God is a necessary being who is eternal and is the initial cause of all things, yet He Himself is uncaused. Defining God would be very difficult it would be like describing pizza to an aboriginal tribe. So the best way to do is to define God by what His attributes would revealed. For example, He is infinitely holy, just, all knowing etc...

There are many strands of good evidence for the existence of God using the Cosmological Argument, or just about any evidence that you could deduct from reasoning and logic. Also, the Ontological Argument is good too. And the Teleological Argument is also good. I don't have time to go into all the arguments, but i will define each one of these arguments.

The Ontological Argument

This argument argues that if God exist, then He is a necessary being. He is the greatest conceivable being. Notice "Necessary" in the first sentence. In other words, God cannot NOT exists. On the other hand, the universe as a whole is contingent. Contingent are things that depend on other factors for it's existence.

For example, it's possible that the universe cannot exist at all. We as human beings are dependent on air, food, water, and definitely our parents. So therefore, we are contingent. We depend on other factors. We depend on our parents for existence. Therefore, not necessary.

Another thing is that whatever that exists, either has the sufficient reason for why it exists within it's own nature, or an external cause. So to conclude this argument, the universe as a whole depend on God for it's existence. But God, on the other hand is a necessary being, therefore is not contingent. Even if God need a cause, only God Himself know. But we cannot have an infinite regress of uncaused causes. There must be a first cause as we will see later.

Teleological Argument

This argument argues from design. The universe is design, therefore has a Designer. There are al ot more to it, but you get the logic here.

The one argument i find to be very compelling is the Kalam Cosmological Argument. This argument argues from the "First Cause". There are a few versions of it though. You wanna try? The following arguments support my position:

The Kalam Cosmological Argument

1. Whatever began to exist has a cause.
2. The universe began to exist.
3. Therefore, the universe has a cause.

Premise #1:

The first premise is rooted in the metaphysical principles that out of nothing, nothing come. Non being cannot cause being. In other words from nothing, nothing come. Nothing is nothing, therefore nothing can do nothing. So to suggest that things just pop into being uncaused leads to logically absurdity. If things could come into being uncaused from nothing, then how come we don't see that? So this premise confirms strongly in our human experience and we have the strongest motivation therefore to accept the first premise.

Premise #2:

This can be supported by both philosophical and scientific arguments. The philosophical argument argues that there cannot be an actual infinite amount of time in the past or an infinite regress of uncaused causes. So, the number of events in the past must be finite or else we would never get here in the present state. Therefore we can reasonable conclude that the universe has a beginning.

Suppose there is a long line of domino which have no beginning nor end. A specific point of event is an actual infinite. A "actual infinite" is comprise of a set of numbers or event that can form an actual totality set. Suppose half of the domino are white and the other half are black, no matter where you divide them they would all be equal. So half of an half is equal to a whole because they're actual infinite.

A "potential infinite" is comprise of a set of numbers or event that increases its member to a finite set. So if we take all the white domino and divided by the other half black domino, we would get a finite set.

Suppose each gap between each domino's represent each moment or seconds after hitting the next domino. Actual Infinite does not exist because no matter how far back in time we travel, we will never reach the first cause. If there is no first cause of event, there can be no second, no third, and so on. There is a lot more to this though. Many of these examples come from mathematics set theory.

Now the scientific argument argues base on the expansion of the universe. For example, the big bang model began from a finite time ago about 13.7 billion years from a singularity.(I don't accept the theory though, but the big bang model is on our side because it calls out for a finite universe).

This premise also argue from 2nd Law of Thermodynamics - The amount of usable energy in a closed system is winding down. This mean that in some finite time in the future, the universe will come to an end. But if it have an end, it must have had a beginning. Also a finite time ago all the energy was usable, so since the universe is winding down it must have been wind up. Therefore, the universe is not eternal and must have a beginning. Since we could show that premise 1 and 2 are true, then premise 3 follows necessary. I haven't cover everything, but people have done it.

Going back to the Kalam Argument and the infinite regress - Is it possible to go back, adding power upon power and knowledge (including wisdom and creative ability) upon knowledge, until one comes to a Being with all-power and all-knowledge. Yes. Then, because that Being (God) has all-power (is omnipotent) and all-knowledge (is omniscient), there is no one greater, with more power and more knowledge to create Him. He is therefore uncaused and eternal. It is noteworthy that this is precisely how the Bible describes God.

We can draw evidence from nature, but nature itself cannot saved you. This is why science and nature contains half of God's general revelation, and the Bible is the other half. To know God intimately, the Bible must be read. We can discuss about this too if you want. You could still understand science and have a full distorted view of God. But once you understand both, you can easily reconcile science and faith.

God is not of the dead, but of the living. He is the most conceivable being that exists. Reason compels the verdict that there does exists a personal God. I don't think God appreciate the worship of fools! I argue using the very own reason, logic and evidence for God's existence above. If you want to start refuting any of them feel free to jump in at anytime.

I don't know what you're trying to prove? Biology according to Richard Dawkins is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose. You think they arise out of nothing? How would you account for the fine tuning of the universe? God is a God of design and purpose and meaning you see.... We can take evidence from biology and still able to show that an all powerful God exists. Now come again.

The quote came from one of his book "The Blind Watchmaker". Just look it up. I just simply showing you what your own leader is saying. He stated that living things appear to be design, but not really. LOL they just look design, but rather evolved. That is just silly. We know metaphysically that things do not come from nothing. Never in the history of the world would you get a computer program that hasn't been design. It doesn't matter if it were a code, or a message through a language we know logically there is intelligence behind life. One question, do you believe in human evolution? If you do, what is our common ancestor between humans and chimpanzees. Tell me why you accept it as fact and what draws you to that conclusion.

Richard Dawkins - “Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose.” (Richard Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker, 1996, p. 1}. There you have it.

For your next argument, Ardipithicus ramidus is just a plain old ape. Her skull and teeth would be exactly the same kind of fossils one would expect to find in apes. If i'm not mistaken, they changed her name and categorized her into a new genus. Tim White, a director of "Human Evolution Research Center" at the University of California, Berkeley stated that she is not the common ancestor between human and chimpanzees, but it's the closes they been able to come. He was the lead guy that led the team to discover the fossils in Ethiopia. She was neither the ancestor of humans nor chimpazees. There is always a continuum of change and without a definitive answers, there can be no certainty that humans evolved.

For your next question about the definition of biology, yes i agree. And God lives in inside every believers and He is near, not distance from us. He reveals Himself through the Bible as His divine words. If you draw near to Him, He draws near to you. But He also sitting on his throne in Heaven. So that means He's everywhere.

Btw, most Americans do not believe in evolution. More people are in favor for creation than evolution. I'm not trying to prove anything here, but i think there are good reasons to believe in God. That's why even though science has done a wonderful job at explain a lot of things, people just know God exist in their heart. At this point, it is their convictions, not evidence. Just like the world leading philosopher and atheist Anthony Flew who became a believer in God and died afterward. He was like one of the greatest example Christians can use in debate.

oooh i like your very very last sentence