Belief in a God is rationally justified.

"1. Likelihood: As I said above (and you agreed), humans are currently incapable of developing life on our own. So, if we, an intelligent race, cannot create life, then how can random chance? If "nature" has so much creative power, why are we not seeing this power in action, and why don't we possess it?" This is an argument from incredulity fallacy. "Arguments from incredulity take the form: P is too incredible (or: I cannot imagine how P could possibly be true); therefore P must be false. I cannot imagine how P could possibly be false; therefore P must be true."[1] Even if I had no answer to this, this does not help your argument. We do not say that magic did a thing just because we do not understand it. That said, we probably do not see life spontaneously coming into being because it occurs at the microscopic level, so even if cells or self replicating molecules did form, we would not see them and they would probably be out competed by the current microbes living in the water they form in, so they would not be around long enough to see. Additionally, self-replicating molecules are not the kind of thing a simple one step chemical reaction will form. For these to form de novo likely takes millions or billions of years, so we would never see them forming naturally in our lifetime. "2. Emotion: Why do we have emotions, such as compassion and charity? I've heard the argument of "group survival" before, but that doesn't really explain why someone would willingly lose resources for, say, a disabled person, who can't possibly aid "group survival" in any way." This is an argument from ignorance. You are saying "I don't understand x therefore God". [1] That said, I have a reasonable explanation. You might not understand kin selection. Kin selection is the idea that a species or tribe whose members are willing to sacrifice for each other is more likely to survive than one whose members will not sacrifice for each other. Now let's assume that a disabled person could never help society(Stephen Hawking would have some words for you on that point). How can kin selection explain us helping him? Well one possible, and likely, explanation is that we evolved with the ability to care about and empathize with our fellow humans and since we are not computer programs, this caring and empathy was not restricted to able bodied humans. The general trait of empathy and caring for one's fellow species will lead to kin selection even if it also has some economically disadvantageous side effects. "3. Simple/Complex: Much of the human body is made up of what are known as "irreducibly complex" organs, such as the ear and the skin. These are called "irreducibly complex" beacause each individual part of the organ is essential to the function of the whole, hence the name. Darwin himself acknowledged that to suggest that such an organ evolved is ludicrous." This is patently false and is both an argument from ignorance and an appeal to authority. You are saying that because you don't understand how a partially developed eye is useful, then it is useless and you are saying that because Darwin, who you seem to think is the be all and end all of evolution, didn't understand something, that it cannot be understood. An eye that is not as fully developed as ours is still useful because it is still a light detection device. You start with a simple light detecting cell and you build onto it. This video, by a professor of evolution, explains not only the evolution of the eye but also points out how you misquoted Darwin. What Darwin actually said was "To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree. Yet reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a perfect and complex eye to one very imperfect and simple, each grade being useful to its possessor, can be shown to exist; if further, the eye does vary ever so slightly, and the variations be inherited, which is certainly the case; and if any variation or modification in the organ be ever useful to an animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, though insuperable by our imagination, can hardly be considered real. How a nerve comes to be sensitive to light, hardly concerns us more than how life itself first originated; but I may remark that several facts make me suspect that any sensitive nerve may be rendered sensitive to light, and likewise to those coarser vibrations of the air which produce sound."[3] "This all ties into my former argument. Once again, if we didn't Evolve into what we are now, we must have been created. If we've been created, we must have a Creator, a supernatural being. If this entity exists, why can we not measure them physically? Simple: our Creator exists outside of time and space. He created our universe, and our physical laws, so why would He be bound by them?" Even if your arguments had been successful, they would not necessarily lead to the conclusion that a creator existing outside of time and space exists. You have no reason to think that a nonphysical thing can have an effect on physical things. I suppose you could claim that logic and math affect us in that they are truths regardless of our knowledge of them and so the fact that they are true made it possible for them to be understood, but that is not the same as actually moving an object or building one as you think your god did. Existing outside of time and space makes no sense. You would need to explain how that is possible before concluding that something exists outside of time and space. Additionally, even if evolution were completely overturned, you would not be justified in saying a being created the universe. You seem to be conflating evolution with cosmology. You would need to prove the models of cosmology to be impossible and to prove that no other model but "god did it" can explain the universe. That is in the field of physics, not biology. "As for your beard analogy, I've proved the existence of God, with good reasons. This, as you've said, justifies belief in Him." None of your reasons worked in this round either, do you have any more? If not, I assume you will join me in atheism. :) Sources: [1]https://en.wikipedia.org... [2] [3]http://www.noanswersingenesis.org.au...