Why must some answer that you do not know the power the intention of god whenever they ran out of intelligent answer?

Sometimes "I don't know" is a more intelligent answer than "these 'experts' say thus-and-so" when the experts display a definitive bias.

Mankind can only attempt to explain what they can see and understand. Science cannot explain everything, because its assumptions, theories, and conclusions are created by limited mankind. Many modern scientists, though, insist that there can be no entity outside of their experience or perception; "if it cannot be proven to exist," they assume, "then it is proven that it cannot exist."

Those who answer regarding God assume that there is something above and beyond mankind, above and beyond mankind's ability to perceive or conceive. Those who accept such a concept recognize that God can see and do things beyond our ability to perform or even imagine. Some consider this to be a "cop-out," an easy way to explain events or concepts they don't want to deal with. That may be true for some, but that alone doesn't prove or disprove anything.

An "intelligent answer" and an answer dealing with a power or influence beyond our comprehension aren't mutually exclusive. For many, though, the definition of "intelligent answer" demands that the person giving the answer can know everything, given ample time to research. Yet, if there is a power or influence beyond our comprehension — a God, if you will — then wouldn't acknowledging that possibility be more intelligent than denying His existence simply because a person chooses to deny the possibility?

• Are material goods an easy path to satisfaction?
• What is the pastor responsible for when announcing banns of marriage?
• What does a person give up to become a Melchizedek Priests of Ur?