You seem to have misunderstood the whole post. You never asked for SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE for God. All you said was that there was no evidence for one. I was giving you logical and reasonable statements to show that belief in God was not only logically possible, but sensible beyond a reasonable doubt. Let's look at some of your objections.

> Whatever begins to exist is caused to exist by something else already in existence.

All science would support this statement. Science knows that things don't just pop into existence all by themselves. If you have an example of something that did such, please share it.

> Then there has to be at least one being that is distinct from and pre-existing all beings that began to exist.

Since everything we know by scientific evidence began to exist (even the universe), a reasonable explanation (and perhaps the only one) is that something that did NOT have a beginning was the cause of all that had a beginning to their existence. That's not an irrational conclusion.

> 1 and 3 contradict each other.

#1 was that whatever BEGINS to exist was caused to exist by something else. #3 was that therefore something MUST exist that didn't have a beginning, and therefore does not require a causal explanation. Those don't logically contradict each other.

> This is no proof of God's existance at all. The cause could be something entirely else than god.

Of course you're right. It's not a proof of God's existence, but it is a reasonable track to the possibility of God. The burden of proof is on you to give a MORE reasonable explanation of the CAUSE of the universe's existence, and I presume it would need to be SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE. If there are COUNTLESS, reasonable possibilities, what are they?

> If god is all-knowing and all-powerful, can he do something different that he predicted will happen? If yes - he isn't all knowing. If no - he isn't all powerful.

This is an argument from absurdity. You're demanding that God be able to be self-contradictory, and if he can't be self-contradictory, he can't possibly be God. It's absurd. I thought we were discussing rational thought here, not illogical absurdities. Let's stick to the point and continue.

> if applied to god which is described in bible, there are many contradictions to logic and science.

You have given any evidences of this. You sling it out like a stone, let it drop and walk away. That doesn't prove anything. I would say the burden of proof is on you to produce the material for discussion.

> The pure concept of god risen in power over time because it's perfect way of controlling masses...

This is a philosophical statement emanating from bias, not from any evidence. At least one background thought of it comes from Karl Marx, and his famous "Religion is the opium of the people" declaration. It's philosophy, not science. You can't prove what you're saying. It's a perspective, not a truth.

> Same reason->cause fallacy as before. All is supposition. It's convenient supposition bou not necessairly true.

This is your reply to my statement that the universe shows elements of design, but I notice that you didn't refute any of the statements themselves.

Is it not true that "Everything that exhibits curious adaptation of means to ends and is such that we know whether or not it was the product of intelligent design, in fact was the product of intelligent design"? It certainly is true.

Is it not true that "The universe exhibits curious adaptation of means to ends"? It certainly is true.

Then the conclusion ("Therefore the universe is probably the product of intelligent design") is reasonable. It's not proven, but it's both possible and reasonable. You haven't shown that my argument fails.

> Biblical god is a contradiction itself.

The burden of proof is on you. Where's your evidence and argument? I'd love to discuss it with you.

> Maybe methaphysical things can happen maybe not. But as long as we don't know it, we cannot claim we know it.

And all I was claiming is that the existence of a metaphysical being was not only possible but reasonable. But it doesn't follow that as long as we don't know it, we cannot claim that we know it. Did you see the movie "Zero Dark Thirty"? The investigator gave her evidences for her position. The director asked the investigator, "Are you sure?" She replied, "We don't deal in certainty, we deal in probability. I know it's him." That's my point here. Just because we have no scientific evidences of metaphysical existences and beings ("as long as we don't know it"), doesn't mean that we can't infer to the most reasonable conclusions.

> If there is a god may he strike me dead. No strike since ever.

Now this is just silly. If God exists, is he you slave to do your bidding, especially to kill you at your whim and command? Seriously...

> Too many Religions current AND extinct claiming they have the one and only truth.

Truth is by nature and definition exclusive and restrictive. 2 + 2 = 4, and not the unlimited quantity of other numbers. Some beliefs are false, and we know them to be false. Everything can't be equally true. It's just not possible that all religions are equally true. To deem all beliefs as true is nonsense, for the simple reason that to deny that all beliefs are true would also then be true. And it's not possible that to believe "all religions are equally true" is true, and also that "all religions are equally untrue" is also true. Therefore it is at least possible and somewhat warranted that some religions or one religion is true and the others are false.

Why are there so many religions? Because people like to believe what they want to believe. People see what they want to see and believe what they want to believe. But that doesn't make it true. "Wouldn't the rest of them be simply pointless?" you ask. Yes, they would, and that's the point of Christians saying Christianity is true and the rest are pointless. Christianity is an evidentiary religion grounded in history; the others are philoso-theological religions where anyone can say whatever they want to say, see what they want to see, and believe what they want to believe.

> If priests are man of god they shouldn't be raping children all over the world and using faith to get richer and richer. Just God would never allow this to happen. Either he is Unjust, Inaware of us, or simply doesn't exist.

This is just an awful thing that is happening, and priests should be punished to the full extent of the law and beyond. It's inexcusable and horrific. You say, "God would never allow this to happen," but in the Bible God gives US the responsibility to do something about it and to maintain justice on the earth. The flaw is in humanity's (leadership, church, judges, whatever) turning their eyes away, pretending not to see. You're not making sense when you accuse God of being unjust, unaware, or non-existent. Read Isa. 1.15-17.

The Skeptics Annotated Bible is a joke. If you want to discuss something seriously, I'd be glad to, but to link to that doesn't take us anywhere.

You have given any scientific evidence at all, your postulates contradict each other, and there is no proof for God's existence. There are countless possibilities other than the conclusion that God exists. The pure concept of god has risen in power over time because it's perfect way of controlling the masses. The whole system of faith is built upon an idea that somebody tells you what to do and you can't do otherwise because that would be bad for you. Add an element that you cannot 100% prove them wrong, wrap it in "we all love each other" paper, and viola! The religion is born.

Your logical reasoning may have holes in it because there are logical fallacies in it. Don't get me wrong, I didn't came up with those logical fallacies. They were here all the time, I'm simply trying to point them out for you so you may revise it one more time and maybe get better conclusions, or in the end proove me wrong (I never said i might not be).

Given what we see, the Biblical god is a contradiction itself. That doesn't prove that no god can exist (there can exist a being that created our universe and have no idea about us, we're just a side-effect), but it's just one hypothesis among millions.

I just don't know. Maybe methaphysical things can happen maybe not. But as long as we don't know it, we cannot claim we know it. For me there is evidence all around, from the simplest:

If there is a god may he strike me dead. No strike since ever. No person stroke, Even if, You could'nt distinguish it from "by chance" possibility.

Too many Religions current AND extinct claiming they have the one and only truth. Similar to YOUR argument from above: If there is only one god, why we have so many religions? Wouldn't the rest of them be simply pointless and they'd never have a cause to begin? If priests are men of god they shouldn't be raping children all over the world and using faith to get richer and richer. A just God would never allow this to happen. Either he is Unjust, unaware of us, or simply doesn't exist. In each case I won't worship him.

I happen to think there are plenty of evidences for the existence of God. Believing in God is a matter of inferring to a reasonable conclusion based on evidence, and not believing in God is a matter of a presuppositional position. My reasoning for the plausibility of the existence of God is based in a number of arguments, outside of supernaturalism, that make sense to me.

I think the cosmological argument makes sense (stated extremely briefly):

1. Whatever begins to exist is caused to exist by something else already in existence.
2. Then there has to be at least one being that is distinct from and pre-existing all beings that began to exist.
3. Therefore that first being is uncaused, and there is at least one first, uncaused being.

Another form of the cosmological argument also makes sense:

1. Everything that exists has an explanation of its existence, either in the necessity of its own nature or in an external cause.

2. If the universe has an explanation of its existence, that explanation is God.

3. The universe exists.

4. Therefore, the explanation of the universe's existence is God.

Kalam's cosmological argument may be the strongest form of it:

1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause.

2. The universe began to exist.

3. Therefore, the universe has a cause.

To me, the ontological argument also makes sense:

1. If God does not exist, His existence is logically impossible.
2. If God does exist, His existence is logically necessary.
3. Hence either God’s existence is logically impossible or it is logically necessary.
4. If God’s existence is logically impossible, the concept of God is contradictory.
5. The concept of God is not contradictory.
6. Therefore God’s existence is logically necessary.

The teleological argument has some strength to it.

1. Everything that exhibits curious adaptation of means to ends and is such that we know whether or not it was the product of intelligent design, in fact was the product of intelligent design.
2. The universe exhibits curious adaptation of means to ends.
3. Therefore the universe is probably the product of intelligent design.

The analogical argument proposed by Plantinga makes sense:

1. The productions of human contrivance are the products of intelligent design.
2. The universe resembles the productions of human contrivance
3. Therefore probably the universe is a product of intelligent design
4. Therefore probably the author of the universe is an intelligent being.

There's also the axiological argument (the existence of morality): (from Zacharias)

1. We all admit that evil exists in the world.
2. If evil exists, one must assume that good exists in order to know the difference
3. If good exists, one must assume that a moral law exists by which to measure good and evil.
4. If a moral law exists, one must posit an ultimate source of moral law, or at least an objective basis for a moral law.
5. The source of a personal, moral law must also be personal and moral
6. Therefore God must exist.

I'm using logical reasoning here. We both know that these arguments don't PROVE the existence of God. What we are after is what is reasonable—reasoning to the best inference given the reality we see around us. And what we see around us is

A universe that had a beginning
A universe and life forms that appear designed
Personality
Transcendent, objective moral truths
Informational data (we have no example of informational date that does not come from an intelligent cause)

Given what we see, God is a reasonable explanation for it, in my opinion. I'm curious what arguments you have that the universe is a closed system, that natural existence (nothing metaphysical) is the only possible mode of existence, and that science explains everything.

There is no such thing as evidence for the existence of God. Becoming an atheist for me was like breaking out of prison.