standpoint, why would a believer in a God Who is outside the universe, above & beyond all it can handle, there's no reason to demand that God be observable from
our context inside the universe.
We're not that significant.
So it's not that we disagree with the point. It's more often that we agree with the point and it's not conclusive.