Some people have their blinkers on, basically. They are so focused on matter, material things, clinical experiments and logic based upon the presupposition that there is nothing that cannot be explained by science, they are incapable of seeing the category error they make with such demands. However, the US National Academy of Sciences said, "Science is a way of knowing about the natural world.
It is limited to explaining the natural world through natural causes. Science can say nothing about the supernatural. Whether God exists or not is a question about which science is neutral." - (from page 28 of Victor J.
Stenger's 'God, The Failed Hypothesis') http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics... Although Albert Einstein rejected the idea of a personal God and might be described as a pantheist, he complained, "In view of such harmony in the cosmos which I, with my limited human mind, am able to recognize, there are yet people who say there is no God. But what really makes me angry is that they quote me for the support of such views." (from page 425 of Ronald W. Clark's 'Einstein: The Life and Times') It's nice to see scientists being careful not to rule out the possibility for the existence of God.
Especially scientists of the calibre of Albert Einstein. Theists do not just say that it's possible for God to exist, they would argue that there is evidence of the God of the Bible breaking through into human experience and making himself known. They believe their faith in God is warranted due to God's self-revelation.
Evidence is not proof, but proof has to start with evidence. However, we now get scientists making the claim that, given time, science will explain everything about how the universe came to be. Well, that is simply the atheist’s version of 'the God of the gaps'.
They have invented the ‘future science of the gaps’ – same gaps, different deity. It’s what philosopher of science Karl Popper called ‘promissory materialism’. And what atheists no doubt consider to be their ‘fail safe' clause.
Yes, theists do seem to be confused on this point. They are constantly proposing god as a solution to various scientific unknowns like the origin of life or the cause of the Big Bang, yet cannot provide any data to back their assertions. As near as we can tell, only interactions between matter and energy have any effect in our universe and while we cannot completely rule out the existence of gods, they are a proposed solution to a non-existent problem with no supporting data and that means they aren't even a well-formed hypothesis.
I cant really gove you an answer,but what I can give you is a way to a solution, that is you have to find the anglde that you relate to or peaks your interest. A good paper is one that people get drawn into because it reaches them ln some way.As for me WW11 to me, I think of the holocaust and the effect it had on the survivors, their families and those who stood by and did nothing until it was too late.