But people eat healthy, do exercise, quit smoking, vaccinate, keep their homes clean, just because they might get ill.

Riiiiight. This is all to prevent themselves from becoming tainted by things they know exist.

All of which are no more than hypotheticals which may and may not happen. They might just as well die tomorrow in a car accident, falling off stairs or war with North Korea; and all of that care for their health just meant missing out on fun they could have had.

Unless you are positive that the only ways you're going to die are old age and illness (Hint: nobody is), all those are faith acts as much as following a religion for its promised rewards.

But I'm not preaching to you. I answered a question from a newbie OP. So why are you preaching to me?

It's called a debate. This is essentially a debate forum, am I right?

Yet for some reason, unless you're absolutely right and I'm absolutely wrong, you're never satisfied. Even Ethan doesn't go so far, and boy, does he have a thing for Dante...

See, I'm not totally sure of your point here, but it sure sounds to me like you're saying God definitely exists.

Yes. That was my starting answer: that things are predictable. And that a predictable universe is what would be expected of God.

Here you seem to claim to being open to other possibilities, yet it does seem that you are saying God definitely exists.

Science progresses through time. Some of what constitutes our current scientific consensus will one day be refuted and the next day even considered absurd.

Why you (and most Atheists) insist on not applying this more flexible standard, which is all that science aims at, to the religious field of inquiry, is truly beyond me.

If we applied that standard of being absolutely perfect to any other discipline, we'd still be in the Paleolithic. Not because we'd be dumb; just because if we cannot explain how seeds become edible plants, how the sun shines everyday, how there are seasons, why we die of thirst and water calms that thirst, why some food is harmful (rottening food, toxic fungi), how babies learn to live in society, we'd conclude they don't and it's just some funny coincidence. We didn't get to where we are, either materially, morally, scientifically or technologically by postmodernism. The legitimate inquiry on the existence or nature of God won't progress by postmodernism either (and I suspect you know it and that's exactly your purpose).