It seems to me that an open-minded thinker, free of biases and misconceptions, would have no choice but to acknowledge the veracity of this argument. When properly understood, it is simple, direct -- and tough to refute. Why then does it seem to have so few backers?

Those who lack the atheists' certitude that there is no afterlife, and who have never seen, and never will see, proof of the existence of God, are the agnostics -- those who do not "presume to know." Some are tempted toward the notion that underlies the famous bet of Blaise Pascal.

Scientific atheists like Richard Dawkins use every tactic they can find to make it seem that science can disprove God. But in simplest terms, you can't prove that something doesn't exist.

Some atheists may not object to practices of the believer, but at bottom atheists find it painful to admit that knowledge is limited. Yet science itself, supposedly the atheist's greatest ally, shows that it is.

I posit to you that all the evidence points, in an obvious and inextricable way, to a supernatural explanation for the origin of life -- a perfectly reasonable position.

Self-declared atheists not only report getting angry at God, but report higher levels of anger than that experienced by believers. How does that work? Why bother being angry at something which one doesn't believe even exists?

Thanks to Einstein and his formula we can begin to appreciate, despite our ego and pride, the insignificance and inadequacy of our understanding of the unfathomable sea of energy that surrounds, and likely, created us.

No doubt the debates about the existence of God will continue, and we can enjoy the spectacle, but I suspect that no amount of clever verbal exchange will do anything to convince anyone either way.

Ever since I smoked my first good cigar, I have felt that if there were no other reason to believe in God, Havana leaf would suffice. I've had similar epiphanies while biting into a ripe peach.