To actually debate this topic with some sence of professionalism we will have to agree on some terms and deductions made by others who came before us.

Since some of us are laymen by their own admission, I will let wiki speak for me where as the whole debate is conserned initially, since according to some people, I am an emotional slave girl who cant keep herself in check when it comes to some things.

The monotheistic concept of a supreme, ultimate, and (in some sense) personal being, as found in the Hebrew, Christian, and Islamic traditions; holds that God possesses every possible perfection, including such qualities as omniscience, omnipotence, and perfect benevolence.

Some classically theistic philosophical approaches arrive at such perfections by beginning with a root concept of God such as "the prime mover" or "the uncaused cause","the ultimate creator" or "a being than which nothing greater can be conceived" from which the classical properties may be deduced or teased out.

By contrast, much of Eastern religious thought (chiefly Pantheist) posits God as a force contained in every imaginable phenomenon. For example, Spinoza and his philosophical followers use the term 'God' in a particular philosophical sense, to mean (roughly) the essential substance/principles of nature.

In monotheisms outside the Abrahamic traditions, the existence of God is discussed in similar terms. In the Advaita Vedanta school of Hinduism, reality is ultimately seen as a single, qualityless, changeless being called nirguna Brahman.

Advaitin philosophy introduces the concept of saguna Brahman or Ishvara as a way of talking about Brahman to people. Ishvara, in turn, is ascribed such qualities as omniscience, omnipotence, and benevolence.

Then we get to Epistemology.

Which is the branch of philosophy which studies the nature, origin, and scope of knowledge. (science having been born here)

Knowledge is, from an epistemological standpoint, distinguished from mere belief by justification, warrant, or other such property the having of which is conducive to getting at the truth.

Knowledge in the sense of "understanding of a fact or truth" can be divided into a posteriori knowledge, based on experience or deduction and a priori knowledge from introspection, axioms or self-evidence.

Knowledge can also be described as a psychological state, since in a strict sense there can never be a posteriori knowledge proper (see relativism).

Much of the disagreement about "proofs" of God's existence are due to different conceptions not only of the term "God" but also the terms "proof", "truth", and "knowledge".

Religious belief from revelation or enlightenment (satori or epiphany) can fall into either the first category, a posteriori knowledge, if rooted in deduction or personal revelation, or the second, a priori class of knowledge, if based on introspection.

Different conclusions as to the existence of God often rest on different criteria for deciding what methods are appropriate for deciding if something is true or not; some examples include:

whether logic counts as evidence concerning the quality of existence

whether subjective experience counts as evidence for objective reality

whether either logic or evidence can rule in or out the supernatural

whether an object of the mind is accepted for existence

whether a truthbearer can justify.

One problem posed by the question of the existence of God is that traditional beliefs usually ascribe to God various supernatural powers.

Supernatural beings may be able to conceal and reveal themselves for their own purposes, as for example in the tale of Baucis and Philemon.

In addition, according to concepts of God, God is not part of the natural order, but the ultimate creator of nature and of the scientific laws.

Thus, in Aristotelian philosophy, God is viewed as part of the explanatory structure needed to support scientific conclusions, and any powers God possesses are, strictly speaking, of the natural order — that is, derived from God's place as originator of nature.

Some offer the supernatural nature of God as the explanation for the inability of empirical methods to decide the question of God's existence.

In Karl Popper's philosophy of science, belief in a supernatural God is outside the natural domain of scientific investigation because all scientific hypotheses must be falsifiable in the natural world.

The Non-overlapping Magisteria view proposed by Stephen Jay Gould also holds that the existence (or otherwise) of God is irrelevant to and beyond the domain of science.

So:

Since God (of the kind to which the proofs/arguments relate) is neither an entity in the universe nor a mathematical object, it is not obvious what kinds of arguments/proofs are relevant to God's existence.

Even if the concept of scientific proof were not problematic, the fact that there is no conclusive scientific proof of the existence, or non-existence, of God mainly demonstrates that the existence of God is not a normal scientific question.

John Polkinghorne suggests that the nearest analogy to the existence of God in physics are the ideas of quantum mechanics which are seemingly paradoxical but make sense of a great deal of disparate data.

Alvin Plantinga compares the question of the existence of God to the question of the existence of other minds, claiming both are notoriously impossible to "prove" against a determined skeptic.

One approach, suggested by writers such as Stephen D. Unwin, is to treat (particular versions of) theism and naturalism as though they were two hypotheses in the Bayesian sense, to list certain data (or alleged data), about the world, and to suggest that the likelihoods of these data are significantly higher under one hypothesis than the other.

Most of the arguments for, or against, the existence of God can be seen as pointing to particular aspects of the universe in this way.

In almost all cases it is not seriously suggested by proponents of the arguments that they are irrefutable, merely that they make one worldview seem significantly more likely than the other. However, since an assessment of the weight of evidence depends on the prior probability that is assigned to each worldview, arguments that a theist finds convincing may seem thin to an atheist and vice-versa.

(cont)