Ok I'm a Christian so judge me If you don't like that I don't believe in God. But actually to be truthful I didn't believe in him at one point either. Ok first, since when are we slaves to God's whim? Thats not true. I'm pretty no one is controlling you right now or making you do something. That already is free will. All God asked for is one day out of the whole week. So basically he gives you six days to basically do whatever you want (although praying every now shouldn't be much) and then he asks that you honor the Sabbath Day (Sunday) in his name. 

In the context of the Christian religion God commands control of people's personal lives by establishing a set of elaborate rules (which are nothing more than whims). Disobedience is punished. Free will is useless if someone holds a gun to your head and says "do as I say or I'll shoot you" (or in thsi case send you to hell where you will suffer eternal torture).

2. The Bible is our proof of God. Its a powerful piece of work.

Where does the Bible's authority stem from? Answer: God. Where does the validity of God's authority stem from? Answer: the Bible. Conclusion: Circular logic => Argument fails

3. When you say we are sentient beings why should we listen to any such entity, I assume you mean God. Well lets put if you have a son or daughter one day I'm pretty sure you're going to want he/she to listen to you. Same concept.

If I ever have kids (now that would make for a frightening/funny situation) I wouldn't own them. There will most likely be situations where they'll be right and I'll be wrong, and they'll eventually grow up and become their own masters. God (I used the term "deity" in my post as to include as many religions as possible, but in uour case I'll refer specifically to the Christian religion) owns humans and always knows what's "right" for them, because everything he says is right is so because he says so.

You are a positivist, that's evident now. Only science can explain things for you. You are completely denying human reason. Take a few philosophy courses before saying I'm inventing terms.

I'm using science and human reasoning to arrive to this conclusion. They are basically the conclusions you arrive to in philosophy. Read The Quinque Viae (5 Arguments for the existence of God) from St. Thomas. No, he is not basing his arguments in faith, he arrives to them by using reason, you can arrive to them as well, as can any human being. 

why is this on a gaming forum

I'm prepared to accept the belief that something can exist outside of science. It's just that it then has little relevance because it couldn't be involved with the universe throughout, so it fits with none of the major religions and won't affect how you behave.

I just don't think you can combine science with God in the way you're doing: you used scientific terms and concepts to argue for a God. They're not compatible.

I'm familiar with Aquinas. 1 to 3 are very similar, and you could replace the word 'God' with 'Random quantum fluctuation' and be equally justified. Then I would use Occam's razor to decide that the latter is correct.

4 could be used to imply God is also the greatest video game of all time. Which is certainly a quality I would like in God. But he's also the greatest plague, and the greatest rubber chicken, and so on.

With 5 it's a case of intelligent design, which has been discussed enough elsewhere. If you want to address it specifically then say so and I'll write more.

The problem with ALL of his proofs, though, is that they do not prove God has the qualities one usually ascribes to a God: all-powerful, all-knowing, worthy of worship and so on. They just prove there is an entity we can label God. If you can't prove the rest, there's almost no point in asking whether there's a God or not.

Do you believe science and the Christian concept of God are compatible?

I don't believe in the Christian God, I believe there's a trascendental being which has eternally existed and which is the source of all existing things. How are science and philosophy contradicting themselves here? God creates the universe, he is not part of it.

OK. I was arguing against a position that you didn't actually hold, sorry. I do think your idea of God is compatible with the universe. Open question: do you see any evidence for this being?

The fact that you are blinded by your bias will make this conversation useless. I mean you are discarding every piece of proof your own brain puts in front of you. You are contradicting yourself. Try opening yourself and read those 5 arguments properly, you will realize that what is presented there is completely rational and logic. Science doesn't have all the answers.

I don't want to write paragraphs about each, but I'm perfectly willing to discuss one or two in depth. Pick the strongest and I'll do a longer analysis. As arguments go I think they are weak because, even if the logic is correct, it doesn't help us deduce what God is or why we should declare a belief in him.

I believe science is useful because it has yet to encounter anything it cannot hope to explain (miracles). If one presented itself then I would re-examine my belief in science as a good tool.

And you are aknowledging theres an entity we can label God.

In brief: All 1-3 show is that an entity created the universe. Not whether it is an intelligent being. 4 shows that there is a greatest being, but not that it's the same one that created the universe. And 5 is its own very long story which I will expand on if you ask.

Anyways arguing over the internet is quite difficult. You can have your stance, but you haven't got proof either, so no one could ever be correct here.

Of course. You argue well, though, and I'm enjoying this.

It's something called evolution. Step processes resulting in complexity. The eye is probably the most well known example.