If your reasoning for there being a god is that something as significant as matter colliding, emotional capacity, the first cell, etc. must have come from or been planned by "something else", then that "something else" (which you call god") must be even more significant than that which it created. Something even more significant could not have come out of nowhere, thus an even greater god must have existed which put your god into creation...
Can you see that your rationale will lead to an infinite spiral? Or do you say that your god is so great that it has always existed and did not need a creator. Well, if that's the case, then you negate the first part of the argument, saying that something significant requires a creator.
How about this idea...god was created out of a need by humans. Some things are too big or outside the realm of an upright hunting primate brain to comprehend, so to put closure to otherwise unknown questions, we make up god. In this model, god has existed only within the minds of humans who needed to find a value for X. As such, there was no god before humans, since there was nothing on our planet intelligent enough to even realize there was a need for one. Or if you claim there always was a god, then god must have been very lonely, since for the first 4 billion years or so of this planet's life, there was nothing on it intelligent enough to even comprehend its existence.
While having god conceptually may satisfy the human need for and desire to seek out answers, that alone does not cause god to exist. Saying that there must be a god to have started or created everything causes a conceptual problem, because then something must have started or created god.
And why are you certain that there is "one" god? There are many more religions which claim multiple gods. Even judeo-christian-islam leaves a "multi-god" remnant in the form of angels and other "heavenly characters." Yet there seems to be a common belief that "multiple" gods in a religion is more primitive, like paganism. Well, if this is the consensus, then clearly atheism, with the god-reduction at maximum to 0, is the most advanced concept.
Some could say that we can't be sure if there is or isn't a god, and within the parameters set forth by the various religions about the reasons a god does or doesn't act, why things are, etc. then there will always be a religious explanation for the result of any test which would continue to argue for there being a god. Well, say some, if we're not sure, then we should assume there is so and worship accordingly, since if we're wrong, it won't matter, but if we're right, we'll be rewarded. Well.....If I don't believe in a god, yet lead an otherwise good life, and at death find that there is a god who punishes me for not believing in it, then that god is not just, and why would I worship an unjust god?
There are plenty of arguments on either side that have persisted through the ages of human reason, and will continue, because of two basic ideas. One, we can't test the existence of god, so we can't say definitively that there isn't one. However, with an ever increasing amount of evidence suggesting at the very least the lack of "the hand of god" acting in science, the "no god" camp is, from my perspective, correct. Two, the debate will continue because both sides so strongly are confident in their "truths" that they believe they can convince the other side to switch, yet are steadfastly digging in their heels from being switched themselves.
Me, I don't believe there is a god. Yes, I do believe my opinion is correct (if I didn't, why would I believe an opinion I didn't believe to be correct?), however I very much respect the rights of everyone else to have their own opinions and hold them as being equally correct. What I don't appreciate is the notion that because my opinion is different from yours (not pointing to anyone in particular), somehow that gives you the permission to change mine.
I've written on here before how I've come into contact with those who feel its their duty to "save" me by convincing me their religion (typically some form of christianity) is the path to follow. For some reason, it's not considered offensive to "spread the word of Jesus" despite other people being content in their current beliefs. However, if I was to walk door to door and denounce christianity as being a collection of myths with a sprinkling of true events that has been at the root of an ever continuing list of historical calamities, and even today is cited as justification for hate, censorship, discrimination, war, murder, etc., then I'd be branded as being offensive (even if every spoken and printed word was absolutely true and based on documented and traceable facts). Hmmmmm.....
