My Inquiry

[Pyrrho]

Alright. So it seems most of the arguments I am getting right now are something along the lines of "we have no proof that God exists, therefore he must not exist." I can rebutt that with "we have no proof that God does not exist, therefore he must exist," but that's past the point.

First of all, if anyone is arguing that way, then you are right that it would be fallacious.  The fallacy even has a name: argumentum ad ignorantiam, or appeal to ignorance.

But be careful not to confuse that with an argument about the burden of proof.  If someone makes a claim, then the burden of proof is on them.  For example, if someone says that there is a god, then they have the burden of proof, which means it is up to them to offer sufficient evidence in favor of their claim.  Likewise, if someone says that there is no god, then they have the burden of proof, which means it is up to them to offer sufficient evidence in favor of their claim.

It is also worth mentioning (again, since I also mentioned this in a previous post), that there is a difference between not believing something, and believing that something is false.  If you have no belief one way or the other on the issue of whether there is a god or not, then you lack a belief in a god, and are a (weak) atheist.  If you believe that there is no god (which means one has a belief, rather than simply lacking a belief), then one is a strong atheist.

I'd like to present to you guys my argument for the existence of God and see what you guys respond with (so far I have not been able to come up with any rebuttal for it.) Please look at this with the open mind that I will look at your rebuttals with

I believe that God exists because of the complexity of the universe. In my opinion, there is absolutely no way this could have all happened by chance. It honestly feels like way too many coincidences to result in the universe we know today.

You might want to read about the teleological argument for the existence of god.  Make sure you read the criticisms as well, for it is generally regarded as fallacious.

...

What about life itself? And not even life, but all the things that come with it- conscience, emotions, etc. We don't have a scientific explanation I know of that can explain the "little voice inside your head." So if there is not a God, what is our explanation for this? How was life first created? And if it was created from biological slime, why haven't we been able to reproduce that?

I've got a few more like this I could put together if anyone wanted. Any and all rebuttals are appreciated!

Aside from the fact that there are scientific explanations for some of the things you mention (read up on evolution, for example), you are committing the very same fallacy you mentioned at the beginning of your post.  You are committing the fallacy known as argumentum ad ignorantiam or appeal to ignorance.

The argument that we don't know what caused something, therefore we know god did it, is fallacious, an argumentum ad ignorantiam or appeal to ignorance.  (It is also self-contradictory, for it states that we don't know, so therefore we know!)