God exists in since and even has its own symbol, 8 rolled on its side and squished a bit.
As has been pointed out already God is an allegory, something to explain that which cannot readily be explained.
Human knowledge is finite but potential knowledge is infinite so the human race will never know everything and will always require a contruct to explain that beyond our sphere of knowledge. Scientists use infinity to describe this, religion uses God.
@AC - Well
Apologies but this runs on a bit but I like to know why - "Because God must have done it" just doesn't cut it for me. Sorry.
"There are those here who are demanding the right to their own opinions and beliefs. And if you do not agree with their beliefs for any reason then you are obviously a moron. Rational thinking here. :)"
Science is not an "opinion" or a "belief" though many scientists often miss the point at which their personal opinions/beliefs impinge on their otherwise good works, eg Richard Dawkins.
If you prefer simple answers then "It wuz God wot dunnit" may be adequate. Personnally, I see this as the simpleton (child-like) answer much like it is Santa Claus who brings the presents at the winter solstice and the Tooth Fairy takes away old teeth. I never believed this rubbish as a child and am not about to start any time soon.
"There are those in here who are demanding the segregation of taught subjects as if science / english / maths / philosiphy were totally seperate."
Straw man alert! Language and maths (just another language) are general tools which need to be taught first (the 3 Rs). No-one is claiming that science should, or even could, be segregated from these subjects. But religion and science share no commonality, one encourages the questioning of inherited ideas and the other admonishes them (not respectively).
"Evolution has a number of _glaring_ holes in it... One example is the Peacock."
Bollocks! The primary imperitive of all species is reproduction and so I will start by describing the 'observed' reproductive strategy of the the peahen.
When searching for a mate, the peahen will search out the peacock with the largest number of 'eyes' (the large blue/black dots found at the tip of the tail feathers) and will shag the lucky bugger. She will shun any further andvances UNLESS the new beefcake has a higher 'eye' count.
Now, if you had studied a course on sexual strategy then you would often hear the lecturer ask you very same question "Why would a peahen search out a mate that is so obviously badly suited to ongoing survival needs?" and the simple answer is that you are starting from the wrong logical postion. Think how the peacock got to become the peahen's choice.
1. A peacock has to survive to be an available suitor.
2. To survive he must avoid predators.
3. A large tail is a hinderance so a peacock with an enourmous tail has to work harder to survive than a less well endowed rival.
In the peahen's mind this translates into "the well endowed guy has worked harder so is physically better so can provide better genes to my chicks". Or put more simply
more 'eyes' = better genes.
Your interpretation is flawed because you have allowed you thought process to become clouded by a preconception. It is this kind of closed-minded creationist thinking that leads to scientists describing them as morons.
"Finally, if there is a God then there _must_ be a reason for living. If there is no God then there _cannot_ be a reason for living. I would rather not be just an irrelevant accident."
Two issues with this.
Firstly, the existence of God does not provide a reason for living. Our minds can create any reason for remaining alive, eg production of baby often reduces an individuals natural tendancy towards risky behaviour "for the sake of the baby".
Secondly, the fact you would rather not be an "irrelevant accident" is purely an expression of your ego. You are under the impression that you have to be special, an idea that is fed to you thoughout your life because it actually makes you more controllable (both as a consumer and a citizen). People are much more content if they feel that they are somehow special. But...
There are close to 7 billion people just like you so really, in a global context, you are irrelevant - sorry. There is a term called 'sphere of influence' and outside of your's you become irrelevant to the rest of the planet - again, sorry.
Finally, as a scientist I have to point out that evolution is NOT A FACT, it is a theory. It may be a very good theory that has stood up to intense scrutiny but it is still only a theory. Any 'scientist' who believes evolution is a fact is no better than a creationist.