Wow. I wanted to make a contribution to this thread so I skimmed back a few pages looking for a salient post in order to contradict/provide counter contentions to, but I couldn't find any.
The quality of posts in this thread is terrible. I'll try to change that with my post (even though introducing rational debate is not exactly my forte)
I think with years of experience in these sorts of topics in order to have a rational debate, we can't keep going around in circles. The major contentions which can be argued regarding this debate are generally overlooked. But I'll give a few examples of sub-topics that ruin these threads.
1) Any discussion of a particular religion or religious beliefs. (Including mock religions like FSM and other such nonsense.)
2) Any discussion on a persons other personal beliefs, past beliefs, or anything not pertaining to the topic at hand. (whether God exists)
3) Intelligent design.
Basically if those rules are followed it narrows down the debate to really deal with whether God, which also needs to be defined by any two parties before they get too deep into the debate.
So... with all that said, how do you define God? Usually as is the case with these things although the "burdon of proof" lies with the people who argue in favour of God's existance, so does the rights of definition.
I define God as such.
1) Existing outside of our universe.
2) Having the ability/power to create our universe
3) Having the ability/power to modify and create all energy within our universe.
4) Having in the past modified energy to communicate with man and other beings in the universe.
So now that the definition of God has been established, who would like to debate?