First being the ontological argument that invokes the belief of the existence of a being that is all perfect, omniscient and powerful. It asserts that God is “that than which no greater can be conceived.” The second purported evidence that convicts the belief of the existence of God is the ‘cosmological argument’ which firmly asserts that something must have brought the universe in to being what it is; nothing can merely come into existence without having some force spurring it to existence (Murphy, 2011). The third purported truth is the argument from design which seeks to base the existence of God from the fact that the universe is ordered with forces and laws that complement each other giving support to the survival of human lives. This asserts that God made the universe with human being like us in mind. Another argument that seeks to prove the existence of God is the moral argument which asserts that we are all bound to act under some moral laws. Laws that tell us what to do. So who is it really that orders us to behave morally? The argument from design probably holds more water. Scientists have not even been able to come up with clear facts to explain evolution and how everything in the universe seems to co-exist naturally as though it was all pre-planned. It is therefore most likely that the creator intended to create a universe that could support life, because it could have had different matter laws to bar the existence but it didn’t. It thus preposterous to assert the existence of God impossible. The theory of evolution has been around for more than a century and has influenced the way people look at the world and proposes that they came in to being as a result of chance and they belong to a species group. The idea has gained momentum and the effects can be reflected in the development of bloody ideologies as people keep distancing themselves from the morality of religion. The theory of evolution has been put forward as an imaginary hypothesis and to this day has not been backed up by any scientific experiment. Trials for this confirmation have further proven its invalidity. Nevertheless, many people have accepted the theory as fact like the law of gravity. Modern science however has proven in regards with the complexity of the human structure that it is quite impossible for life to come about as chance or emerge from natural conditions. What is the meaning of human life? To answer this question at all implies a religion. Social feelings are a source of the crystallization of religion. The desire for guidance, love and support prompts men to form the social or moral conception of God. This is the God of providence who protects, disposes, rewards and punishes. The God who according to the width of the believers outlook, loves and cherishes the life of the human race, or even for life as such, the comforter in sorrow and unsatisfied longing, who preserves the souls of the dead. This is the moral conception of God. We often arrive at a conception of the relation of science to religion is very different. When one views the matter historically one is inclined to look upon science and religion as irreconcilable antagonists, and for very obvious reasons. The people that believe in science and that really take the hypothesis of causality seriously are thoroughly convinced of the universal operation of the law of causation cannot for a moment entertain the idea of a ‘being’ who interferes in the course of happening events.