There is more evidence that God does not exist, than there to is prove that he does.

Thank you also for your speedy response. You said that the big bang is a theory. Indeed, it is a theory, but its a proven one. In contrast to what you said, the big bang can be applied to the observable universe. In fact, the conclusion that the big bang was the beginning of the universe, was due to observing the universe. You then said that your theory of the star and galaxy stuff, is more plausible than my theory of the designer. Seriously? Let us say that our universe began after a star died or after the implusion of a galaxy, where did that star or galaxy come from then? I said that there is great design in the universe, and all design imply a designer. I clearly also showed some of that design. Now, do you think this design came by chance or coincidence? All design must have a designer behind it. This is a logical fact. And I'm sorry for believing that you where a Atheist. Questioning the existence of a God doesn't of course mean that you are a Atheist, but in your profile you said that you was an Atheist, so that's why I tought you was a Atheist. Indeed, the most logical thing to believe, is that God is the designer. I clearly explained why, and you clearly didn't answer me. You only said that 'God is a temporary answer that is accepted by some, until definitive evidence can be found to prove his existence is false'. Okay? How does this prove my case of the designer? There are no definitive evidence which can disprove God, and I think its almost impossible to really disprove something like God. So until strong evidence is put forward, your argument is basically nothing. Also, I would like to give you a better understanding of why I said that the most logical thing to believe is that God is the designer. You may say that it was not God who created the universe, but for example a alien or something. The question which arises then is who created the person who created the universe. If you continue like this, this is what will happen: Creation itself would go on in infinity. There have to be a being which was not himself created but who created everything, so the creation itself would be possible. Creation cannot just go on in infinity. The only logical answer to all of creation is God. You may say that it was someone else than God who created the universe, but than the question as to who created that person arises. And so comes the question as to who created the one who created the universe. And so comes the question as to who created the one who created the one who created the universe, and it would go like that in infinity. Creation itself would be... impossible. If you say God, then you cannot ask who created God, because God by his by his own definition, non-created. Now, we know that the universe had a cause, because everything which begin to exist has a cause, and the universe began to exist with the big bang. If that wasn't the case, you would see things pupping out here and there non-caused. But that does not happen. We see complexity and a great order in the universe and everything in it. This is a metaphysical prinicple: A being cannot come from non-being; something cannot come into existence uncaused from nothing. It is thus absurd to say that the universe should pop into being uncaused out of nothing. [2] Even if we say that God did not cause the universe, but a alien or something, that will only prove that a uncaused being must exist, because of the absurdity of an infinite history of past causes This being is God, who by his own definition is uncaused. But of course, to say that a alien or something created the universe anyway, like Atheist Richard Dawkin says, is itself a illogical and non-proven 'idea'. 'You included some quotes from famous scientists including Alex Vilenkin and John Gribbin. These quotes however are not relevant to my argument in any way since they are discussing facts available to us only in the observable Universe, without any thought as to what is beyond it, which was the basis of my whole argument.' These quotes may not be relevant to your argument, but its to mine. I was quoting these scientists to prove my point that the big bang is true, and thus refuting your claim. That's all. You said that we cannot know certainly if the universe was created. I disagree. We can know with certainly that the universe was created, and you don't give any good reasons as to why we cannot. We can know with certainly that our universe was created, by simply opserving the amazing universe, and I gave clear examples of design which must have a creator behing. I can give many more, but time and space doesn't allow me that. We can conclude by what we know today of the universe, that a designer must be behind it, because we see great design in the universe. Simple as that. If not certainly, at least, without a doubt, probably. Concerning your question if I believe that God is omnipotent. Yes, of course I do. Now, Pro made a argument against God. He said that a omnipotent God cannot exist, because he let's terrible things happen like floods and earthquakes. This argument is pretty much like the problem of evil argument. First of all, this argument cannot prove that God doesn't exist. You cannot say that X doesn't exist because X let's Y happen, when Y will still be there after you have taken X out of the picture. If you say that its X which let's Y happen, then you are basically saying that X exist. If X doesn't exist according to you, then you cannot say that X is the cause of Y happening, because X doesn't exist. If you say that X exist, then your whole argument in the first place, is not valid. I hope you understood what I meant. By the way, 'X' is for God, and 'Y' is for terrible things like floods and earthquakes. So, you cannot say that God doesn't exist because he let's terrible things like floods and earthquakes happen. However, you can say that God is cruel or evil because he let's terrible things happen. To solve this problem, some people have two gods. The one is good and the other is evil. Some have also said that its not God who causes all this evil and suffering, but the devil. As a Muslim, I can only give you the Islamic view point as to why terrible things happens. According to Islam, God is the creator of everything, even evil. Muslims completely knows that, but we don't deny him for that, because we know that this life is only a test, and that terrible things, evil, and suffering is a part of that test. How can you have real test without this? So to a Muslim, this argument is not valid at all. This argument only proves the belief of Muslims that evil and suffering exist, and that its from God, but that's because this life is only a test, and it rationaly follows that a real test should have suffering, evil and terrible things in it. I can give you many other reasons, but I think this reason alone is enough to completely refute this argument. You also asked me if I could give my toughts on this: "Considering that you cannot definitively prove the existence of God, you must first eliminate all the scientifically plausible explanations before your "designer" argument can be accepted as fact." I don't agree that you cannot definitively prove the existence of God, and thus this whole argument in the first place, is not valid. The designer explanation is the best one. Its you who have to give another explanation, and tell us why that explanation is better. If you cannot, we must conclude that the designer argument is the most plausible explanation. And in concern to all the design in the universe, it indeed is. What other explanation will you come up with? Chance? Sources [1] http://harunyahya.com... [2] http://www.reasonablefaith.org... From William Lane Craig's book, Reasonable faith.