For me it comes down to personal experiences. I’ve seen miracles happen to those I knew personally and they’ve also happened to me. I speak to God and He answers.
I think I understand why someone who hasn’t had personal supernatural experiences would doubt there is a God but it’s no longer an option for me.
Are you speaking religiously, where you speak to your god and something somewhere happens and you interpret it as some sort of message?
Or are you speaking literally, where you speak to your god and you actually hear a voice respond?
Welcome back! I don’t think we can “like” posts, or at least I can’t.
I am speaking literally but I’m not talking about an audible voice answering me. Sometimes it is actual words popping into my mind. Most of the time it’s more like God is communicating directly with my non-physical self and then my brain attempts to interpret it. Sometimes it comes through as emotions.
Personally, I don’t see a problem with it being inaudible. If God simultaneously answered everyone who spoke to Him in an audible, booming voice from heaven you’d have a lot of overlapping, booming voices.
This is exactly what I was thinking but couldn’t think of a polite way to phrase it.
Personally, if I thought god was speaking to me, I’d ask her to say something that I could distinguish from my own mind speaking to me. Like who wins the next race at Hialeah, for example.
The solutions to anagrams, little bits of code, solutions to plotting problems all pop into my brain without me being aware I was working on them. But that’s me, not god. Perhaps we should give the wonderful parts of our mind that we don’t see work some more credit, and gods less credit.
But, speaking to the OP, how do you know this is true? You want your path to be correct, so you claim that all paths are correct. But how do you know all paths are correct? How do you know it’s not the case that one, or 27, or 812 are true and the rest are wrong?
If none of the ways can be wrong, then we can’t really say that any of them are right, either.
I have my coherent days and I have my incoherent days.
Now that? I understand. 
It could be that god is just looking for people who are diligent followers and doesn’t really care what they follow. He wants people with a certain personality trait of being a religious follower. It’s like if you want to find people who are super competitive, you might look for people who excel at sports. It doesn’t matter what sport they play since you don’t care about the different kinds of sports. But since a common trait of champions is that they are super competitive, creating a wide variety of sports that appeal to different people means you will be able to find lots of super competitive people. The various religions might be like that. They might all be wrong and just created in different flavors to appeal to different kinds of people with the end goal of finding people who buy in to religion. The “rightness” of a religion may be irrelevant. The only important thing might be how diligently a person follows their religion of choice.
Nowadays god could just call everyone’s smart phone. Humans have solved the crosstalk problem for him.
Doesn’t this bother you though? Belief in God is supposedly the most important thing of all. Why would he give only a minority of people compelling reason to believe in him? And while we’re on this, why do personal experiences almost never include a message that the person’s religion is wrong?
Think he’d come up as a spam call?
Not the no-pork version from the Torah.
Replying directly to the OP
I am as certain God does not exist as I–and probably you–are certain the Loch Ness Monster does not exist. I can’t say as a mathematical proof that Nessie doesn’t exist. Maybe she’s transparent to light and sonar. Maybe she only appears to the pure of heart. Who can say? But come on. We all know Nessie is a story. When you think about why you don’t believe in Nessie, you will understand why I don’t believe in God.
In fact Nessie is far more likely than God. Nature has come up with some interesting and bizarre critters. Who’s to say it couldn’t have come up with a giant eel in a Scottish lake? It didn’t but the idea isn’t incredible. On the other hand you have an omnipotent deity that creates galactic superclusters, is very interested in your diet and sex life, and leaves no objective trace of its presence. No. Just no.
That said I understand religion is a source of aid and comfort for some people, and helps creat community bonds. It doesn’t bother me that people turn to it. Just don’t pass laws based solely on your faith.
Is it, though? The impression I get from the Bible is that it’s more important not to believe in or worship false gods or idols.
What does this mean?
Let me clarify. I don’t believe there is a god. More, I believe there is no god. But am I certain? Of course not; how could I be? There are things I am certain of, but theology is not among them.
Just as a matter of interest, I once met a rabbi who admitted to being an atheist. So, I asked him, why did you become a rabbi? He replied that he thought of it as a kind of social servicel The context of our conversation was that he was trying to convince me to accompany my parents to Friday night services.
You’d know it isn’t when your screen glowed with golden light.
On AXP callers often claim to be inspired to call in. Matt’s response is that God should have inspired them with some good arguments. Also, God could call in any old time. But he never does.
That’s because the Bible is directed toward people who are presumed to believe in G-d, telling them to believe is unnecessary. It tells them to serve him, be in awe/fear of him, cleave to him and swear by his name. (and a host of other verses telling them similarly) Kind of silly to tell people to do that and leave open the possibility of not believing in G-d at all.
I am as certain that God, in some form, exists as I am of anything in life. Why? Because it is as plain as the nose on my face that some first cause, the source of all being, must exist. To deny this is to deny the Principal of Sufficient Reason, i.e. to allow that things in this world exist that have no cause or explanation (in other words, brute facts), which seems utterly irrational to me. My experience is that most atheists (at least most of those who have given it much thought) will agree that some first cause, god particle, theory of everything, first principle, or whatever you want to call it, exists. Thus either deism or theism is true. The question is whether the source of all being is personal or impersonal. Although I am less certain of this, it seems to me that the fact that persons exist in this world means that the source of all being must in some way be personal. Thus I am a theist.