I think that, in my opening argument, I touched upon most of the concerns you brought up in your opening argument. But let me address a few points and perhaps clarify what I believe. You asked why many Christians are unwilling to debate the existence or nonexistence of God. I think the main reason is that if you take something for granted, arguing it would seem pointless, and may even be difficult by the nature of it being taken for granted. For example, I assume you agree that John Wilkes Boothe was the assassin of Abraham Lincoln. Suppose I asked you to debate this, myself claiming that Boothe was not Lincoln's assassin. Would you be willing to engage in such a debate? And if you did, how could you prove that Boothe was Lincoln's assassin? Generally, if one does not believe in God, it's because they are unwilling to believe in God. How do you attempt to convince someone of something that they refuse to believe? I agree that there is room for debate, because I was not raised to take God's existence for granted, the way many Christians were. I used to be an atheist, and it was the scientific evidence for a power higher than nature that convinced me that something which we could call 'God' really existed. It was later that I decided the 'God' of the Bible was this being. You seem to be relatively open-minded to the possibility of God's existence, which is the only thing that makes debate possible. And while, due to my faith and personal experiences, I am admittedly heavily biased in favor of God's existence, I will attempt to argue using only logic, setting my faith and experiences aside for the time being. Here is, as I see it, the reason why God's existence cannot be absolutely proven or disproven by scientific means: God is a supernatural being, and science deals only with the natural. To absolutely prove God's existence using science would be as difficult as proving the existence of Bill Cosby using only mathematics. The only way to prove the existence of God would be to prove that any 'naturalist' explanation for the current state of the universe would be impossible. (note: 'Naturalist', as I am using it, means the argument that there is no power higher than nature). Since not all naturalist theories have been absolutely disproven, we cannot make the claim that a supernatural force has been proven to have created the universe. Even if we could disprove all current naturalist theories, the result would probably be that naturalists would simply come up with different theories, or claim that, while we don't know the natural mechanism which explains the universe, that doesn't mean such a mechanism does not exist. The only way to disprove the existence of God would be to prove that a naturalist explanation for the current state of the universe is the only explanation. So far, all that naturalists could possibly claim is that a naturalist explanation for the universe is possible. But claiming that something is possible falls far short of proving it is the truth. A lot of naturalists try to disprove God by arguing in favor of the Big Bang. The Big Bang in no way disproves God. Unlike some Christians, I don't disagree that the Big Bang happened, but I would certainly question whether it had a natural or supernatural cause, as well as whether the universe as we know it could have been the result of an uncontrolled explosion. We see much order in the natural laws, in the way the universe works. Without this order, life on Earth could not exist. And as I pointed out earlier, the Big Bang either created an orderly universe, or a chaotic universe out of which order arose, and either one is in contradiction to natural laws. Of course, one could argue that something can be possible while still being in contradiction with natural laws. For example, if I were to flip an ordinary coin 1000 times, the laws of chance would be seriously against the coin coming up 'heads' each time. Yet for the coin to come up 'heads' 1000 times in a row, while certainly unlikely, IS possible (the chance being one out of two to the thousandth power). But if you were to watch me flip a coin 1000 times and come up 'heads' each time, would you assume it was due to chance, or would you look for a different explanation (such as a weighted or double-headed coin)? To accept that a natural origin for the universe is possible, but unlikely, still leaves us with the obligation to look for other possibilities that may better explain the way things are. It was such a realization that led me to realize the probability of God's existence.