Why is this do hard to understand?

I believe in the existence of wasps but don't love them. Knowing something exists is not equivalent with loving it. The god of the bible is a pretty vile creature, far worse than wasps, and I doubt I'd love such a thing.

When believers can provide evidence that one or more gods exist which cannot be explained by other phenomena that are already known to exist, scientific aetheists will accept the existence of God. Aetheism is therefore clearly falsifiable, and many aetheists would be grateful for proof that a loving god exists. It is just that no evidence has ever been put forward or can apparently be imagined by the author of this article that would survive the critical scrutiny required under the Popperian method, which is to say no good evidence for the necessity or existence of any god can even be imagined. This, as Martin Luther argued, is why all theists have to have faith. Faith is not evidence and it is certainly not proof.

The physical universe does not appear to require a god to create or run it. Proven physical laws suggest everything we can perceive could either have always existed or have spontaneously formed without any external causal impetus. Every time religion tries to find a role explained only by the existence of a god, science has provided an explanation based on known phenomena. The god of the gaps is therefore not a proof that god will never be proven to exist but a mockery of the inability of the religious to do anything more than retreat from the world of material things as science explains away successive mysteries. Soon religion will be forced back into the untestable, and therefore incredible, world of metaphysics.

You cannot blame aetheists for your inability to deliver reliable evidence to support your hypothesis that there is a god. Until you can prove Luther wrong and demonstrate scientifically and unambigiously that one or more gods exist your beliefs will appear completely unfounded to all those who do not share your faith (or possibly delusion).

The arranged parts can create Consciousness? And what arranges these parts infallibly to create conscious creatures? If that was the case why the Internet hasn't obtain Consciousness yet but mindless creatures have?

You made a flawed claim, you said that what we consider as life is just a healthy organism (a working machine), materialism doesn't separate life from non life, it says that everything is made of materials therefor everything belongs in the same state.

The mistake is yours in thinking that the only important thing is what something is made of not how those parts are arranged and how they behave dynamically over time.

You made a flawed claim, you said that what we consider as life is just a healthy organism (a working machine), materialism doesn't separate life from non life, it says that everything is made of materials therefor everything belongs in the same state.

I was replying to

I mean everything breaks down to materials so there is no difference between something dead or alive.

not talking about consciousness when I discussed the phone example. You would have to ask Penrose and Hameroff if their theories tell us rocks are conscious. I think David Chalmers believes that rocks are conscious.

So if we arrange the particles in a rock the rock will obtain Consciousness?

Actually I find the idea that consciousness or some proto-consciousness is a kind of fundamental property of reality interesting. More Buddhist than Christian I think. I don't see why it would be a problem for me as a materialist. If that's the way the world is that's the way the world is.

What is the difference between your phone when it's working and your phone after you've driven over it? The arrangement of the particles and fields I would have thought. What else ?