Such as...

Yes.

If you've studied philosophy, you're probably aware that when you remove God from the equation epistemology and morality break down. A lot of people disregard this because they think they can know things and be personally moral without God, but the shared social framework holding criminal justice and academic discipline breaks down. This is exactly why Postmodernism is a thing and why it came about shortly after Godel's theorems of incompleteness proved mathematics itself was unprovable within its own assumptions.

EDIT: I suspect this lack of shared social framework is also part of the reason the Left has become far more vocal and shrill as of late. It doesn't have any actual moral high ground, so the major way they pressure people is via the bandwagon argument. 99% of scientists, etc. When that illusion starts to break down the only path forward is to abuse people into submission.

If you dislike religion because it tends towards orthodoxy, take note; academia and the agnostic left are going down the same path because orthodoxy is a result of the human condition and not a problem unique to organized religion.

I'd like to see this evidence then.

Well, you have the classical tripartite of the ontological argument (God exists because he is the highest conceivable being), the teleological argument (God exists because everything in nature has a purpose and a means of functioning and he is responsible) and the cosmological argument (we are all contingent beings, being that we have the possibility to exist and not exist and if we exist, we exist for a certain period in time. We as contingent beings come forth from other contingent beings in a chain of cause and effect, but this chain must end since neither time, nor cause and effect can regress indefinitely, so there must be a necessary being at the start that can cause but is not caused himself). Note that these are extremely short versions of the arguments (each of them has many forms and they are quite difficult).

Furthermore you have arguments like Pascal's wager which states that in the event that God does exist, it's better to be a believer, but since we don't know if he exist, it's rational to believe, since it wouldn't net you any negatives if he didn't exist, while not believing if he does exist would be a negative.

This is just a thin slice on the literature surrounding arguments to God's existence.

Copied from my own post:

Well, you have the classical tripartite of the ontological argument (God exists because he is the highest conceivable being), the teleological argument (God exists because everything in nature has a purpose and a means of functioning and he is responsible) and the cosmological argument (we are all contingent beings, being that we have the possibility to exist and not exist and if we exist, we exist for a certain period in time. We as contingent beings come forth from other contingent beings in a chain of cause and effect, but this chain must end since neither time, nor cause and effect can regress indefinitely, so there must be a necessary being at the start that can cause but is not caused himself). Note that these are extremely short versions of the arguments (each of them has many forms and they are quite difficult).

Furthermore you have arguments like Pascal's wager which states that in the event that God does exist, it's better to be a believer, but since we don't know if he exist, it's rational to believe, since it wouldn't net you any negatives if he didn't exist, while not believing if he does exist would be a negative.

This is just a thin slice on the literature surrounding arguments to God's existence.

Oh, morality can only come from a god? That's not true at all. Take some things into consideration:

1. Morality is not exclusive to humans. Read this article. Other primates were shown to also have a sense of morality, and we don't see them reading the bible or praying, do we? Primates have morality because it helps to reproduce and move on your genes when you don't go around killing everyone from your group. Sharing food makes it more probable that more members of your group will survive, trying to save a member of your group (and saving it) will make it more likely that you can pass on your genes. Moral genes were passed on because it helps the species survive.

2. Morality is subjective. If morality really did come from a god, everyone would have the same morality, right? So how do you explain slavery being a moral thing until a few centuries ago? How do you explain possession of women being moral until a few decades ago (and still being moral in some cultures)?

What about Gaunilo's island?

I don't know. And none of us know definitely. The universe is so immeasurably big and vast. Who is to say that there isn't some life form out there that falls into these set categories of what defines a God. In the end what is the main criteria, to create something out of thin air? Who is to say that there isn't some celestial being so advanced and evolved that can change atoms on the fly? It is with that in mind that I dare not say definitely one way or another.

Discovery and exploration is the key to these questions.

To be fair, the ontological argument IS the weakest one and I'm not a fan of it. I just presented it as an option, but it is generally not hard to criticise.

I saw yes. Science can only prove so much, and then you need some faith there as well to believe there is no God.

It seems that Christianity as played a big role in humans becoming more "moral", especially in the western countries. It has by no means been perfect, but that is to be expected when you have humans trying to interpret and implement God's way of living through the Bible.

I can understand people being atheists as well, I know I have sometimes struggled with my faith, but I believe that is part of the process to believing with free will, versus being a slave.