Regardless, the existence of God is not contingent on your approval. Since we know so little about this universe, and atheists refuse to "look out the window," the unbeliever cannot logically say there is no God. The only reasonable negative statement about the existence of God can be uttered by the agnostic in the first person: "I do not know if there is a God." And we cannot be certain that every agnostic is being honest in his agnosticism.
We all will die, which is one of the rare things with which we agree. We will all stand before God and give an account. He has already said that "not enough evidence" is not an excuse, something that Bertrand Russell has previously discovered. You will also stand before Him --no matter how hard you deny it.
Again, why would there be a god?
Because you know an infinite regression of causes is not only impossible, it is absurd. If there were an infinite regression, we would have never reached this point. There must be an Uncaused Cause. But even Flew figured this out.
I think it's interesting that science seems to now be leading more people to believe in God. The more we seem to learn about the universe, the more difficult it seems to become that it could have no Creator.
I'm wondering the same sort of thing, but in reverse. What is this, The 190th post about this Flew guy in the past week? Whose being obsessive?
You look at who switched in/switched out of religion (See The American Religious Survey p.25). Between 1991 and 2001 a net 5,504,413 people left religion.
How many post about any one of those 5,504,413 people do you see here? Yet one guy becomes sort of a thiest (he most certainly didn't become Christian) and this is supposed to be some earthshaking event how?