The thing is its you who doesn't know while a theist very much does know. I understand no argumentative conversation is going to convince someone who is sure in their belief, theist or atheist. Its takes personal revelation and a true belief to see through the limitations of human perception. I used to combat religious people all the time. I'd throw scientific evidence in their face all the time and use the same mockeries many will surely subject unto me. Once you believe, however, answers become clearer. History and science prove the existence of God but only for those with eyes to see. Anyway, I cannot accept the logic of "I don't know" nor should you. If that was the final conclusion for all problems that are not understood humanity would never advance in science, art, culture, or anything else in the world.

 i can honestly say that i just don't understand how it happened. of course, i barely made it out of high school and i have yet to take one single college course, so my opinion doesn't matter anyway. however, i don't think it's fair to just say, "well, i don't understand it, so god probably did it!" that's what the egyptians did when they saw the sun, right? 

and the question of who or what made god is still valid whether you like it or not. you can't give the reasoning that everything needs a creator and then say "except god" because that leads you into infinite regression. god really can't escape that according to anybody's reasoning.

Magic is the only solution you have? Why do you prefer that to honesty?

 So according to you something forming out of nothing isn't magical. According to you the only way to refute creation is the hocus pocus of spontaneous materialization due to absolutely no force. Sorry but that doesn't fly logically. 

 I would like to ask who ever said something came from nothing. I have never heard a scientist make this claim. The only thing a rational atheist (bc not all atheist are smart) would say is that we don't know where everything came from. We have a really good idea back to a certain point. Being the singularity/Big Bang. But before that no one knows for sure and no one claims to know. There are some very interesting ideas. But we are not to that point yet. Where we differ from you is that we do not fill in the unknown with god. This is classic God of the Gaps theory. Unknown=My god. There is nothing logical about this. In fact it is arrogant and lazy. It is equally logical to say that since science can't claim the origins that means Zeus did it. Why would that be any less likely?

Second thing I would like to ask is this. If there was some sort of creator what makes you think it has to be a god-like deity? Why does the designer have to be a god? Why not an alien doing a science experiment and we are the result? Again "God of the Gaps" Unknown= My version of god. 

You have also shown that you do not even understand the basic concept of the Big Band Theory. It was not an explosion, it was an expansion of space/time. You should read a real book on the subject. Not one of the christian versions that are trying to criticize it. 

As far as Occam's razor goes, in this case there really is no simple explanation for the origins of the universe because we have no idea. 

So to finish up I will ask a few questions again. Please answer honestly. 

1. Who ever claimed an atheist believes nothing created everything?

2. Is it any less logical to say that Zeus created the universe rather than your god?

3. Why do you assume a creator/designer automatically must be a god? 

4. Have you ever read a scientific book about the Big Band Theory? 

There may have never been 'nothing'. 

All that needs to have existed indefinitely was the closest to 'nothing' that Quantum theory seems to suggest is possible to exist. The sort of 'nothing' which appears to be able to randomly generate actual pairs of particles which are complementary in nature which can almost immediately recombine and revert back to a minimal quantity of energy.

This is the sort of thing that Science suggests may be all that is required as the 'ground state; of existence.

This sort of assumption is much more consistent with the correct statement of Occams's principle, which is not about 'simplicity' as such, it is that "entities must not be multiplied beyond necessity". Using your interpretation of Occam's Razor, we could justifying "explaining" everything by invoking magic, which is always going to simpler in a naive sense. And of course this is just what primitive peoples have always done -everything not otherwise understood had its own demon or god or whatever to make it happen.

Assuming something like 'God' that can magically do all the unexplained things is bringing in enormous new entity, whereas science is using direct extrapolations from existing and observed phenomena.

'God' begs far more questions about reality than it answers. It actually doesn't answer anything, it is just a label on your ignorance - "the limitations of human reasoning" you refer to.

We are honest in saying about such ultimate questions that "we don't know'. Saying God does not need a justification for its existence whereas our observed reality does, is simple naked assertion and totally unsupportable by anything but naked assertion.

 Theists never seem to describe or provide evidence for any process in which magic creates anything (let alone a universe.)  Do you suppose the universe just squirted out of god's dick in a big god-cum puddle?

 Ratdog, historical and anthropological study is what led me to believe in God. Once I advanced into the upper thresholds of those fields I realized things didn't add up. I was never religious before I tried to research and contribute to the loose ends in those fields. I was smacked like a ton of bricks when found out what i did. I'll give you one example. I discovered the theory of evolution mirrors elements of the creation story in the Upanishads. I am do not believe in Hinduism but anyone who believes in evolution does to a small extent. In fact many of the ancients, from the Greeks to the tribes of Africa, all were philosophically confounded by the supernatural. Why? These people were not primitive in their thinking. They were just as smart as any human is now. The only logical solution was divine causation. It is only now that we value ourselves in such high esteem that we substitute any notion of God for our own devices. We forget that all over the planet before modern times spirits and serpents were worshipped by many cultures seperated by vast distances. Why did they come up with similar theology? I believe the Bible answers these question in a far more superior fashion then any far- reaching theory about male fallace symbolism or Jungian consciousness. All that crap is just an alternate explanation to make humanity feel good about ourselves. 

 That's not true. Religion is restrictive. It tells you are nothing compared God so you better limit your natural tendencies to kill, steal, or any other evil inclinations. Without God (which most all are by now) those limitations are lifted. Your only concern is material gain that makes your life easier. The evidence is all around us.

Except that their is no evidence that societies with high levels of religious belief have less crime than others - in fact there is significant evidence that it can go the other way.

So the 'moral' argument is totally void, or, if anything, a disproof of God.

Its not about crime or morals. Its all about you if you're devoid of God. You don't have to hurt but you don't have sacrafice anything to get you what you want. This turns brotherhood into individuality.

 scuppers wrote

William of Occam was correct.... the simplest explanation for creation is God.

You don't understand Occam's razor. There are simple answers and simpleton answers.

When there two explanations are offered, one must discard the one that explains the least or explains nothing at all, or raises more questions than it answers.

God did it both explains the least and raises more questions than it answers.

There is no logical connection between belief in God and the fact that for everybody, achieving some things inevitably requires some sort of 'sacrifice'.

God belief just seems to imply attaching different values to certain things, including some things which only exist in the mind of the believer, so in some cases you are 'sacrificing' something which is purely made-up in the first place.

You certainly have quite the ego and no humility. Just because abiogenesis has not been scientifically discovered doesn't mean an imaginary being created it. The Bible states that the earth is flat and the earth does not move and the sun goes around the earth. If you lived in the Dark Ages you would be arguing as you are here. Logic and the Bible would dictate these things, but ultimately science proved otherwise. In fact the church persecuted those who thought different. It took 400 years for the church to finally apologize for how they treated Galileo.  I believe this sets quite a precedent to be skeptical of world views originating from a primitive desert religion.

Imaginary and non-existent things look alike.

Hmmmmm.... a concerned troll.... esoteric knowledge .... he who has ears let him hear

Wrong!

You simply don't know that, and that's what makes you look foolish!

  My greatest dream is to build an animal rescue center for abused animals.  Every animal you take in can cost thousands even tens of thousands, it is a money pit.  You can raise money, but the truth of the matter is most shelter owners pay out of their own pockets to keep the animals alive.  How I am concerned only with material gain exactly?   

 Let me rephrase the question since you guys can't give me an answer. Why is believing in a creator irrational? Don't give me that mumbo jumbo indoctrination falsehood cause I was raised an atheist. 

Humans didn't used to know what caused lightning, snowflakes, the seasons, the diversity of life etc. and assumed that these were all things that were caused by a god or gods. We now know, thanks to admitting our ignorance and actually studying them, the natural causes behind these things. You can see the parallel I'm making can't you?

An argument from ignorance is really no argument at all.