You don't need to accept them, you can just know them. This way you can be sure that knowledge don't disappear.

What knowledge are you speaking of in regards to something not demonstrated to exist?

It doesn't need to be unnatural cause. I use god to explain what is beyond observation. I am not denying facts or science.

This is called the god of the gaps. In essence this is an argument from ignorance fallacy. Claiming we don't know therefore X. In this case X is god. This is not a very sound argument for god to make either as it has the effect of reducing one's god over time as new information is gained. Or it leaves a person at odds with the new piece of knowledge.

They don't need to. The only one who have the burden to prove/disprove something, is the one who try to convince other people.

Umm, no. It's the one making the positive claim. For instance some one tells you they know a guy who can sell you the Brooklyn Bridge. You tell them that you don't believe this person can unless they can show proof that this person can sell you the Brooklyn Bridge. It would be up to the person claiming they guy can sell you the Brooklyn Bridge to show proof and not up to you to disprove the claim.

exactly, which means there is no need for a debate or a discussion in that subject. As I said before, no evidence will occur from any side. People who believe in god, can believe in god and those who don't, don't need to. And problem solved.

False claims which go against the observed evidence are regularly made based on such beliefs.

Now the question is, what is god? If we describe god as the creator of everything, then couldn't god be the beginning of everything? I mean that scientifically.

What if it turns out that it was nothing more than quantum fluctuations, could that really be called god? A very basic definition of god is a being with supreme control over some aspect of reality. So calling god the universe or that "quantum fluctuation" would be doing nothing more than taking something already defined and giving it the god label.

What will happen, when science reach the point, where it no longer can explain something/observe it.

Then it's treated as an unknown and we continue to search of what we can observe in order to form explanations and improve our knowledge.

Another thing that is good to take in consideration is, what decide the way natural things works? I mean, why is the physical law the way it is, what decide that?

This is like asking what decides a round peg fits into a round hole.
A law is simply a statement of fact describing in concise terms an action or set of actions that always apply under the same conditions.

the Big Bang is caused by an explosion of infinite energy

*expansion
*nearly infinite

gallileo challenged the status quo when he proved the earth was round (instead of flat, according to early christian theology).

It was generally accepted that the earth was round by that time. He challenged geocentricism.

No matter if you are a Atheist or not, you would be a idiot to not except that there is a supreme creating energy referred to as God.

It sounds a bit like you're just inserting the God label on something that could otherwise be defined.

But to not think that there is a ultimate energy that can create life would be ignoramus.

The creation of life is not a creating energy but a chemical reaction resulting in self replicating molecules.

But this is my opinion, but over all something you cannot argue with is that there is a creative energy out there that made all life, matter, planets, people, and more. Got any other theory, I would gladly hear (even though you cannot persuade me).

This isn't even a theory and the point that you cannot be persuaded only demonstrates closed mindedness.
What we tend to think of as creation isn't even creation but the reordering of matter/energy into new forms.

The fact that every law of the universe is set up just right in order for life to exist, is evidence of God.

~~~Darth Caedus

I fell god isn't as much as a person but a representation of what we believe our highest standards should be. In the USA where most morals are based on the bible when someone says'"god wants this" they realy say this is what we hummanly want and believe in. The exception is when god's name is use falsly for gain. This can happen in any religon of course.

The fact that every law of the universe is set up just right in order for life to exist, is evidence of God.

This is fallacious (and becoming an annoying repetition) in that you're applying whatever you want as the cause without evidence. You're implying one, that there was intention, and two, that any small change would prohibit life. Neither is the case.

I'm not going to repeat myself again, please look back in the thread as this fallacious point has been brought up 5-6 times already.

A question for the OP, if you would, could you explain what you mean by the term "God"? This thread has talked about the christian/judaism god, a source of energy god, a god that controls things from karma to fate, and so on.

To really narrow down arguments I think we need a better definition of what god we're discussing in this thread.

The fact that every law of the universe is set up just right in order for life to exist, is evidence of God.

The universe is set up just right so that 99.99% of it is uninhabitable and fatal to known life, sure is proof of God alright.

To continue off of what MageGrayWolf said, try leaving the Earth's atmosphere, going into space, being in your "natural form", no protective gear whatsoever.

It doesn't end well.

To really narrow down arguments I think we need a better definition of what god we're discussing in this thread.

Since the OP capitalized it, let's go with this one:

God: the sole Supreme Being, eternal, spiritual, and transcendent, who is the Creator and ruler of all and is infinite in all attributes; the object of worship in monotheistic religions

- Collins English Dictionary 2009