In response to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/mukto-mona/message/12145

[Pradip]

I guess you are a self-made "human" to this world. I am an ardent
beliver of God and believe that HE is omnipotent and
omnipresent...therefore, I don't need to look for HIM eventhough I
would have loved to see HIM through my very own two eyes (not through
senses). Since you are contradicting His existence and equating our
belifs as Hallucination...I would politely ask you "what have you
been smoking"? Have you ever asked yourself how you have been
created? I assume you would say God did not have anything to do with
your birth or that of your parents or that of their ancestors. So you
must have an answer as to who made you as a human. Oh let me guess
what you may say: you made yourself, right? That makes you my
God...and I still believe in HIM!

[My response] Pradip, your response sounds very arrogant to Ms Priya.
There is no need for using harsh word or unnecessary sarcasm,
such "you are a self-made human to this world" or "what have you been
smoking" as such. Let me answer your enquiry by stating two points.

1. "who made you?" is not actually a meaningful question. The
question "WHO" made you does not make any sense because one the
question already assumes an answer, that there is supposed to be a
creator, and if there IS a creator then the answer to the question
cannot be but a tautology: The creator created you, right? Surely
you did not ask the question to know the name of the creator. So it
is totally a meaningless question. The right question is WHAT is the
underlying natural cause if any behind the creation of life. And the
answer is already known to us. It is - THE LAWS OF PHYSICS. What is
not known is what is the underlying natural cause, if any, behind the
existence of THE LAWS OF PHYSICS. It is not inconceivable that the
Laws of Physics are there uncreated, from eternity up to eternity. If
we claim limitations of human understanding (Which is conveniently
used by theists to affirm the existence of a creator) there is no
reason to dismiss the eternal uncreated existence of the laws of
physics which gives rise to all diverse patterns and order in the
cosmos. The nature of the laws of physics is such that it leads to
the creation of life. [ Physics+ the laws of complexity->Chemistry-
>biology->Life ] For details, please check the wonderfully written
article of aparthib:

http://humanists.net/avijit/article/who_created_you_aparthib.html

2. your "who made you?" argument is known as "Design Argument" in
philosophy. Design argument argues everything needs to have a
designer/creator. Before giving a reply of this argument, I would
like to request you to read my following article which is a rebuttal
of "Design argument" :

http://humanists.net/avijit/article/god_design_argument_avijit.htm

Now, the first, most common, and most obvious objection to this
design argument is the fact that any god which would have been able
to create the universe (and human being like us) would itself have to
be rather complex and certainly couldn't be "accidental." So, if the
universe and the human body is too complex to be accidental, what
about this god? Who or what created this god? The theist like you
will normally respond by claiming this god is a "necessary being" and
doesn't need a "creator." Unfortunately, this is totally unsupported
and totally unsupportable. There is no basis for such an arbitrary
assertion, except to try to excuse their god from the same standards
they wish to apply to the universe. However, any excuse made for this
god can be equally work for the universe. Why can't the universe
be "necessary" or not need a "creator?" No one can say - after all,
we really don't know enough about our universe or universes in
general to make such a judgment.

This is key: underlying nearly ever design argument, you'll find the
assumption of ignorance of something and then the conclusion that
since we don't know, then a god must be the proper explanation. But
Ignorance an never be a good argument in any meaningful sense.
Ignored is the question of whether or not an unknown and possibly
unknowable god, using unknown and possibly unknowable methods, for
unknown and possibly unknowable reasons, can ever be considered a
rational "explanation" for anything.

Also please check the following links written by Mukto-mona member:

http://www.mukto-mona.com/Articles/does_god_exist.htm

http://www.mukto-mona.com/Articles/aparthib/design_argument.htm

And some others:

1. http://www.skeptic.com/archives05.html
2. http://home.inu.net/skeptic/god.html
3. http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jeff_lowder/ipnegep.html
4. http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/mark_vuletic/logical.html
5. http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/theodore_drange (AANC-1998)
6. http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/theodore_drange/aeanb.html
7. http://www.secularhumanism.org/library/philo/drange_1_2.html
8. http://secularhumanism.org/library/fi/smith_18_2.html
9. http://www.secularhumanism.org/library/philo/smith_1_1.htm
10. http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/quentin_smith/atheism.html
11. http://secularhumanism.org/library/fi/schick_21_1.html
12.
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/george_smith/defending.html
13. http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/vic_stenger/otherside.html
14. http://freethought.freeservers.com/reason/rationalview.html