Okay how do I say this? What if Quantum physics simply collapse into a neat explanition of the creation of the Universe and how God was not required?

{edit:fixed tags}

Ummm...Good...I don't really understand why you're asking me a what if that I already assume to be true.  The world would continue, and we would still have to come on sites like this and have these discussions.  The rephrase cleared up the question, now I just don't know what answer (other than an obvious one) your looking for.  It would be like asking you what you would do if god proved to you he existed..... 

I second that.  Can I get infinite guac on mine?  and none of that watery, mild salsa.  Man, what's the damn point 

OHHHH....OK....I was really confused there for a good second... 

An artichoke's a pain even with the assistance of a knife....

To the topic at hand - I would need to be a witness to all the impossible things said to have happened in any given relgious text to believe in its respective religion. This would require a god to (in a verifiable manner) take me back in time and allow me to witness all these things while confirming them (e.g. continually checking on Jesus all three days he was dead and watch as life magically returns to him). I don't suppose this is an unreasonable request for an all-powerful deity to perform.

Guess I'm just not convinced by the amount of water in some fleece (Judges 6:37)

cpt, I think your response to me has been pretty well worked over, but I'll hit the important points again, and maybe add a couple.

It's been properly pointed out that your opinion on the matter is completely irrelevant. It is a logical fallacy, and black holes do exist. We can prove both. You can't prove god.

No good.

Two things that are contradictory cannot both exist. Allah and Jehovah both say they are the only god. Therefore, either 1) One or both of them don't exist, 2) Both exist and are either lying or deluded, 3) One exists, but not the other, and some other number of gods also exist, and the one that exists is deluded or lying. In any case, your only possibility is that 1) it's not "all gods are the same god" or 2) "god is either lying or deluded" -- in which case, you can't believe anything he says, so you might as well ignore him.

I've already answered that. If something completely illogical happened, and god left an undeniable calling card (like the big banner in the sky while bombs exploded into flowers) I'd be happy to believe in him.

There's a difference between nonsensical and difficult to understand. God is nonsensical, therefore I do not believe. Probability waves are difficult to understand, but I have empirical evidence that people who do understand them can demonstrate their existence.

Yeah, I would start with logic. Even more important, I'd work on asking yourself why you want so badly to believe in a god. You might not like the answer, but it might set you free anyway.

Yep. It'll blow up on you. Science is in the business of falsification. It works towards the truth by eliminating hypotheses. Sounds backwards, but that's what it does. Sometimes scientists stumble onto a correct conclusion but their methodology was flawed. Sometimes we find paint thinner when we were looking for lighter fluid. Again, I must ask you why uncertainty is such a bogey man for you. Would the world be that scary if you didn't have certain knowledge of god? From the other side, I can tell you, it's not that bad.

Good. I would highly recommend looking over some logic texts. Here's a handy link to get you started on common concepts and also common fallacies, but I wouldn't advise stopping there. Logic isn't just for becoming an atheist. Your whole life works better if you can spot fallacious arguments!

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/mathew/logic.html

For those who are not shocked when they first come across quantum theory cannot possibly have understood it.

• Niels Bohr, quoted in Heisenberg, Werner (1971). Physics and Beyond, 206, New York: Harper and Row.

I used to be in math so I threw logic out the window a long time ago >_>

Uncertianty is the "boogy-man" fo me and many other people because humans are curious creatures. I don't like something being unknown, and I assume you also have a thirst for knowledge as well do you not? You seem like an intelligent person, don't you want to unravel the mysteries of the universe? 

[edit:added some points]

OK, time to catch up on a few responses. 

...and you are saying that because...? Would it be, perhaps, your own conditions and limitations, combined with a bit of hasty generalization?

I'm sorry, perhaps I didn't get it right... You are telling us that you are a curious man, yet when a question is asked, to which there is yet no answer, you prefer to simply plug in the dummy and call it quits. HOW will that help us unravel the mysteries of the Universe EXACTLY ?

I am amazed by how easy people are convinced into believing something that does precisely the opposite of what that person thinks it says.

New questions are great, and pursuing them is worthwhile, but the question that you just dodged was asking, how does adhering to ancient dogmatic answers help answer any questions, or even find new questions of scientific interest? How is dogma helpful at all? Is your craving for knowledge really satiated by delusions, or do you demand real serious answers?

Nothing would convince me

Why is this a pressing question? It isn't. There have been many myths throughout history we have no trouble today disregarding. Popularity and tradition are all that set today's practiced religions apart from those we regard as fiction. If we didn't have practicing Christians and Jews and Muslims nipping at our heels to recognize their fables, would we entertain the proposition that the natural world needs a superfluous explanation? That the subverting of one's faculties (faith) is a high virtue? I read a quote today (I don't recall where) from another poster, and he said it's not an interesting question. I agree. The question can't even justifiably be entertained.

Who else is getting sick of people using Eistein as a person to prove a point? He was a great man, a smart man, but not the greatest, or the smartest. He was not right about everything, we refined a lot of his theories and they have changed.

Yeah I know. Eistein was great. He may have believed in a god(even though many letters of his said he did not) and may of only said he believed out of fear. He still could of believed in god, but who cares? Does every smart logical person have to come to the conclusion of no god? Especially at early stages of filling the gaps.

If Eistein did believe in god, fine, does it mean your right because you follow what Eistein believed? No. It makes you right if you follow what he proved, not believed. 

Well put. There's a common assumption that if a smart person believes something, that he came to that belief rationally. But that's nonsense - most every smart person in history was raised like nearly everyone else: into a religion, either through family inculcation, or social inculturation.

We all were raised with a host of beliefs that we didn't come to hold through rational means... this is entirely normal. Smart people experience it as well.

Yet you see christians make the argument "Newton was a christain, etc.".......  but none of them ever really bother to examine  just how most people come to religion...

If they did, they'd have to come face to face with the facts that a person's religion is inculcated in infanthood, its based on indoctrination, not reason. Its culture bound, its geographically based....

But theists don't want to admit that... they love the fantasy of believing that they came to their religions as adults, and through reason... so they naturally interpret "smart theists" as people who have also come to religion through reason....

I think that's the, wishful, fallacious thinking behind this common error....