The theory of a god leaves a lot to be desired. We have all debated the validity of a god, especially the christian god (Abrahamic god).
In every debate, the theist has tried to fill the "god gaps" unsuccessfully. The ideas of Intelligent design, faith, and other explanations have never spanned these gaps.Merely reversing the onus(burden of proof) upon the nonbelievers isn't responsible nor logical. Also, just because a scientific theory isn't fully proved doesn't mean that the god theory is proved. Essentially to prove a god you must fill these gaps. You must have empirical testable proof of a god, AND you must have the same type of evidence that this god actually created and is control of everything. These are gaps that have never been and will never be crossed. Thus the christian world's "leap of faith." Faith is an excuse for not having valid proof. Thus the dilemma of christians and people of religious faith. If you believe in a god and you want anyone that does not believe in your god to believe in your god, you must bridge these gaps otherwise every argument that you present is moot.
Now I have seen all manner of attempts to evade or explain away these gaps. They are as covert as a Navy Seal rescue mission. "Consciousness" is an argument presented to get you to believe in a soul and therefore accept a god. NDEs are much about the same thing. Testimony is a practice of deferred authority and not valid as proof. Histrionics or revisionist history is also an attempt to gain credibility. As CyberLn usually points out "word salad" usually accompanies these explanations, not proof.
The "How can you..." argument isn't valid either. Like How can you be moral without a god to give you morality? The fact is you have to prove a god, then you have to prove that morality comes from that god.
The attempts are endless and actually pretty creative, but they all boil down to the fact the gap is never ever bridged.