Shimrod: those questions are a paraphrase of some of the 'Proofs of God' proposed by Aquinas, and his view was that the logical inconsistency of, for example, an infinite regression was itself a proof of God. There are probably hundreds of cubic metres of documents on both sides supporting Aquinas and demolishing him, so it will save a huge amount of time on both sides if we skip to the current viewpoint and agree that the statements are neither proof nor disproof of God's existence.

I think GUEST underestimates religion when he says 'science advances' and thereby implies religion does not. That is simply not the case (although there are always some who try to stop advances) Religious texts don't simply exist, they need to be read, and when you read them you cannot help bringing your understanding of the world to it. So if our understanding of the world has changed, it inevitably means our understanding of the texts must also change.