So far among the answers are two which are strongly positive and two which are strongly negative. The negative answers draw on hard logic, scientific methodology and the philosophical tradition of hundreds of years of scholarship to formulate their arguments. They challenge the reader to consider facts and observations, they appeal to reason and present an attempt to resolve the question fully.

The positive answers on the other hand do not present more than subjective opinion. Clouds are proof of water vapour condensing at certain atmospheric pressures and temperatures. Mountains are proof of plate tectonics and an animal giving birth is testament to millions of years of natural selection. Just because it moves us doesn't mean it is divine. Nature doesn't testify the existence of an omnipotent being, it merely fills us with wonder and awe.

"there is no proof great enough to prove God exists to those who do not want to believe it". Another way to phrase the same statement is that in the absence of any proof whatsoever the only reason to believe in god is the desire to beleive in god. I understand that its more comfortable to look externally for moral guidance rather than accepting accountability for your own conduct but unfortunatly the social constitutions of Sidhartha, Mohammed, Moses and Jesus are all old and stale. They are no longer functional and therefore damaging to society.

God isn't needed anymore, it hasn't been relevant for hundreds of years. It was a social construct contrived by the establishment to scare the uneducated masses into acting with social responsibility. These days the citizen has a greater degree of social consciousness (and often education) than the establishment. The tables have turned and we should be finding a way to keep them in line rather than visa versa.