But the world is far from perfect, much of it is uninhabitable or is incapable of supporting the animals and humans that live there (much of Africa for example), it is full of war, pestilence, greed etc the planet is unstable causing earthquakes, volcanoes etc. 

You are thinking about it wrong human life is perfect for this size of planet, the planet came first and life adapted to it. And the fact that life developed on a planet that could suport it is just common sense, I mean it's not like life would develop on a planet that couldn't support it would it? In a universe that is increadably vast containing trillions of planets the fact that one happned to have the right conditions is just the law of averages working it's self out, it's basically the typewriting monkey anology given infinite time and space it had to happen eventually. And before you say that the fact that the universe is has the possiblity for life to develop given the right conditions is proof of God, it doesn't if it didn't we simply wouldn't exist all us existing is is proof that the universe was capable of creating a situation where we could. 

I think you should look up proof "To establish the truth or validity of by presentation of argument or evidence." that is basically the definition of what science is " The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena."...

Furthermore, if anyone wants to continue to attempt to discredit scientific knowledge, then I challenge you to find a flaw in the following:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method

Best of luck to you. If you cannot think up a less biased, more accurate way to prove what is and what is not, then STOP SAYING THAT SCIENCE DOESNT PROVE THINGS. There is nothing more frustrating than a group of people who collectively are unable to see the evidence laid RIGHT out in front of them. It's even worse when certain...spiritual types are all "Where's the proof? where's the missing link? Your evidence is inconclusive" While arguing an opposing viewpoint that has even less proof (read: virtually none), and expect to be respected.

So have fun.

Well when Jesus speaks of "living water" it is easy to believe that he was speaking metaphorically.  But what about when the Bible says you shouldn't eat four-legged insects, except for the ones that jump around like grasshoppers and crickets?  (They have six legs.) 

I do think it makes a difference whether you have evidence or not.  And I mean reliable evidence -- the Bible may not have changed much since it was codified, but before that who knows what people might have made up?  I mean, why should I trust the books that were included but not the  apocrypha? 

Wikipedia:  "The idea of a complete and clear-cut canon of the New Testament existing from the beginning, that is from Apostolic times, has no foundation in history. The Canon of the New Testament, like that of the Old, is the result of a development, of a process at once stimulated by disputes with doubters, both within and without the Church, and retarded by certain obscurities and natural hesitations, and which did not reach its final term until the dogmatic definition of the Tridentine Council."

I don't think you understand what I was objecting to in the story of Job. 

Satan:  (walks up to God)
God:  Hey, sup?  You seen Job?  He loves me so much it's awesome. 
Satan:  I bet that's only cuz you've been nice to him.  I bet if you wrecked his shit he'd hate you. 
God:  OH YEAH?  Go wreck his shit, just don't mess with him personally.  I bet he'll still love me. 
Satan:  (Kills all Job's children and all but three servants (so they can deliver the news) and destroys/steals all his stuff)
Job:  Easy come, easy go -- thanks for the good times, God. 
(LATER)
Satan:  (walks up to God)
God:  Hey, sup?  You seen Job?  He still loves me so much it's awesome. 
Satan:  I bet that's only cuz I couldn't mess with his actual self.  No possessions matter more to people than their own lives.  I bet if you tortured him he'd hate you. 
God:  OH YEAH?  Go fuck him up, just don't kill him.  I bet he'll still love me. 
Satan:  (Makes Job very sick and in great pain)
Job's wife:  WTF Job?  You still love God? 
Job:  Shit yeah, don't you badmouth God.  Man, I wish I was dead though.  I wish I'd never been born.  I wish God would just kill me already.  God, why are you doing this to me? 
(LOTS AND LOTS OF TALKING between Job and people)
God:  Who's the God here?  What do you know about anything? 
Job:  Hey, man, I don't know. 
God:  Are you gonna say I'm wrong? 
Job:  You're the God here, just tell me what's up.  It's pretty bad for me. 
God:  (Gives Job twice as much as he started with, including sons but not daughters because who the fuck cares about women)

Admittedly this story has a happy ending for Job, but God was a HUUUUGE dick throughout the entire story.  The whole thing is based on God putting his most devoted, beloved follower in the hands of the devil to prove a point.  One supposes this is meant as the Old Testament answer to "why do bad things happen to good people" but it's a terrible answer. 

What has the properties of inorganic matter got to do with the properties of organic matter exactly?  Why would scientists try and understand evolution and the inception of life by using inorganic elements?

Just curious because that's a pretty odd analogy in my book.

As for the thread, it's impossible to do really.  There is no direct proof for God anywhere so far as I am aware, just indirect and faith based - i.e. the Universe is complex therefore it must have been created, how can something like an eyeball evolve, etc.  Therefore it is impossible to do.  I mean as an atheist I find some of the responses pretty funny but c'mon, give the religious folk a break this request is impossible to fufill.

I do agree with the OP on one point.

If people want six day creationism to be taught in a science class, then the proponents of six day creation will have to come to that conclusion using the scientific method. If not, then that explanation belongs in a religion class.

"But what about when the Bible says you shouldn't eat four-legged insects, except for the ones that jump around like grasshoppers and crickets?"
As i said, i never read the Bible, so, actually, to me that is a first... i think. Still, from what i saw on the internet it seems to revolve around being unclean and therefore to stay way from them. And the Law was to avoid impurity afterall.
I know very little about the apocrypha but it doesn`t seem to deny nothing that was said in the Bible about Jesus, God and Mary - about Mary, it seems to have a reference of her purity.

But if you still doubt - and it`s not my words that are going to change that - read the maria apparitions one day or other apparitions and you will see that what was said in the Bible about Jesus, God, the Holy Spirit and Mary was found in those apparitions, not just the figures but also their message.

"admittedly this story has a happy ending for Job..."
But this IS a big part of the meaning of the Book of Job. What i see in that book is no different from what i see in the life of everyone and Jesus Himself.
You make it seem that God was playing with the devil, when it`s not that. If God praised Job it was because He was happy for him and with him. The fact that he let the devil tempt him - and that the conversation is known - is for only one reason: God loves us so much that He doesn`t want to control us. So He allows for you to make the call on what you want.
The happy ending is just representative of the retribution for loving God.

The Book of Job is the sign to show people what our eyes can`t see: devil`s temptations and God`s love.

I think to this day the biggest logical "proof" for god was presented by a staunch Atheist - Aristotle.
Aristotle presented the idea of the first "force" or as he called it the "first mover" but I will expand that logical argument with a simple statement. First there is no way to prove that God is in fact real or even exists, however for the sake of this argument god is a perfectly rational statement (note the capitalization, they refer to two ultimately different people.) There will always be an unknown quantity, whether we can in fact appropriate the first motion that brought about our reality, something will remain unknown and i present to you that "this unknown" is the "god" you are so wanting to disprove. This is not a faith based argument, rather something i consider a simple solution to an impossible equation.

Will we in fact "know" that god exists, first you would have to define what is knowing? Is knowing and believing so different. Everything we thought we knew is in fact some belief that we once held. The earth is round was a belief but it was dominated by the idea the earth was flat for centuries until we were able to prove beyond reason that the earth is in fact round? But is it truly if mass bends space time and earth is mass isn't there a dimensional factor of "roundness" that is missing in our "belief" that earth is round. Is believing then also knowing? and if knowing and believing are so similar and knowing is proving isn't there an argument for God to be real based on collective belief?

Knowledge is god, and the closer we get to truths whether through knowing or believing the closer to god we become. In the context of a game are we not god to every character in The Sims based on our knowledge that we exist and they exist solely on a computer screen? As we poor our "soul" into characters is that not akin to godliness? Have you watched the Ghost in the Shell? or I Robot? or the Matrix?

But ultimately, seeing as how your atheist I shall present a scenario for you. What if, with all your logical uncertainty of god, he does exist? Wouldn't  it have been at least marginally beneficial to at least think he exists "knowledge of God is beneficial to every religion even satanism." And in the realm of scientific/atheistic thought isn't it always in one's own self-interest to doing something that is at least marginally beneficial to them in both the short-run and the long run?

Just something for you to think about.

when referring to 'God', I always theorized that the diety was a metaphor for all knowledge beyond our grasp, or the unknown. That's why "The Gods" were responsible for rain, thunder, and lightning during a storm, they were responsible for earthquakes, and they were always responsible for giving us life and creation. God was always reserved to explain things beyond our comprehension and even the most intelligent christians still cling to that belief. since we do not know for 100% sure what or who created the universe (though we have very strong theories), a lot of scientifically minded Christians still insist that a divine creator must have made us, since we had to come from somewhere (a logical fallacy, but arguably the most intelligent argument Theists have to support their theory).

You're completely missing my point on the grasshopper thing.  The Bible thinks they have four legs when in fact they have six. 

I believe some of the apocryphal books contradict some of the canon books, and it was fallible men that decided which were canon. 

As for the "apparitions", I am of the opinion that they are hallucinated or otherwise imagined by the faithful, or in some cases by fakers. 

What kind of "temptation" is killing a man's family?  And part of what makes it so bad is that it was just God's bragging that started the whole thing, according to the Bible.