Belief in a God is rationally justified.

1. "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]"Here, you clearly misinterpereted my argument. What I said, in more direct terms, is "There is no evidence of P (Life forming through random chemical reactions), therefore P is incorrect." This, if true, does help my argument. P and Q (life formed by a supernatural being) are contradictory and have opposite truth values. Therefore, if P is false, Q must be true. 2. "This is an argument from ignorance. You are saying "I don't understand x therefore God". [1"This is also a misinterperetation of my argument, and the fallacy of ad hominem. I said nothing about my personal understanding, yet you attacked it anyway. My argument was that charity and compassion have no evolutionary explanation. As for your "kin selection" argument:1. Persons useless to a society, kin or otherwise, are useless to society. Any resources given to them are a net harm on overall survival.2. Suppose that "kin selection" is, indeed, a fact. How, then, do you explain missionaries sent to foriegn countries, to aid the local people? That runs completely counter to this idea of "kin selection", yet people still do this out of compassion and charity. 3. "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."Once again, another misinterpretation of my argument. "Irreducibly complex" organs are organs that require each part of said organ to function. Taking your example of the eye, to start with a "simple light detecting cell" and move to a human eye, a creature would have to develop a multitude of muscles and optic nerves, a lens made out of malleable material, millions of rods and cones, and the brain capacity to actually use the thing. How can each of these things, useless on their own, evolve from a single photon-sensitive cell? Darwinian Evolution would suggest that such things evolved over time, but why would useless mutations permeate? "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."Actually, if my premises are true, then my conclusion soon follows. There are two, distinct possibilites as to how we came to be. We either adapted into our current forms from a single living cell created by pure chance, or we were created by a supernatural being. If I can prove that we didn't evolve into our current state from a single living cell, then it logically follows that we were created by a supernatural being. I have plenty reason to think a nonphysical thing can affect physical phenomena. To use your example of math and logic, no, you can't use math (by itself) to move a building, but you can use it to figure out how to move one. This is an effect that math has on the real world. These things are concepts, hypothetical representations of realistic ideas. However, we can't use our physical ideas to understand a being outside of our physical world. Our Creator, with infinite complexity, is beyond our understanding altogether. So, I can't "prove" that our Creator exists outside of our physical laws, other than by deductive reasoning. If our Creator was bound by our physical laws, then He would create physically measurable phenomena. However, He doesn't, so, if we have a supernatural Creator, He would have to exist outside of time and space as we know it.One more thing: You claimed that "Existing outside of time and space makes no sense.". Is this not the same fallacy you just accused me of commiting? ""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]"