I'm jumping in late on this. If some of this has been covered, I am sorry. Also, this is probably going to take a while to write out, so hopefully it is still part of the discussion when I finaly hit submit...
From what my Christian friends tell me, they say that the problem of atheism is that is automatically rules out anything outside of the box. Since it rules out any possibility that there must be something that exists beyond what we can observe, it stands to reason that it is a flawed position in the first place. Do you also subscribe to this?
The problem here is the whole idea of the box.

. I am not going to quote the Bible here, what I am going to do, is pose some questions. The people posting in here in the name of science, seem to be missing a few points. First off. Science and Religion do not need to be at odds with each other. Faith in a God, does not do away with the need for understanding, nor the observation of our universe. God is not falsifiable therefor, the existance of a God is not even in the scientific realm, so really science almost has no part in a discussion about this.
That is basicly another way of saying what protectedbygold said. But it seems the people here for some reason, want something that they can put in the box from out of the box, that would make them beleive. What we aught to be doing instead, is wondering what the box is.
When we look at our box, so basicly, what we do here is apply the Weak Anthropic Principle (WAP). Basicly this is saying... (quote taken from a random website, if you disagree with the summary feel free to say something)
The observed values of all physical and cosmological quantities are not equally probable, but they take on values restricted by the requirement that there exist sites where carbon-based life can evolve and by the requirement that the Universe be old enough for it to have already done so.
Ok, so how does this apply to our origins, or this discussion at all. With WAP, we would have to assume, that for the conditions of our excistance to be met (we are here, so I'm going to jump out on a limb, and say they are met), we would need an infinatly large universe for the probabilty of this to be 1.0. (I hope that I am interpreting everything right here, I am not a theortical scientists, all I am doing is rehashing stuff that I have learned)
The problem here is that, what science is telling us, is that space and time aren't infinate. IF there was a single start, something that happened one time, in one place (insert big bang theory here if you want, or whatever origin you choose), then WAP doesn't really apply. So what we have then is Strong Anthropic Principle (SAP). This says that if our universe has lots o' planets, and lots 'o galaxys, then there should be many universes out there, that didn't work out to produce organized planets, stars, etc.
I'll quote Hawkins here... As there are some problems with SAP.
There are a number of objections that one can raise to the strong anthropic principle as an explanation of the observed state of the universe. First, in what sense can all these different universes be said to exist? If they are really separate from each other, what happens in one universe can have no observable consequences in our own universe. We should therefore use the principle of economy and cut them out of the theory. If, on the other hand, they are just different regions of a single universe, the laws of science would have to be the same in each region, because otherwise one could not move continuously from one region to another. In this case the only difference between the regions would be their initial configurations and so the strong anthropic principle would reduce to the weak one.
So here is what I take from this. We don't know. We can't explain the origins off all this stuff we can observe. Science can't answer the big question of "why?". If we have a limited universe, with limited space and time, we can't answer why it started. So if we are going to talk about the why behind it, and we are going to talk about God, or we are going to assume that God can't excist its all a personal choice. Its not a scientific one, and to say that it is, is going counter to science. If the universe isn't limited in space and time, then we open up the idea of an infinite universe, with infinate time, this opens up a whole new set of questions that we would have to ask, and allowing the option of infinate, would seem to leave the door open for an infinate God also.
I am not trying to prove the excistance of God, just mearly posing some questions to those who seem to use the excistance of science as evidence that a God can't excist. We either have to descide that we are in a Box, and if we are in a box there is the big "why" question of the box, or we have consider the idea that maybe there is stuff out ther beyond the box that we can't observe.
(I don't know if that rambling makes any sense to people at all, just something to think about). Maybe we will get lucky and someone much smarter than myself, who is a physicist, or who is very well studied in this stuff can shed some more light on this, but all that I get out of it, is the lack of an answer on this from science, and with a lack of an answer, I can only go off my own observations, and own experiances, and come to my personal beleif system. Which I don't think is wrong, and I don't think runs counter to science, even though so called "educated" athiests try to tell me it does.