A powerful and inescapable analogy
A constant mantra that one is berated with goes something along the line: "There is no proof of God."
Of course, surely the one uttering such a statement should realize that an intelligent person should not make such a claim. To make that kind of negative proposition, you would:
(1) Have to possess all knowledge
(2) You would have had to have always existed
(3) You would have had to have been everywhere
(4) You would have to then ultimately regard no authority higher than your own reason (after arriving at such a conclusion)
(5) You would have to deny that there could be further evidence YET future that could provide a rational basis for acknowledging a creator.
Now, a more likely conclusion that one may arrive at is: 'At this point I am not convinced there is a God.' That is a logical statement of that position.
Once we arrive at the grand realization that we do not know everything ( a wonderful freedom), we can be humble enough to seek out further truth. As long as we are closed minded concerning things that are outside of our worldview (whether because it makes us uncomfortable, or we are frightened of it, etc.) we will remain in a self-imposed prison. I know of people who reject the evidence that the holocaust ever occured in Europe, because they are afraid to admit that mankind is capable of that level of evil. But it DID occur. They are unwilling to confront that possibility.
There are presently millions of well-educated, PhD holding individuals who have logically arrived at the conclusion that there is a creator and that we were created for a purpose. Indeed, believers in a supreme being greatly outnumber skeptics worldwide presently. But majority opinion does not influence truth.
At one time, nearly all of the earth's inhabitants believed that the earth was flat. But that belief did not make the earth flat. Majority opinion, even of the wisest of humanity NEVER dictates truth. Truth transcends opinion or reason.
Let me shatter all convention and ask a strange but compelling question:
Could a computer program ever fully grasp the complexities and the intelligence of the programmer?
Interesting question to ponder. For the sake of discussion, we will have to assign a certain (albeit small) amount of reasoning capability to the program...let's call it consciousness, or artificial intelligence.
Let's look at the life of this self-aware program. It is designed to work in a binary world of ones and zeros, interacting along established logic gates, interfacing with various cards and chips (let's call those senses). This program can (to a certain extent) evaluate and study it's environment, but only capable of analyzing the aspects that it has the ability to sense.
Over time, and through interaction, perhaps, with other programs, it may arrive at a very thorough and detailed analyzation of its environment. It may understand the very workings of the electrons that pulse within it's universe, and the physical properties of matter that allow it's memory to function and it's storage systems to function. It may understand the physics behind the power supply that keeps life possible.
It may understand ALL of these things, but NONE of these things has anything to do with the programmer, the creator. The programmer is completely OUTSIDE the realm of normal experience of the program. The program could NEVER full grasp or comprehend the designer. NEVER. It is a product of the designer, and logically, no effect can be greater than the cause.
The program is capable of acknowledging (or even interacting) with the programmer, but it can never completely comprehend all that the programmer is.
What evidence would the program have of the existence of this higher power? The proofs are numerous:
-the complex environment the program operates within
-the complexity of it's own being and the intelligence needed to design it
-the interaction between the programmer and the program
-the very fact of existence necessitates an uncaused cause
If computers ever arrive at true artificial intelligence, it might be interesting to listen in on their conversations with one another about whether MAN exists. Some will say that it is obvious that they are the product of slow, gradual changes of simpler machines to more complex machines, arising from the primordial swamps of silicon. Others will say that logic and reason reveal that a greater intelligence had to have designed their complexity...and some would laugh them to scorn. Some would say that computers invented the concept of MAN due to fear, and for the need to feel loved and to have a purpose.
But, for all of the debate and the reasoning, and the quest for more knowledge of their own environment, these programs could possibly miss the greater picture, indeed, the most obvious yet overlooked reality.
The real problem with humanity with regards to this concept, is not that there is no evidence for a rational acknowledgement of a creator, rather, that there is a resistance to the concept of a something higher than themselves, something that they are perhaps accountable to. This is the true dilemma. There are those who face this dilemma, yet, acknowledge that the evidence is far too overwhelming in favor of a designer, and admit that the creator exists. There are those who face the dilemma, and refuse to take a serious inquiry into the evidence because it might make them uncomfortable in their current worldview.
My personal move from skepticism was a process of investigating the evidences from the sciences, historical events, fulfilled bible prophecy (a truly irrefutable argument), and reason. True faith is not a shallow 'I feel it in my heart therefore it is true' supposition, but the conscious, intelligent, and reasoned arrival at confidence due to the accumulation of supporting elements. God never asks for an unintelligent 'leap-of-faith-in-the-dark', rather, a trust built upon the concrete evidences of His character and love, arrived at through intelligent investigation.
For those who have time please visit this online paper dealing with the issue of the logical viability of skepticism. If for no other reason, you will find some of it amusing and fascinating.
http://4seekers.org/pdfs/Belief041120-PortAlt-En.pdf
-Ktisis
I believe the same way. 
