For that specific cell, we could confirm its existence via observation. But prior to observing it, we couldn't say whether that cell existed or not, though it exists. The fact that we can confirm existence and the existence of an object are two fundamentally distinct properties, the second (confirmation of existence) based on the first (existence).

I don't know of many but given the great lengths including burnings of the texts and murders of the people that believed in them that the Christians went to to have all of these other books removed from the face of the earth during the early years of their era through the Middle Ages, it would appear that for such a supposedly omnipotent god Yahweh just wasn't strong enough to really exterimate Zeus, Thor etc.  Or that if he was really so omniscient, he would have known about the prescence of the Gnostic Gospels in a jar in the desert in Egypt and had his followers destroy them since they cast him in such a bad light and are reportedly so demonic, but it didn't happen.

That's my point. There is no way to determine existence without observation of evidence.

And I completely agree with you, it doesn't negate existence, it only negates certainty of existence.

Then don't claim God exists as there is no evidence to that.

Or to atoms in a less technologically advanced era. The lack of evidence doesn't negate the existence.

I'm not sure why you're telling me what to do. Have I claimed that God exists ITT?

However, before I go there, I first want to show that you cannot claim that he doesn't exist simply because you haven't confirmed that he in fact does exist.

My point from the very start.

It isn't a testable hypothesis. I am not claiming anything. And I am telling you that you can't claim anything either. 

Not familiar with the Drake equation?

You claimed that "Until evidence surfaces supporting your claim that a supernatural being exists, one does not exist", and that was false.

I never claimed God exists, but even if I did you can't say that he doesn't because I haven't had confirmation of it. However, you could try to disprove his existence using other means of logic (like if the story of God is full of inconsistencies, then you would have a point).

I believe everyone in their experience have ran into a case where something existed but they were not aware (and possibly nobody else was aware of its existence), yet when they discovered it they were amazed.

That's because existence is not predicated by confirmation of existence.

Ummmmm......a quick look kind of proves my points. We don't know the probabilities involved. It just involves a bunch of people filling in the equation and getting different results. The big problem is determining the prbabilities for: (1) live arising and (2) that live evolving into intelligent life (I was unclear, but I was talking about intelligent life). We really don't know those probabilities, primarily because of experimental limitations.

Point being, there is still serious debate as to how life actually arose, and secondly, we have extreme limitations when looking at how evolution proceeds, especially in the long-run.....as in the billions of years it took for humans to evolve. Its very difficult to acribe any sort of probabilities under these conditions, where our ability to manipulate variables and run experiments is extremely limited.