Since we cannot determine how the universe began or how life began, our best explanation is that the spark which lit the fuse was god, in one form or anohter.

first of all, we are talking about some concept of god that is uncomprehensible by nature. If you want to rationally prove there is or is not a god, you have to have some evidence of it, and since there isn't any, there is no reason to believe god exists or doesn't exist for any reason based in rationality. that's why people don't think there's a god, they BELIEVE in god. According to the Christian bible, when you believe in god, you know god. I don't think it is much different in any of the western texts.

From Cosmological argument,

Framed as an informal proof, the first cause argument can be stated as follows:

1. Every finite and contingent being has a cause.
2. Nothing finite and dependent (contingent) can cause itself.
3. A causal chain cannot be of infinite length.
4. Therefore, there must be a first cause; or, there must be something that is not an effect.

The Transcendental argument [en.wikipedia.org], which argues that logic, science, ethics, and other things we take seriously do not make sense if there is no God. Therefore, arguments against the existence of God must ultimately refute themselves if pressed with rigorous consistency.

The Moral argument [en.wikipedia.org] argues that morality cannot exist without God.

Jesus' [en.wikipedia.org] life as written in the New Testament [en.wikipedia.org] establishes his credibility, so we can believe in the truth of his statements about God.

why do we need to have a answer for the hope that lies in us

Twenty Arguments For The Existence Of God

The argument from free will [en.wikipedia.org] contests the existence of an omniscient god who has free will by arguing that the two properties are contradictory.

The atheist-existentialist argument for the non-existence of God, if God is supposed to be a perfect sentient being: As presented by Jean-Paul Sartre in Being and Nothingness [en.wikipedia.org], it states that since existence precedes essence, it follows from the meaning of the term sentient that a sentient being cannot be complete or perfect. Sartre's phrasing is that God would be a pour-soi [a being-for-itself; a consciousness] who is also an en-soi [a being-in-itself; a thing]: which is a contradiction in terms. The argument is echoed thus in Salman Rushdie's novel Grimus: "That which is complete is also dead."

Theological noncognitivism [en.wikipedia.org], as used in the literature, usually seeks to disprove the god-concept by showing that it is meaningless in some way.

The problem of evil [en.wikipedia.org] (or theodicy) in general, and the logical and evidential arguments from evil in particular contest the existence of a god who is both omnipotent and omnibenevolent by arguing that such a god would not permit the existence of evil, which can easily be shown to exist.

The argument from poor design [en.wikipedia.org] contests the existence of an intelligent Creator God by arguing that much of nature is poorly designed.

if (God did exist) then { - he'll break at once this website - he'll stop all the non believers from breathing - he'll help increase the percentage on this argument to 99% } None of the previous arguments are true, so it follows God doesn't exists.

The argument from nonbelief [en.wikipedia.org] contests the existence of an omnipotent god who wants humans to believe in him by arguing that such a god would do a better job of gathering believers.

The Transcendental Argument for the Non-existence of God [en.wikipedia.org] contests the existence of an intelligent Creator God by demonstrating that such a being would make logic and morality contingent, which is incompatible with the presuppositionalist assertion that they are necessary, and contradicts the efficacy of science.

How does a God solve any problems? where did that God originate? Any excuse you can use for why a God has always been here, etc and simply be applied to the universe itself. if the universe has been here an infinite amount of time then how could anything have created it? there is no 50/50 chance that theres a God. there is no way of knowing the odds of something like that. i know christians find it to their advantage to use pseudo-science/math to try to make it seem like your beliefs have some sort of basis in reality, but they do not. and as for this "uncaused cause" nonsense, you're spewing about what philosophers thought about based on the very limited understanding of science and physics at the time. if any of you would do any real research you'd see that science has changed, and its not as simple as "uncaused cause" anymore. also theres no consideration for whether or not the universe has been here for an infinite amount of time. religion/gods/creators dont have a 50/50 chance of existing. there are no odds for something like that, based on OBSERVATION i would say religion has a 0% chance of existing.

Bertrand Russell makes the argument much more eloquently than I can.

Why I am Not a Christian

The "no motivation" argument states that if god is omnipotent, then he would not be motivated to act in any way, specifically creating the universe, since God would have anything God wanted in infinite amounts and would have no desires since there is no reason for God to have any. Since the universe exists, there is a contradiction and an omnipotent God cannot exist.

We have tailbones, we have apendixes, we have wisdom teeth, all things that have become useless as we have evoled. God wouldn't have added things that we didn't need to our bodies; we're all from nature, not that people can't be spiritual, but come on, don't tell me what to think.

Since humans are said to be created in god's own image, gods must be humanoid in form, having five senses, similar to us. Yet, this humanoid is an omni-present, time-defying being who can create and destroy at will!! This anthropomorphic view of god is just silly...