Belief in a God is rationally justified.

Before I present my pentultimate argument, I'd like to share an observation I've made. Most of your rebuttals seem to consist of an attack on my personal knowledge, and not much else. My personal knowledge is not a relevant issue to this topic, so these attacks are ad hominems. You're attempting to discredit me by attacking my personal knowledge. Now that we have that out of the way: 1. If there is no evidence to suggest that something is true, and there is a massive amount of evidence that suggests that something contradictory to the first is true, then one can logically rule out the former. As I stated previously, this does not concern my personal knowledge, therefore your rebuttal is fallacious, thus invalid. 2. If "kin selection" exists (which you've provided no evidence for), than it's not merely an imperfect advantage, it's downright dangerous for the survival of a species. Shouldn't missionaries to foreign countries be considered deviants? They remove survivability from their own community, and deliberately provide it to foreigners. "Kin selection" in no way justifies this, as the two are completely contradictory in nature. 3. Once again, this issue has nothing to do with my personal knowledge. Your ad hominem arguments should hopefully be reflected on your score. Anyway, my argument about the eye is also one of probability. This quote should do it justice: "Since random changes in ordered systems almost always will decrease the amount of order in those systems, nearly all mutations are harmful to the organisms which experience them. Nevertheless, the evolutionist insists that each complex organism in the world today has arisen by a long string of gradually accumulated good mutations preserved by natural selection. No one has ever actually observed a genuine mutation occurring in the natural environment which was beneficial (that is, adding useful genetic information to an existing genetic code), and therefore, retained by the selection process. For some reason, however, the idea has a certain persuasive quality about it and seems eminently reasonable to many people"until it is examined quantitatively, that is! For example, consider a very simple putative organism composed of only 200 integrated and functioning parts, and the problem of deriving that organism by this type of process. The system presumably must have started with only one part and then gradually built itself up over many generations into its 200-part organization. The developing organism, at each successive stage, must itself be integrated and functioning in its environment in order to survive until the next stage. Each successive stage, of course, becomes statistically less likely than the preceding one, since it is far easier for a complex system to break down than to build itself up. A four-component integrated system can more easily "mutate" (that is, somehow suddenly change) into a three-component system (or even a four-component non-functioning system) than into a five-component integrated system. If, at any step in the chain, the system mutates "downward," then it is either destroyed altogether or else moves backward, in an evolutionary sense."[1] Your hilarious pixie argument nonwithstanding, I've already addressed why those possibilities are ruled out by my argument, but I'll state it again. I've said we cannot physically measure our Creator, so pixies couldn't have created our world. Claiming that something "doesn't make sense" is dismissing it as impossible because you can't understand it. Is this not the definition of an argument from incredulity? The only way I can explain the concept of a being existing outside of our physical laws is by simply stating that it's possible. As we can't really comprehend anything existing outside of our reality, I can't actually explain anything about it, other than that we have a Creator, and this Creator isn't physically measureable, but still has to exist, and therefor exists outside of the confines of our physical measurements. One cannot directly see His work because one cannot truly comprehend it. I apologize if that explanation doesn't satisfy you, but tell me something: can you, with the certainty of comprehension, truly explain the fourth dimension? It exists outside of our reality, so we can't comprehend it, but does that mean it can't exist?