You have changed your profile pic! Nice!

Thx 4 the add, my new friend.

You just don't understand the argument at all. Goodbye Luke.

Sadly, my speakings skills have reached their limit. It would take ages of vehement argument between the two of us for me to even be able to get across that God is indeed logical. I could argue that there are several concepts that come to us all too conveniently. I could also bring up the fact that the ancient Hebrew weren't exactly aware of our current physics, yet they wrote about those concepts and felt them important enough to make part of their Holy Book. I can see from your standpoint that there is so much circumstantial evidence that can be pointed at anything, yet also there is a massive amount of circumstantial evidence that points directly to God. I have referred to a bit of it to you.

That ends this debate. I'm sick and tired of all this and will have no further involvement with it.

Believers do not usually operate in the paradigm of philosophy or science, and if they do, they are often met with criticism; not because of who they are and what they support, which is ad hominem, but because there are some truly massive problems for the concept of God and even how to define Him. There will be those annoying 'faith in science' atheists who hypocritically deride God and religion, but for those who are serious philosophers and scientists, there are some truly genuine problems for the concept of God and these simply cannot be overlooked. They simply cannot.

Regardless of any of this, believers will continue to believe, which leads me to my conclusion. God is not a logical conclusion. God is faith, and usually, one cannot get believers to see this. It is the Virus Paradigm and once these conceptual glasses are worn, it is notoriously difficult to shake them off.

Of course, it still must follow that God might in fact exist - this isn't part of the problem. It would be unscientific to reject God entirely. But the point of science and indeed philosophy is to doubt or be sceptical about the existence of God, because it's a big, vague and very problematic claim - not to defend him to make yourself feel better or because you've managed to convince yourself that He necessarily exists.

4: The problem of animism. Ancients used to believe trees had spirits. It is a function of the brain to apply personality to things, so we can distinguish ' person' from 'non-person'. Unfortunately, this ability is far from perfect. Children and teddy bears, for example; many children believe their teddies have personalities. Imaginary friends are also part of this phenomenon. So one can easily imagine a scenario where the concept of God is merely a projection of human personality. There has recently been a scientific study which points to the hypothesis that people project their own beliefs into the label God in order to justify them.

3: Why God? Why not the Ham Sandwich again? Because we still have the problem of variables: the entire universe points towards God's existence, supposedly. All data, whether negative or positive points towards 'God'. But really, it doesn't point towards anything; it is simply THERE. If I put cookies out on Christmas Eve for my children and in the morning they are eaten, my children are likely to assume it was Father Christmas because I told them it was Father Christmas. But the true possibilities for them follows thus: it is just as likely that I put them there, not Father Christmas. Faith and reason once again is distorted by the cultural virus of religion.

1: Beauty and order is subjective and archaic; on the quantum level, there is very little order at all.

2: 'Order cannot come from chaos' - I could use quantum physics here, but there is a more philosophical argument to use here: the philosophy of mathematics. Specifically, chance. Since God and therefore the Universe are infinite, there is an infinite number of variables to create an infinite number of things. 'Order' within a chaotic universe will be one of those things. Now if we apply the Order theory with the Chance theory, it seems they are both on an Occam par, so we'll have to cut the more complex one away. The existence of God poses more questions and problems than mathematics, so we'll just cut away God. If you search the internet, you'll find even more problems with this statement.