God's existence is beyond any scientific fact. Though logic could come to the rescue.

Like Thomas Aquinas, also [Blaise Pascal](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blaise_Pascal) gave us his thoughts.

When he chose to believe in God, it was just the most primitive self-preservation instinct manifested as an unconscious rational choice (pretty much a conscious one, in his case).

As Blaise Pascal stated (see The [Pascal's Wager][1])

He chose to belive in God, because there is no proof that God doesn't exist. So, if God exists, his reward is heaven, and eternal joy... but if God doesn't, he had nothing to lose.

In our days, insurance companies work more or less in the same way. As you chose to have insurance because it's better to have one that possibly you are never going to use... than to need one and not to have it.

Eventually an hypothetical religion could emerge, with a divinity that could create "everything" in such a way that it could never be found proof of that divinity's existrence.

In which case Pascal is 100% right... again. Thus, atheistics could not blame on believers  of that religion, as that is their most rational rensponce to the uncertainty. Though believers could blame on atheistics being somewhat masochistic, from their point of view, of course.

Also regarding that hypothetical religion, one thing is for certain, and believers and atheistics, both could agree in that if such divinity exist, is more likely that they are never going to find any proof of his/her existence.

I'd like to call this hypothetical religion, Religion 2.0, where even science could be considered part of its rituals, and every attempt to proof the non-existence of their God, should be celebrated and glorified.

  [1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal%27s_Wager