Belief in a God is rationally justified.

1) "Science has provided us with many explanations for phenomena in the world around us. Scientists often create physical "laws" to explain these phenomena. One such law, which has been shown time and time again to be true, is the Second Law of Thermodynamics. This fundamental principle states that, in general terms, order cannot come out of disorder. So, then, to suppose that living cells (complex, orderly structres) were created by a primordial "soup", of their own accord, is absurd." It may appear to you that this is a violation of the second law of thermodynamics, but that false appearance can be seen on most chemical reactions. The formation of water appears to violate the second law if you only look at the hydrogen and oxygen atoms, but they release energy when they combine and it is actually quite explosive, this increases entropy in the surroundings of the reaction. The formation of the first cells was simply a large number of chemical reactions that may appear to you to be a violation of the law, but the truth is their formation increased the entropy of everything else around them. Additionally, the sun is influencing this system. It is constantly adding heat energy to the earth, but as it does this it is increasing entropy in the universe from this heat release. I think your argument is just based on a misinterpretation of this second law. The interpretation you use would basically make every chemical process an example of a violation of the 2nd law. If that were the case, it would never have been proposed as a physical law. 2)"So, we (human beings) cannot possibly have "evolved" into what we are now. If we didn't create ourselves, it logically follows that we were created. " Had your argument from the 2nd law stood, the logical conclusion would have been that the 2nd law of thermodynamics is flawed because it is contradicted by common natural processes. That a creator exists does not follow from the claim that life violates a law of physics. You need evidence that such a creator exists and finding a problem with a concept within physics is not evidence for a god. 4) "Now, can we, an intelligent race, design and create life? The answer is no, we cannot, despite our best efforts, create life from its base elements. This, our Creator has clearly done, so this shows us our Creator is infinite in power." We cannot currently create life from non-life, but that does not mean we will never be able to create life from non life. If, however, you could prove that it is impossible for humans to ever create life and if you had somehow proven we had a creator, then it does not follow that the creator has infinite power. All it would have shown about the creator is that it has the power to create life. That is not infinite power, and the creation of life is in no way proof of infinite power. 5) "If we have a supernatural Creator (as I've proved), and that Creator is omniscient (as I've also proved), it clearly follows that we should Believe in this God." You never gave an argument for omniscience, and it does not actually follow that having an omnipotent, supernatural, creator means we should believe in it. That a thing exists is not justification for belief in its existence. You need to have good reasons to justify that belief. You did not know this until you read this exact sentence, but I have a beard. There was no way you could have known that, so it was irrational for you to believe it until you read the preceding sentence. Though if you do not believe that I am honest, I suppose you might still not believe in my beard, you might still want good evidence like a time stamped photo. That is how rationally justified beliefs are developed. It is not enough that x be true, you must have good reasons to believe that x is true.