"We will never have the answers to every question and every unexplained occurrence, and a God may be involved in the explanation to the unexplained answer(s), so we cannot completely assert its non-existence."
I don't know if never having all the answers at any point is true, but let us assume that it is - there will always be a degree of incompleteness in the 'library' of knowledge we have amassed. Perhaps a conceptualization in the following way: take any event or thing we know, and repeatedly ask questions about it similar to 'how was it made' or 'how did this happen' - a form of repeated unfolding, until we arrive at a 'we don't know' or 'it's just how it's defined'
Given this premise, is it accurate, or logical, to make the subsequent argument that, since the answer to an unexplained occurrence could be God or a higher power (whatever you conceptualize it as), it is incorrect to assert that such a being cannot exist (a.k.a anti-theism).
What are your opinions of this argument?
Sounds very God-of-the-gaps-y, but my claim isn't that the existence of these gaps prove God, rather that it disproves the certainty of claiming it doesn't exist.
Side notes: Of course, if there was an unexplained question, and we eventually find a logical reason for that event occurring, it can be discounted from the set of all events God may have caused. But one of my assumptions is that this set cannot be an empty set. Moreover, you could also perform an additional unfolding of the recently discovered reason (ask it another 'why' or 'how'), and you've essentially discovered either an element of that set pre-existing, or something that can be added to the set.
