Again, this is all in how one perceives "God". One could say that we were designed by "god 1", also "god 1" was designed by "god 2" in the purpose of "god 1" designing the universe. Also "god 3" designed "god 2" in order for "god 2" to design "god 1" whom would then design the universe. You could essentially have a never ending cycle.

To me that would all sound like nonsense. What I am saying is that the higher power that designed the Universe the way we know it is the one and only. The source of knowledge, the source of intelligence, the source of life, the source of where everything we know in the universe began. This higher being possesses attributes farther than we can comprehend. Basically this higher power is the source of all things in existence. It comes down to one's perception of "God". IMO an ultimate God that is the source of all things makes more sense to me than any mathematical chance that includes 1 universe or trillions of universes. God makes much more sense to me than any explanation of our beginning than anything else.

You don't believe in chance do you? Because under some circumstances, I don't see why chance couldn't slowly create life from 'dead' matter. It's not very likely to happen but the universe is pretty big and old. There has definitely been enough chances for life to evolve on its own.

Also there something really weird in the earth records. Scientists say life was just  an very VERY rare accident that eventually happened. But according to the earth records ,  virtually as soon as the earth cooled and became slightly habitable, life  immediately began. I think even a little before , there were weird extreme lifeforms embedded in rocks and stuff (according to findings/records). This is evidence/proof that life was not just an eventuality(at least not on earth). Else there would have been some significant time gap between when the earth became habitable, and then for  life to eventually happen.

And this leaves us with 2 POSSIBILITIES

• The purpose of the universe is for life (god/ creator)
• There's some sort of  alien race out there that values life and seeds life to any planet becomes habitable.

Yip, at least either god or aliens exists

I see what you are trying to say, but I still just don't see the possibility of life existing as well as order in our universe that we can see without having some form of intelligent designer that brought it all together. Even if we are a universe out of trillions that happened to turn out this way by chance it just dosn't compute with what we can observe. When I look and study the universe I see design and an intelligent being that crafted what we see into existence.I see evidence of an amazing higher power. It is what it is. 

Feel free to call me close minded, but to say that we are just a result of "a luck of the draw" "the lucky winner in the lottery of life occuring in mathematical possibilities" makes less sense than just accepting that a incredibly powerful and intelligent higher power is the one that set all of the laws in place, and formed everything in our universe with amazing craftsmanship.

I just dont see how its even possible under any test environment that you can place only dead matter somewhere and then open it up to find life millions or billions of years later. Most scientists i would believe would tell you dead matter is simply just dead matter. In the beginning you can have all the properties necessary for life including time, matter, gravity, electromagnetics, strong force, weak force, chemicals ect, but in order to create the first single living cell would there not have to be some kind of intellegent code or specific properties that tell all of those forces to work together for the purpose of forming one living cell? What told that first living cell to split and recreate itself? If indeed there was nothing in the beginning that wrote a code of laws for cells to abide by then we would have nothing but chaos, and no life could begin under that. In order to have a code of laws that programmed a living cell to form that had to be some level of intelligence for those codes to form.

If you are talking about electromagnetic, strong force, and weak force I did not necissarily mean to exclude those from the theory. My main argument is that I just dont see where the properties, laws of the universe, and matter within the universe can come about through a singular point without any direction or set code formed by a vastly intelligent higher being. Even for the first living cell to form through chemical reactions I just dont see how that living cell would have the properties and code to split and recreate itself without some form of intelligence designing that code for the living cell. This is part why I claim that having a universe where laws and forms of order exist without God is a contradiction, even though Im guessing it sounds ridiculous to you based on your posts. 

There is no god our gods,that's not reality. There's no ghost and spirits either. I'm a cynic,give me solid hard proof,no one has giving me this ever.

How dare you make a long post; you wouldn't catch me doing so .

Science wasn't always science but evolved through time to be come what it is today. It could also not be the same thing in the future if religious literalists had their way (granted it wouldn't be science anymore but they still would use the name to deceive people). Like freedom, science requires eternal vigilance to prevent its corruption.

Science doesn't know anything; it is a process by which we can gain knowledge but knowledge is the result of science, not science itself. Also, we mostly don't study science (except in epistemology) but we use science to study a given domain.

It may seem to be pointless semantics but it is important because most people do not understand what science is and they subsequently expect it to do things that are beyond its purpose and, when it fails to do so, claim it as a shortcoming of science; which is like complaining that a hammer makes a rubbish screwdriver. 

A perfect example of what I just said. It is not science's role to prove or disprove whether a higher power exists. In fact, it can't do either because a higher power implies something that can break the laws of this universe (miracle) and generally is claimed to have come from outside it (and to have created it).

Science is concerned with discovering how this material universe works. Anything outside of it (and thus any higher power) is outside of science's purview so expecting science to prove or disprove that a higher power exists is expecting a hammer to drive a nail.

Now it doesn't mean that science cannot make the existence of a particular god less likely; for example the greek used to believe that lightning was cast by Zeus so having science help us understand lightning makes that particular belief much less likely though it wouldn't prevent anybody with ehough faith to believe that Zeus is the god casting lightning.

Which is exactly why science will never disprove the existence of any god; not Yahweh, not Jesus, not Allah, not Brahma, not Zeus...

When a scientist (like Dawkins for example) tries to answer the question (whether in the affirmative or the negative) of a god's existence they are not so much using circumstancial evidence as exapounding on their faith in the existence or non-existence of a god/gods. Granted, their belief is informed by their scientific knowledge but in the end, that last jump between evidence and belief or disbelief is a leap of faith.

For example, Richard Dawkins will readily admit that the existence of god (of any flavour) cannot be disproved at 100% but he base his atheism on the probability of any god's existence being so small that it is virtually indistinguishable from zero (of course, religious people will have a different idea of that probability) so you might has well take that last little step away from belief or agnosticism to atheism. Of course, as small as it might be it still is a leap of faith.

Point number one is an incorrect summation of the big bang theory. First, there wasn't space as it is the whole point of the big bang theory that if the universe (space) is expanding and you rewind the clock then space itself must have been smaller and smaller the further back in time you look, until there was no space at all. Also, some theories of the big bang posit that time expanded during the big bang (like space did) so there wasn't necessarily time in the beginning either. As for gravity, I would make no difference whether it existed or not given that there was no matter to project a gravitational field. Zero from non-existence or zero from no matter projecting a field is still zero.

The biggest problem I have with your summary though is that you say that the big bang started from a singular point, which is not quite correct as the big bang actually happened everywhere. It was a singular point only because there was no space.

To see the difference imagine a cake with raisin. A typical explosion would be like having all the raisins in the center when the cake already exist and exploding outward to wherever they end up. The big bang is more like the raisins are distributed throughout the cake before it swells up during the baking process and as the cake itself becomes bigger the raisins expand too and move away from each other.

Also, I wouldn't say that we have two options to choose from. I would say that option 1 is the best explanation (or group of possible explanations) advanced by scientists to explain the facts as we know them but it is subject to change and revision as we gain more knowledge. But any theory that want to replace the big bang will at a minimum have to explain all the same facts that the big bang does.

I agree with your first sentence, but your second sentence is a non sequitur. Let me rephrase your two sentences:

1. Logic

2. ???

3. therefore god exists!

It implies that you believe that the existence of logic is dependent on the existence of a god, which is highly ironic as an awful lot of people whose livelihood depends on the existence of such a being tolerate logic up until it undermines their belief (and thus their livelihood) at which point they will say that reason is not enough and you must also have faith. Or worse, a lot declare reason to be contrary to faith, like Luther.

It is of course logical that it should be so as when confronted with logic undermining their faith (or part of it) either they abandon that particular faith (say belief in a flat earth because of Matthew 4:8) and are thus not a believer anymore (at least for that part of their faith contradicted by logic and knowledge) or they keep believing in their now discredited belief but do not do so with reason but with faith and in spite of reason (what some call blind faith).

Here are a few examples of those declaring faith and reason to be (at least partially) incompatible:

“There is no worse screen to block out the Spirit than confidence in our own intelligence” John Calvin

"Reason is the greatest enemy that faith has; it never comes to the aid of spiritual things, but -- more frequently than not -- struggles against the divine Word, treating with contempt all that emanates from God." Martin Luther

"People gave ear to an upstart astrologer [Copernicus] who strove to show that the earth revolves, not the heavens or the firmament, the sun and the moon. Whoever wishes to appear clever must devise some new system, which of all systems is of course the very best. This fool wishes to reverse the entire science of astronomy; but sacred scripture tells us [Joshua 10:13] that Joshua commanded the sun to stand still, and not the earth." Martin Luther

Science is actually quite close to proving the opposite (not close as in in the next few days but close as in it took us centuries to get to that point of understanding and it probably will only take us a few decades to finish the work on abiogenesis).

We do not know what happen at instant zero of the big bang but we are reasonably certain of what happened right after, from a few seconds after the big bang until the universe cooled enough for baryons to form, then atoms, then stars, then planets (you need the first batch of stars to exist so they can manufacture heavier elements found in non gas giants planets and then to explode in a supernova to release those elements before you can have an earth like planet)...

We know how we evolved from mono-cellular life forms to intelligent life forms. We do not have all the details yet (for example there are a number of competing theories on how sexual reproduction initially evolved, though the later break of symmetry between males and females is quite well understood) but we have the big picture.

The biggest remaining piece of the puzzle would be abiogenesis: How life started out of non-life. We do have theories on how it might have started and there were experiments that simulated the conditions on the primordial earth that produced molecules that are necessary for life to form (but not life itself).

Not only does science not prove that you cannot obtain intelligence from non-life but it is likely to prove the opposite (that life can begin and evolve toward intelligence without intelligent design) in the coming decades.

The problem with that approach of your is that you basically believe in the god of the gaps. That is, before science knew as much as it does today, it was easy to believe in a superior being that was the cause of all those unexplained phenomena. As science progressed and explained more and more phenomena beyond a reasonable doubt religions started retreating from ascribing those phenomena to gods, leaving god-as-an-explanation-for-natural-phenomena to smaller and smaller pockets that science did not explain yet; i.e. god exists in the gaps left by science.

This is basically the reason why there is such a debate about teaching evolution in school, with young earth creationists trying to pass off their religious beliefs as a scientific theory so that it will be taught in school. They are basically drawing their line in the sand and do not want to concede that explanation of where today's species come from.

I think that if one wishes to believe in god it is the wrong approach. Remember that god is supposedly this omnipotent being, so it is completely possible (under that assumption, of course) that he caused the big bang so that it resulted in life and intelligence as we know it without further intervention. It is equally theologically sound to believe that god created the world 5 seconds ago and made it look like it is billions of years old, including the cosmic background that is the best evidence of the big bang, including the light from galaxies receding away from us; light that appear to be thousand of years old but might have been created 5 seconds ago to look like it comes from a galaxy thousands of light-years away. Oh, and including all the posts in this thread that were written more than 5 seconds ago.

Of course, such a position is not based on logic, it relies purely on faith in an omnipotent god.

From another of your posts:

Scientists do not try to take god out of the equation, quite the opposite, god is not in the equation to start with (otherwise it would be theology, not science) and they have no need to put him in the equation. Like Laplace replied to Napoleon when the latter remarked that his scientific book did not mention god: "I had no need of that hypothesis".

You might want to google Occam's razor if you want to understand why scientists do not add god to their theories when they do not need it.

It is your belief but it is not based on facts.

From yet another post:

It depends on whether you believe in the bible or not. The chair in the clouds comes from the book of Revelation where it talks about a chair in the heaven (the clouds are probably poetic license). That he has a humanoid form also comes from the bible (us being made in his image, as well as the bible mentioning god raising his hand). I do not remember if the beard and old age also come from the bible but it makes sense to portray the wisest, oldest being as a bearded old man as traditionally bearded old men are both old (of course) and wise.

The reason why christian beliefs have shifted away from that more graphical description toward an amorphous spirit is because as we gained more knowledge through science it made a spirit looking like an old man on a cloud more and more implausible.

The modern mental picture of god is a direct result of science; without science we would still believe in a bearded old man sitting on his throne on a cloud like our ancestors did a thousand years ago.

A lot of people believe in god because they are afraid of the unknown and prefer to fill it with unicorns, leprechauns, dragons or god(s).

As forthe second part of your sentence, once again, it is your belief, nothing more.

From yet another post:

Like snowflakes: Emergent behaviour. Every snowflake is a highly organised pattern and there are millions (at least) of different patterns. It could be argued that such order cannot emerge from the disorder of water droplets and that it require intelligence to create them. Do you believe that god creates every single snowflake or that there are some simple rules that create all of that complexity.

Stopping at one turtle is arbitrary and there is no logic in it.

Well, I was just pointing out that you were asking the wrong question given that you were asking him to prove something that he didn't claim. However let me answer the new question you are asking now myself.

First, I would not say that it is irrational to believe in god an follow science; I would say that the belief in god itself is irrational.

Why? Because you cannot prove the existence of god from reason alone and you cannot prove it from getting knowledge of this universe (science) as he (if he exists) transcends it.

As such a belief is not based on reason but on faith, it follows the very definition of irrational. It doesn't mean that you cannot use reason in religion, as once you accept on faith a given religion you can reason on its various premises, but the act itself of believing is irrational at heart.

However, saying that belief in god is irrational does not mean that it is a bad thing; after all, love is irrational too: you don't go around saying "I decide to fall in love with that girl/boy because of this, this, this and that". Similarly, the fact that love is irrational doesn't mean that you have no reason to love the girl/boy you love; they might be a very nice person and/or physically attractive, which helps, but the foundation of love is irrational. 

Make that 1000BC to the 19th century and restrict it to theists and I would agree. A lot of deist of the time were more like closeted atheists in a time period were atheism was not considered to be intellectually acceptable (it's really Darwin that made it acceptable).

For the 20th and 21st century I would argue that while there are important scientists that believe in god, they were important because they manage to mostly separate their personal beliefs with their religious beliefs (though they will have some infuence on each other of course).

Those people that cannot separate the two are unlikely to become great scientists as if their experimental data contradict their belief they are likely to do the human thing of ignoring it (though it is definitely not restricted to religious beliefs, as nonreligious beliefs can lead to the same bad science behaviour).

Take Newton for example. He did his best work on optics and gravity by following the evidence he had, though inspired by his beliefs in alchemy (especially the action at a distance bit). But when his work was based mostly on his beliefs in alchemy it had no scientific merit.