The argument I'm about to reference is sometimes taken as mere wordplay or as some sort of jest, but, taken literally, it is, as far as I can tell, impossible to overcome. I wish I could give proper attribution to the originator of this argument, but I'm clueless; perhaps someone else will know.

Firstly, acknowledge that God is omnipotent (all-powerful; can do anything). Therefore, if a being is not omnipotent, that being cannot be God.

Understanding that, consider the following question: Can God create a stone so heavy that He himself cannot lift it?

A.) If God can create a sufficiently heavy stone such that he does not have the power to lift it, then God is not omnipotent. And since no being which is not omnipotent cannot be God, then God does not exist.

B.) If God does not have the power to create such a stone, then God is likewise not omnipotent. And since no being which is not omnipotent cannot be God, then God does not exist.

In either case, the logical conclusion is that no omnipotent being can exist, and therefore God does not exist.

Of course, this is not some earth-shattering philosophical insight; everyone has the right to believe as he or she chooses. I'm just trying to stick to the realm of facts and logic.

this debate is old and tired. there is no proof that he exists but there is no proof that he doesnt. people used to worship the sun until we figured out what it was. maybe its only a matter of time. as a child i wanted to believe in santa clause but once it was all out in the open it made a lot more sense. heaven is a different story. it can mean different things to different people. no one knows what happens when we die