Does God exist?

How would you know what "evil" is if there was no "good" and how would you know what "good" is if there was no "evil". All entities, human or not, make the choice.

Good point. This is exactly where I think many contemplating the question at hand are stumped. It stumped Darwin, when he lost his innocent child to illness and death. How can a "good" God create evil things or allow bad things to happen? The fact is, both good and evil exist, correct? Is it evil to rape someone? Is it evil to murder? Is it wrong to abuse children? Of course! So we must search our minds and ask the question, If good and evil exists, then we must be held accountable for evil. But who could do this besides an all-knowing God?
According to the Bible, God created a perfect paradise called heaven where there are no viruses, disasters, or death. By His design, He also created an imperfect earth full of suffering, death, and destruction. Also by His design, He gave both angels and mankind his own decision-making ability to choose good over evil, in lieu of creating robots who would just do good because they were programmed to do so. The test is: will we choose to do good in face of adversity and evil? Will we choose good even when it means suffering? How committed are we in doing the right thing? How trusting and honest are we? And so these are the things that the Bible encourages man to do: be good, trustworthy, honest, and right--and be rewarded with the very place that you are expecting from God--a place of no suffering or evil or death. Yes, God knew that many would choose evil; but that shouldn't keep the righteous from a chance of eternal life! God is also just like us--He has emotions, feelings, and desires. He wants true relationships with beings that choose to love Him and all He stands for, not with ones who are forced to love Him, because that would not be true love. For example, I want my wife to love me because she wants to, and chooses to, not because she has to. Then and only then do I gain the satisfying gratifying feeling of being truly loved. And she sticks with me even when I get sick, she is faithful to me even when I am out of money, etc., etc. She is committed to me for better or for worse, in sickness and in health, til death do us part. That's true love. And God wants that too. It's easy to love when everything is going well and you're getting everything you want. But what about commitment when things turn for the worse? What about when haters and false witnesses begin to shout "Crucify him!" when you have done nothing wrong? Would your love be strong enough to go all the way to the cross? Love without sacrifice is not true love. Thus a world without suffering and evil could not build the intimate relationship that God desires from each one of us.
Also, since you mentioned hell, hell like many things in the Bible is totally misinterpreted. Though hell is an awful place of punishment, a close study of the biblical description of hell indicates that it is a final sentence of death, with no way of living again. In other words, there will not be millions of people suffering the torment of fire for millions and millions of years like many ignorant readers declare. Thus, the punishment against evil-doers will fit the crime and will be just. If someone lived their whole life doing evil and did not like me, I wouldn't let them in my house either! Thus I see no problem with God judging Satan and anyone else who chose to do evil over good. And my calculations of probabilities for the origin of life remains the basis for all my other philosophical and religious beliefs.

"science must ultimately show how natural processes can produce something from nothing"
See Must God exist to explain how the universe began?.

"science must show how natural processes can produce ... life from non-living matter"
See Did complex life evolve through the process of natural selection.

"That's the thing. If there is no force, there is no universe; at least, not as we know it. We'd have utter chaos, until it eventually regresses back into order again, creating the force once more. Think of it like the Discordian Hodge-Podge principle. Take out either order or the underlying chaos on the universe, and it all falls apart."

Are you saying that there are some things in the universe that do not follow precise mathematical laws? Or is this force just another name for those laws, or some epiphenomenal result of them?

"It's an intrinsically difficult idea to define, as Benja said. I'm not entirely good at conveying it. I don't think anyone can, really, though I am very sure many know this mindset."

Oh, I know the mindset too. I've experienced it first-hand, and I wasn't even raised into any religious or spiritual beliefs. It is one that comes very naturally to us, and in some form or another, it rises to prominence in just about every human culture. But that suggests to me that this mindset is an artifact of the way the human mind works (and, most likely, an evolutionary adaptation, or a side effect of one) rather than a conclusion about how the universe works that can be defined and verified. "Don't believe everything you think", as they say.

I understand that your explanation, in part, is an explanation of other experts' explanations, such as Goswami's, and I don't want to unfairly attack your arguments when the arguments are intrinsically difficult to convey. However, I believe there's a critical mistake you've made, that I will to do my best to articulate.

The universe is either deterministic or it's random. There's really is no middle ground here. There's no wiggle room for non-deterministic "nudging". If something "nudges" then it can be measured. If it can be measured, then we can find laws explaining those measurements, and those laws apply deterministically. Now, if the nudges have no pattern at all, then the nudges are, by definition, random. Therefore all possible "nudges" fit within this framework, which means that either that a "universal force" is synonymous with "the laws of physics", or if not, a "universal force" doesn't actually explain nudges at all.

Both Wittgenstein and DFW are talking about a principle that affects a person's entire attitude towards life. Given the profoundness of such a principle, they associate that principle with God, which is a word people use to convey a profound principle of life.

Using God in this way is much more than "just an emotional reaction". In a similar way, reductionists often say "love is just an chemical reaction" without taking into account the chemical reaction is one piece of a much broader phenomenon.

Under the conception of God expressed above by Wittgenstein and DFW, by saying "God does not exist" you're denying the profound principles of life they espouse. In other words, you're advocating nihilism. Now, as a fellow rationalist, do I think when you say "God does not exist" you're necessarily advocating nihilism? Absolutely not. But do I think that's exactly how a religious person will interpret you? Absolutely yes. If we care about truthfully communicating to others, then we can't ignore the way people will interpret us because we think they should be using our conceptions.

If you were to say "God embodies truth" you would accurately convey an important concept in your mind to a religious person, given the conceptual framework in their mind that they will use to interpret your statement. Furthermore, with that statement you wouldn't be compromising atheism by introducing mysterious metaphysical woo woo (in fact, that statement rules out the conceptions of God that atheists are reacting to in the first place). And by avoiding saying "God does not exist" you remove a huge barrier in terms of starting a dialog with a religious person.

Test your faith. Read entire link. You may never believe in God again.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xAURq_ouYLc