There is a low enough probability for the existence of God to doubt his existence.

I agree to the sparse but accurate definition of God for the purpose of this debate. I would like to add a definition: Science: The systematic discovery and documentation of what God has revealed to Mankind through his observable creation. Your argument is flawed from the start. This idea that as science as science digs deeper and deeper into the mysteries of the universe that God is pushed out of the picture. This is called the "God of the Gaps" argument and it is known to be flawed. It means that as science "discovers" how things work, we no longer need God to explain that particular thing. There is a great deal about the universe that we cannot ever know. Scientists are discovering these roadblocks at the quantum level now. The discoveries are more and more fantastic (to us) but never the less already there, created, revealed and waiting to be found. From my perspective each new discovery only glorifies and magnifies God as the designer of this place. Just as we would expect to find an engineer behind the creation of a Hemi engine, we should expect to find an engineer of exceeding intelligence behind each and every scientific "discovery". "Though there is no definite scientific proof for the existence of God, there such a low probability of God's existence that we may well assume that he does not exist." God is "transcendent" meaning that he is outside the bounds of what we can know through natural sciences. Science can point to God through the design they find but none can prove 100% that He is there. However, none can prove 100% that he is not there. God always leaves room for faith. If an atom were endowed with intelligence, how could it ever hope to discover that it is part of the Milky Way Galaxy much less the universe? "Though religion in early human civilization was used to explain natural phenomenons, upon the advent of the scientific method, humanity has found a credible source for discovering facts." Science is, by nature, is wrong all the time contrary to your assertion. The early scientists were the ones that placed the sun at the center of the universe. The literal bible scholars liked this idea very much as it gave the human race glory and God's full focus a his special creation. Later, other scientists unable to explain the "wandering stars" eventually discovered that the Earth was not the center of the solar system but that the Sun was. That upset a few scientists and clergymen I can tell you. However, it eventually became the new 100% scientific truth rendering the previous 100% scientific truth 0% reliable. Later, we discovered that we don't orbit in perfectly circular orbits around the sun. Later still we discovered that we're in a galaxy in a universe filled with galaxies. Science is only right for a time. What theories were crushed by Einstein? What theory came before plate tectonics? What theory preceded the big bang? One must also ask, what will superseded it given enough time. Evolution absolutely NOT been proven. From my reading, evolution is getting close to being the next scientific "has been" of our day. There is no credible evidence. Even Darwin told us when to abandon his theory – that being when the required transitional fossils are not found within 100 years of the publishing of his theory. Time's up I'm afraid. "The main reason is because the method employed by science, which uses close scrutiny and peer reviewed research before stumbling on a claim. Religion on the other hand, does not use this method" Claiming that science is 100% right and that the bible is 100% wrong is just outright incorrect. You want peer review? The bible is the most studied, most scrutinized writing in the history of mankind. There are many trying to prove it true and many trying to prove it false. If it is known to be 100% wrong, isn't the job already done? Why would hundreds of thousands of scholars worldwide still be working on archaeological digs, translating scraps of new found verses, etc. if this is a fact as you state it? "My second point, is the logic of to have a creation, there must be a creator." Theists do address this. Explain it? Difficult. However, God claims to be the alpha and the omega, the uncaused cause, eternal, neither created nor dying. He is transcendent, outside of his created finite universe. Knowable but unfathomable at the same time. We know of God what he reveals to us and that's all. The rest we made up. I think they call that religion! "The notion of a God that is both a creator and a creation in this respect is a logical fallacy, which also makes his probability of existence faint at best." If God were in the natural world he would have had to be created. However, he is not. He is, as I said, transcendent. He is outside of his creation. That you are unable to grasp a transcendent eternal intelligent being is understandable but it does not lead to the logical fallacy that you stated. My third and last point is the theist's argument that life itself is so complex that there must have been a God to create it. You are speaking of the "Intelligent Design" movement. Science has done an amazing job at helping theists support the argument by design. The bible told us that all living things only reproduce after their own kind. It wasn't until the discover of DNA that explained why that is. You simply can't mate a monkey and a dog. They were created in their kind and stay in their kind. One species does not beget a new species, ever. Microevolution, variations and adaptations within a kind are a fact and do not in any way dispute the creationist's argument. Darwin's theory of evolution on the other hand has been tested and observed. Citation please? This is patently false and wishful thinking. The reason why we always need a constant supply of new and improved flu vaccines is because the flu virus has a small enough database in its DNA to change itself. We see this process happening right before our eyes. Microevolution, adaptation, and you are quite correct. However I can assure you that the DNA database is anything but "small". A citation is needed here: --- Yet in their actual size—which is only two millionths of a millimeter thick—a teaspoon of DNA, according to molecular biologist Michael Denton, could contain all the information needed to build the proteins for all the species of organisms that have ever lived on the earth, and "there would still be enough room left for all the information in every book ever written" (Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, 1996, p. 334). --- "Scientists have also found that given the right material, and given the state of the Earth when life first began, cells were able to form with some essential amino acids. These amino acids formed together to make a cell, which clumped together to make algae like substance, and so on and so on." False, false, and false. The whole "primordial soup" mix produced simple amino acids which are the building blocks of proteins which would immediately disintegrate in the formaldehyde byproducts of the "soup". Evolution doesn't even come into play until you have a living cell capable of self reproduction and that's a far far cry from a few amino acids. "Of course, though we may be debating ths issue, the only place where this issue is not debated is the scientific community." False as well. There are many many scientists that are theists and Cristians. Many more that you would think. Please refer to http://www.asa3.org... for just one of these organizations. "God's probability is low enough to assume he does not exist." False. There is no possible way in which this incredibly fine-tuned obviously engineered universe can exists without an intelligence far greater than that of created man. God is the only plausible answer. The probability that there is no God is low enough assume that he DOES exist.