When you die, conscious is extinguished and the body rots.
The existence of God has nothing to do with the immortality of man. Humanity has been in nature only a small fraction of the age of the cosmos, so the question is unconstrained by solutions in which the physical decay of people’s bodies compels as a solution. But people are the first self-aware things that we know about and the question is whether they recognize something which is like them but on a larger scale than themselves. Humans can ask themselves questions about God; they are natural detectors of pattern; the only pattern detectors we know of and indeed they are possibly compelled to grapple with the question for as long as the species exists because it is inherent in their natures. The existence of stars is separable from the existence of telescopes. The more sophisticated version of the “body rots” argument invokes the Second Law of Thermodynamics, but that applies in a closed system or isolated system. But sort of system do we live in?
With regards to the persistence of information, it is an separable from the underlying medium. Seth Lloyd at MIT argues that the universe is a quantum computer. If the universe is such then there are threads and information storage which go past a human life span, perhaps past any length of time we can imagine.
As Lennox repeatedly pointed out, it is atheism, not theism that is really founded on “common sense tells us” or “sanity requires” types of arguments. But there is nothing logically necessary about that kind of atheism. You can have a logically rigorous type of atheism, but most atheism is really of the cafe or salon variety. I am not suggesting that theism can be demonstrated, but it is not clear at all that atheism can either. Why are people so sure of the zero when the null poses so many interesting questions.
As to arguments like “prophets enriched themselves therefore that is all theism is good for” how far does that theory survive comparing Christ with Stalin? Or Mao? Christ the theist wanted nothing. Stalin the materialist and atheist wanted everything. Atheism time and again makes these social arguments, but they are pointless. They don’t necessarily compel anything.
In the end what does an atheist “know”? About as much as a theist does. The only way to forward given the unknowns is to choose a hypothesis and keep going forward with an open mind. You can admit the null and still plod on in faith. That’s probably more natural than any other course. For those who already “know” that material is everything there is nothing more to be said. But I think that even if God did not exist, it would be in our interest to invent Him. He is the ultimate horizon; and there is no more self-fulfilling a method of extinction; no sounder a basis for tyranny, and no greater a cause for the extinguishment of wonder than dull certitude. At the limit, religious fanaticism and state atheism are nearly indistinguishable. That said, I believe like Pascal, that there is some chance love may exist after all. We see it in dribs and drabs. If so then live the wager. My heart shall never rest, until it rests in Thee.
