God has apparently set up this universe so that there is not 100% proof in his existence. Why? Since, no matter how hard we study and how diligently we seek, we will never find proof in the existence of God. likewise, it is impossible to absolutely prove something doesn't exist, we will never be able to prove that God doesn't exist.

Due to lack of conclusive evidence, none of us, believer or atheist, can be absolutely sure of our beliefs, so aren't we all agnostics? An agnostic neither believes nor disbelieves in the existence of God. So, yes, we would all technically be agnostics if not for faith. Faith is belief in something for which we lack conclusive evidence. Notice that I said “conclusive” evidence. That means there is evidence, and in the case of the existence of God or even the Christian God, there is a lot of it, it's just not 100%. Belief in something for which there is little, or no evidence is blind faith. So, a believer (in my case, a Christian) is someone that, in the face of all of the evidence they have examined, have concluded that the best possible explanation for this evidence is God. An atheist, after examining all of the evidence, concludes there is no God. By the way, comedian Jeff Allen has a funny joke about atheists that don't examine all of the evidence. This is a choice, a choice to believe or not to believe. Now personally, I don't think this is a case of, “I looked at all the evidence and it could go either way, so I choose X”. I believe that the evidence pretty firmly points in the existence of God, and like Frank Turek, I believe that it takes way more faith to be an atheist.

I am sure that many people that call themselves atheists are what Jeff Allen's joke calls morons, but that certainly doesn't describe all of them. There are some, e.g. Alex O'Connor, who appear to have done (and continue to do) plenty of research, and still come up on the other side. Some, like O'Connor, profess a strong desire to believe (related: Argument from Disbelief). I admit that I cannot comprehend anyone that is sincerely seeking coming to this conclusion. To me, the preponderance of the evidence points clearly to the existence of God.

Some people have a single sticking point, that if it wasn't for this one thing, the existence of evil for example, they would believe. I understand this thought process but, in my case, I usually just chalk those things up to something that I, not being God, am not wise enough to understand. Some people would consider that explanation, a cop out. Well, that's hard for me to argue against because I feel that way sometimes too. However, in the face of the overwhelming number of things (just) in this universe (or really just about aspect of it) let alone beyond it, that I don't understand, one more thing shouldn't be a surprise.

I'm any event, I will posit the existence of the sincere atheist who genuinely wants to believe, has made and perhaps continues to make, an attempt at examining all the evidence and in the face of that had reached the conclusion that the best possible explanation is that there is no God. For that hypothetical person, I have nothing but sympathy for. I can only suggest Pascal's wager. However, I would encourage these folks, and anyone else really that calls themselves an atheist, to carefully examine their life and circumstances and make absolutely sure there isn't something that is causing them to deny the existence of God simply out of an unwillingness to change that thing. Because if that's the case, you are, in the face of eternity, surrendering your birthright for a single meal.

Frank Turek often asks atheists that he debates if they were convinced that Christianity were true, would they become Christians. Some answer in the affirmative, others in the negative. I turn that question around on myself. If it were proven to me that Christianity were false, would I still be a Christian? I guess I would not be technically, but I would still want it to be true. You see, even though currently there is a small part of me that doubts that Christianity is true, there is no part of me that doesn't want it to be true. Further, even if I were convinced that Christianity wasn't true, I wouldn't change my life much, I guess I wouldn't pray anymore if there were no one to hear my prayers, and maybe I wouldn't go to church service but otherwise I think I would stay the same. I would even continue to go to Bible study; there is a lot of wisdom in that book even if you strip out all of the supernatural. I like Christian me, more than I liked Agnostic me and way more than Atheist me. I want to be honest, good, kind, helpful, humble. These are God's ways, and I want them to be my ways.

If you want Christianity to be true, you absolutely can believe it to be so. Just do it, just believe. It doesn't look like we were meant to know one or the other. The evidence is inconclusive. This touches on Pascal's Wager? I believe that a maker best explains the evidence, and I am further convinced by the evidence of the resurrection, so I am a Christian. But I admit that I could be wrong on both accounts. Materialism could be true or maybe aliens, or … whatever. I don't want those to be true though, nor do I think any of those are the best explanations, but if I did and more importantly, if I wanted one of them to be true, I would choose to believe it instead.

I have heard people say that they want to believe, but they just can't (related: Argument from Disbelief). Though I can't experience their consciousness, I don't believe them. If they really wanted to believe, they could make that choice, just like I did. Do I still have doubts? Sure, but I don't live like my doubts are true. I live and think as if Christianity were. Even if Christianity were false and there is no God, what do you have to lose by believing in it and, more importantly, living as if you did? When you find the answer to that question, you will know why you don't believe even though you “want to”.