Yeh it is a branch of philosophical questions that is worded so well that it is very hard to disprove.
My favourite would be the one that postulates that my green is your blue but nevertheless just because we can't disprove something doesn't make it at all valid. For all we know we could be in some obscure computer game but just because we can't disprove this statement doesn't make it plausible.

We are in a universe of explainable equations, which are directed and controled by energy, matter and enlightned self intrest (choice). Simply because we can't explain something doesn't mean it will remain that way for long.

I bet you if we found out the answer to your question the universe would implode and everything will end.  True story. 

Better not to know. 

The only thesis that can be put to a test is the last one. All other are gratuitous as wether they were true or wrong, we wouldn't be able to tell.

The only universe that can shape our thinking without being shped by our thinking, is a matherialistic universe where no amount of thought will avoid, alter or deceive about the crushing of your body after 30 meters of free fall...

Waht cna't be shapoed buy our mind rather forces us to shape pour mind to ti, tha'ts what we call reality.

Of course, reality could not be real and be a thought of God, but then, why worry about what has no solution, has not evidence, and can be false if we just think it's worng? I think it's wrong and so we're not a thought of God. I *challenge* God to prove me wrong if it can in the way gravity can prove wrong my opinion that I can fly like birds do.

Natural laws are not that easy to bypass with an act of will, if you know what I mean...

Which emphasizes the value of my stance; it's better a "probably" now than a "will see" upon sometime... or never...

All in all, a "second come" is just an attempt to divert atention from a crucial point; that faith in God implies an arrational belief, that is, that there is no way to REASON it. Honest believers will agree that there is no reason but faith. And then peopel who believe in reason may agree that mankind is not just rational, but irrational too, and can'tg et rid fo such duality. If then the believers agree that they can't shape reality to fit their faith and respect that toher people may nto share their faith as consequence fo a different perception of reality, then we *may* have a chance to stop bashign each other's cosmovisions in the name of either Reason or God.

We're all monkeys. Lonely, scary, troubled monkeys, in a variety of genders, colors, sizes, cultures and mindsets. We all llok at the Universe and try ot figure whethe'rs there's something to figure, make Big Questions and never agree on almost nothing... we are Human.

Humans are animals. There is no getting away from that fact. Doesn't mean we have to act like monkeys though.

animal noun 1 a zool any member of the kingdom of organisms that are capable of voluntary movement, have specialized sense organs that allow rapid response to stimuli, and lack chlorophyll and cell walls;

That's us. That's the scientific definition of animal (kind of - the real definition is any member of the order animalia). Then there's the 'folk' definition of animal which is 'all the animals except humans'.

If you like we are the greatest of the animals (though I guess we're biased.) We are the only animal capable of conscience, reason, love etc. But we're still animals.