First, clear away all of the junk that gets in the way of considering this question. It doesn’t matter that there are and have been many different religions. It doesn’t matter that the Bible and other religious artifacts do not necessarily agree with current scientific opinion. It doesn’t matter that there may be contradictions within these texts. None of those issues would be sufficient to either prove or disprove the existence of a God even if they could be definitively resolved.

Second, try to set aside the need to have been right in your previous opinions. I’m going to explain why and how, even if you are currently an atheist, you should believe in God. But, if you’ve already closed off your thinking on this subject you’re just wasting time in reading this.

Third, I think it’s highly unlikely that you will agree with me when you finish. It will take some time to let this sink in and to test the defenses you will probably put up against it.  Atheists tend to think it’s theists that aren’t using all of their rational faculties. I’m telling you that ‘the pot’s been calling the kettle black.’ It’s atheists that haven’t thought the matter through thoroughly enough though “Heaven knows” the same can be said of most theists as well. The question is … do you want it said of you?

There is no compelling evidence that I am aware of that proves to me that there is a God or any equivalent. But there is something we can grant religion with little dispute. Most of our modern religions have provided, presented or included the foundations for a societal and extra-societal moral code. 

You may believe that theistically derived moral codes are really just human inventions. Certainly, all of them have been conveyed to us through humans. It doesn’t matter. The belief that these codes were supernaturally inspired lends them an authority that no human source could.   That authority, imaginary or not, provides a common premise upon which human beings can interact peacefully and even cooperate. Without the supposition of greater than human authority one man’s opinion is no better than another’s.

Atheists have tried to establish moral principals based on common human experience for more than two hundred years. The track record of their success is at the very best, no better than the record for theistically based moral principals. If you want to be a “realist,” there is simply no historical evidence to support the idea that a humanist-based moral code is in anyway an equivalent to theist-based ones and all are derivative of religious moral tenets. If you prefer to think that all religious moral tenets are the product of, either delusional theists or dishonest atheists then the question becomes did those delusional theists promulgate moral codes as good as any atheists have come up with? Or, did those dishonest atheists understand something you don’t?

In the theoretical realm, if we have a morality based solely on human motivations and experience there is no rational reason one person shouldn’t take advantage of another in an if they think they can get away with it? I won’t waste your time reiterating this ‘back-and-forth’ that you’ve no doubt heard before. It all boils down to the atheist hypothesizing the creation and recognition of a humanistic moral code based on the sympathy and self interest we have through our common experiences as human beings. It stretches the imagination to believe on the one hand in the “limitations of self awareness” through the senses and still conclude that some imagined power of  sympathy is going to keep one human from exploiting another’s relative weakness. Once you eliminate the consequences of revenge from one’s victims or getting caught and punished or any of the other social consequences that one is just as likely to encounter in a theistic society as an atheistic one, there is simply no motivational inhibiter to stop you from taking advantage of the weaknesses of others. What human-based, (that means self-based because every human is alone within their own senses in a world constructed of their own experiences), reason could there be not to?

What the above means is notthat there must necessarily be a God, but that throughout its history, civilizations, led by humans who were either right, delusional or pragmatic, have recognized that for human beings to coexist in relative peace and with a hope of relative cooperation, they must found that covenant upon something that is at least believed to be greater in some way than human beings. Civilization requires some sacrifice of individual desires. In exchange, the individual gets access to the support systems that civilization provides. Reconciling conflicts in our desires requires some way to see the sacrifice as justified by a greater value and it requires some system of authority that is seen by the individual making the sacrifice as qualified to recognize, arbitrate or override their own opinion. Belief in a god gives humanity a means of establishing such an authority and justification greater than the opinions of individuals. Without it, civilization would not have been possible. 

No one can prove God’s existence and no one can prove that there is not a god. So we are left with the freedom to choose to believe in a god because we think that such belief makes the world a better place, or to not believe in a god for the same reason. I have argued that choosing to believe in something like God is the only wise choice, but you can cling to the foolishness of atheism if you want to.