I don't see how "you can't disprove that God exists" is a valid argument to make. We use reason to understand the world around us; if something defies that reason, it doesn't exist. Furthermore, the "gap theory" doesn't hold water either. It's true: science has no reasonable answer as to the existence of, well, existence. But the lack of an answer does not itself automatically validate an alternative answer. If the alternative fails the same tests to which we put every explanation, that alternative is wrong [i]despite[/i] the fact that a credible answer has yet to surface. The closest we can come to accepting the existence of something that can't be understood through reason is to say that the things we believe are true in their consequences. Regardless of whether or not God exists, the money people raise in his name for charity work still helps; regardless of whether or not God exists, the people killed in his name are still dead.