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

"I would like to add a definition: Science: The systematic discovery and documentation of what God has revealed to Mankind through his observable creation." I would first like to address your definition of science. I believe your definition is unfair in that for me to accept your definition, that science is the systematic discovery and documentation of what GOD has revealed, forces me to concede to the argument that the natural world is created by God. My definition of science, and one that the scientific community follows, is the one offered by Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary, "knowledge covering general truths of the operation of general laws, esp. as obtained and tested through scientific method [and] concerned with the physical world." I apologize for not setting a definition in my last argument, and if this debate ends in a stalemate due to our differences in definition then it is my fault. "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." The reason why I am arguing this is because often times theists and scientists debate on these issues, and that these issues are contradictory to each other. I am not exactly arguing that the discovery of science destroys the foundation in the belief in God, but I am saying the discovery of science destroys the foundation in the claims founded by modern religion. Again, this is an argument on probability, and considering science has proven religion wrong on everything but God, I am saying it would be safer to place your bet in the idea that religion is probably wrong about God as well. "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" I have addressed this dilemma, that if you believe that we would find an engineer behind the creation of a Hemi engine, then shouldn't we expect an engineer for the existence of God? Of exceeding intelligence? That is the conundrum that I am addressing, that if everything has been created by an intelligent being, then with your own logic shouldn't that Being be created by another more intelligent Being, and so forth? What I am arguing is that the probability of this definition of God is low due to the logical contradictions that afford its existence, low compared to the theory that most physics has been toying with, which is that the universe itself is timeless, or at least time is malleable through natural patterns that do not need an intelligent design. Scientists are already finding many factors that contribute to this, including distant supernovas being unexpectedly dim which would suggest that the universe is accelerating, or gravitational lens contributing to the distortion of space and time. "God is ‘transcendent' meaning that he is outside the bounds of what we can know through natural sciences." I believe this argument to be a bit of a cop-out in the face of the lack of evidence. My argument is again based on probability, and to consider something supernatural and probable at the same time is a contradiction. I could make the same argument for Zeus, or Elves, or Tooth-fairies, and claim that just because I lack evidence doesn't mean they can't exist because they are supernatural. But someone can make the argument that because of my lack of evidence, the probability itself is low. "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." When I say science, I mean the advent of the scientific method. The "early scientists" though were scientist for that time, did not employ a credible means of investigating their natural phenomenon by today's standards, along with all the other scientists on your list. The early scientists in your example instead placed their standards in the methods of the time, which would include the Bible as you suggest. With your claim on this, it would seem contradictory for you to defend what we would deem as religious beliefs, and at the same time claim that these "scientific discoveries" were wrong. "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." There is a large amount of evidence. You did not provide what aspects of evolution is not credible or what evidence is lacking besides Darwin's abandoning of it (Einstein abandoned the theory of anti-gravity, but that theory is starting to find new life). Among the evidence of course is fossil records of transitional species. Lets look at one: example the evolution of the whale. Scientists have hypothesized that whales evolved from land-living mammals. Of course, the only fossils possessed at the time were an early land-mammal that resembled the whale, and an actual whale. Scientists then found the fossil of transitional species, the Ambulocetus. This specie was able to walk as well as swim, and possessed a nose that can swallow water and bone structure similar to that of a whale. Of course, to have this transition, we should be able to see the transition of this species' ears, as different ear structures are needed when hearing underwater and in the air. Scientists of course have discovered numerous fossils that have a transition in the middle ear, that allows the species to go from listening in the air, to intermediate forms of both, to listening underwater. So we have seen land mammal transition to an entirely new species with fossil findings. "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." I am not arguing that there are not scientists who believe in God, I am arguing that scientists are not debating this issue in the scientific community. No scientific journals have been produced that back up Intelligent Design or the theory of a God. I would like for you to point out any award winning widely regarded scientist that is part of American Scientific Affiliation. There has been no public debate about Intelligent Design and theology in science except in the courtrooms of Kansas and Ohio. "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." With our understanding of how the universe exists through a natural process, with our understanding of how life exists through a natural process, with the fact that God himself is considered supernatural even among his supporters, we have seen that God is not a plausible answer due to lack of natural evidence for him. To claim that he is transcendent and therefore does not need evidence is itself to show: the probability that there is no God is low enough to assume that he DOES NOT exist.