Speaking for myself, it’s not that I don’t want to believe. I’ve tried. I cannot believe.
Is it not because you do not want to, but would rather know for a fact, before committing yourself to something you don’t want to do? .
God is one such explanation. There are others?
Interesting; teach me about the others, and explain why they are just as logically fulfilling and consistent, as the proposition of God’s existents.
Explaining everything by introducing an omnipotent, omniscient being is not exactly reasonable; it only moves the problem a step further away and flies in the face of Occam’s Razor.
Pretending that you have found flaws or weakness in my arguments and then not providing the “reasons” for why they are flawed; is an intellectual cop-out, wrapped in the cloths of reason.
Why does the existents of God, fly in the face of Occam’s razor? The world being an infinite regression of causes with no ultimate cause or reason for being, or the world popping out of nothing, with no cause, bringing us into being, so that we can have a conversation about whether or not God exists, flies in the face of Ocamm’s razor; and being the only alternatives for God, flies in the face of every discovery and scientific medical break through in the past history. I say this because, every thing we have achieved, is based upon the fact that there is a logical reason for everything.
There is a reason for everything and everything is balancing and relying on something else to maintain its nature and existents. If one finds a cure, there are logical reasons why that thing is a cure; its is the nature of life, and because of theses logical consistencies in reality, i can say that there is a God, because he forfills thoughs logical consistencies as an ultimate reason.
It is not a contradiction to think that there is an ultimate reason; this is the basis of discovering things, looking for reasons. The laws of non contradiction, and Occams razor, demands an un-tangible infinite super nature, because that’s the only thing it will allow. There is no other posible explanation, because that is the only “logical explanation” which conforms to logic laws, and the law of non-contradiction; logic will not allow it to be otherwise. The matter, the time, and the space of this universe, has a beginning, and there for needs an ultimate reason for its existents, and since there is no “before” the big bang, the cause would have to be above time, timeless, and the cause would have to be immaterial, because matter functions only with time. The fact that we cannot comprehend what this would be like, doesn’t change the fact that reasonable thinking points to it; it has to be there if we are to think of the world as logically consistent; an assumption I think I am right and rational to make, considering the world we see around us.
The cause would have to have an eternal will, in order for the world to come to be, as would any model cause for are existents; the reason being, that the finite cannot logically be thought to exist without an eternal foundation, an engine which has the universes eventual production in process. If the world is an infinite regression of material causes, we have to think that the world has been in the process of coming into being from all eternity, and has no ultimate reason for being in that process; no cause. An un-tangible, timeless God, with an eternal will, is more reasonable and believable then an infinite regression of material causes. If a pink elephant popped in to existents, you wouldn’t think that it was the cause of its self and its nature, you would, instead, think it more rational, that there must be something in existents which has caused the pink elephant to be real. I don’t think that a pink elephant can cause itself, so why should I think that the universe is a product of its own nature?
I think that atheism is a matter of taste and fashion, rather then an exercise of logic.
If there is another cause to the world, that is material in nature, then it will not be one that is logically consistent with what we see in the world around us; it will be one that flies in the face of logic, therefore science will never find such a cause, because science is a product of logic and works on the assumption that there are rational reasons for things. God is not a cop out; it is simple common-sense to think that God exists if you adhere consistently to rational logic.
This is probably all I’m going to say on the matter; you have not once given me any logical refutation of my position. If you can, I will rethink my position. If you can’t, then I would rather talk about something else.
Peace.
To a nontheist, all theists’ claims about the existence of a Deity or deities look…well…kinda similar, to be frank. That doesn’t make them bad or anything, though I really do hope Lovecraft wasn’t on the right track - but he had as much of a case, from my perspective. 
.