I agree...great question, Raven.
My answer: God is obvious to me. I'm sure that's an unsatisfying answer, but it's what I've got. There are things I've seen that seem only attributable to God (e.g. the complexity and order of the universe, circumstances in my life that I simply cannot attribute to "coincidence," and - more than anything else - people whose lives have been radically changed), which are confirmed by something inside me screaming out that there is a God, that there has to be a God, that there is much more out there than just what I can see. Does that make
any sence? Sorry.
In his book
The Problem of Pain (which attempts to answer the question "Why would an all-loving, all-knowing God allow people to experience pain and suffering?") C.S. Lewis spends the first chapter addressing the question of why people believe in God. If I had the book in front of me, I'd just type some of the best passages, but I don't have it here, so instead I'll try to summarize some of his points, and I'm sure it will sound rather convoluted. It's been a long time since I've looked at it. So don't let me turn you off to the book. It's really good.
He makes the point that the fact that people believe in God (and in particular
what they believe about God) is evidence that there is a God. Why would Homo sapiens, evolving from earlier hominids, look at the dark, cold world around them, full of misery, suffering and death, and attribute it all to a good and wise Creator? Lewis argues that looking at the universe around us could never have lead to a belief in a good God. There must have been some other source which, despite the horror of our world, led people to believe in God.
This post is getting long, and I can't devote much more time to it, so I'll plagarize a bit. Here's what someone else wrote (quotes are from The Problem of Pain):
originally written by some guy on some website:
"The spectacle of the universe as revealed by experience can never have been ground for religion: it must always have been something in spite of which religion, acquired from a different source, was held". But, where should we look for the sources?
The "experience of the Numinous", a special kind of fear which excites awe, exemplified by, but not limited to, fear of the dead, yet going beyond mere dread or danger, is the first source; the other is the moral experience; and both "cannot be the result of inference from the visible universe" for nothing in the visible universe suggests them. Likewise, the identification of the Numinous with the Moral, "when the Numinous Power to which [men] feel awe is made the guardian of the morality to which they feel obligation" must be viewed as utterly "unnatural" and very much unlike mere wish fulfillment, for "we desire nothing less than to see that Law whose naked authority is already insupportable armed with the incalculable claims of the Numinous".
Now I'm really confusing you. Just get the book. Or I can try to explain more if you're really wondering about "the experience of the Numinous."