A brief summary compiled in response to some anonymous comments.
For someone who says “I don’t know” a lot, you certainly seem keen to classify God/religion as something imaginary or irrational.

From the evidence available to me I sincerely think (and believe) that God IS. I have not made a priori commitments to this position. I have spent years considering, questioning, and attempting to understand the truth claims of the Christian worldview (amongst others). It requires a degree of independent thinking to remain steadfast in the Christian faith in a culture soaked in secular humanism such as NZ. But I do find a great deal of comfort from the words of the Psalmist and the prophet Isaiah, and I have been privileged to experience the redemptive, healing power of the Holy Spirit in my life, and countless revelations of His love.

Some evidence which points to a Creator:
Existence ex nihilo. Order from chaos. Life from non-life. Mind from matter. A chain of millions of coincidences, culminating in mankind. Creation is striving upwards — as Paul Davies said, the Universe appears to be specifically designed for humans to arise. Frances Collins, director of the Human Genome Project, is a Christian who asserts that the vast complexity of the DNA molecule is powerful evidence for a Maker.

But beyond cosmology and biology there is also very strong evidence in history, archaeology, anthropology, psychiatry, philosophy, and the arts. The Christian faith has motivated immeasurable contributions to humanity. For specific evidence for the divinity of Christ, consider the hundreds of documented eyewitnesses, the empty tomb, the miraculously explosive growth of the early churches, the documented miracles of the apostles, the willingness of thousands of believers to face death at the hands of the Romans.

a) cosmology: the universe is apparently fine-tuned for life to appear. To claim an Intelligent Designer is far more sensible than MWI speculations.

b) philosophy/logic: it is rather absurd to claim that something came from nothing; God is the First Cause (Danyl’s naturalistic objections fail to answer WHY there are laws of nature in the first place).

c) history: the resurrection of Jesus Christ is a VERY strongly attested historical event. Personal eyewitness accounts, willingness of apostles to die, explosive growth of the early Church. Not to mention fulfilled prophecy (eg. Isaiah, Psalms), divine intervention throughout history of Israel (eg. Exodus)

d) biblical authenticity: sheer weight of archaeological evidence, corroborating documents, and blessings upon human society. Not to mention the beauty, consistency, and divine wisdom of the text itself. It’s the core document of the Western canon. Its influence on Western thought and society would be hard to overstate.

e) anthropology: Missionaries report the distribution of convenient myths seeded throughout unreached people groups, telling of the coming of white people with a book, or in sailing ships, or the death of God’s son, or a great deluge, or the loss of knowledge of the One True God

f) ongoing supernatural events: miraculous revivals of faith and mass conversions (Wales, S.Korea, Uganda, Zambia), numerous miraculous healings

g) the persecuted church: is growing in the midst of hostile environments such as Communist China and Islamic countries. The faithfulness and bravery of believers in the face of death is eloquent testimony to the glorious hope in Christ that has filled their souls.

h) Jaki showed that a Christian worldview was an essential crucible for the birth of modern science. It requires Faith: that nature obeys God’s laws, that mysterious events do not occur by a deity’s capricious whim, that Man has a mandate from his creator to use his brain, think independently, and inquire into the world around him. Scientists of all creeds are generally inspired by a sense of wonder at the mysteries of creation, and delight in fathoming the patterns of nature.

I have ample references for all of the above assertions.

The believing Jew or Christian does not feel the need to be embarrassed when materialists attack religion as ‘anti-scientific’ or irrational. For he regards his own beliefs as not less but far more rational than those of the materialist. He regards them as providing a fuller, more coherent, and more sensible picture of reality. A picture in which the existence of the universe is not merely some colossal accident, in which human life has both purpose and meaning, in which ideas about truth and falsehood and good and evil are more than chemical responses in our brains, and in which the beauty, harmony, and order of the universe, which science has helped us to see more clearly than ever before, are recognized as the product of a wisdom and a reason that transcends our own.

As Bryson unwittingly proved, it is rather absurd to claim that something came from nothing, and in the time it takes to make a ham sandwich at that.

Stephen Barr, Modern Physics and Ancient Faith

You’ll never get “absolute” proof of God, but two millennia of searingly honest, dedicated Christian scholarship have yielded a faith more robustly founded than ever.

Finally I should add:
All of the people that refuse to believe in God, are welcome to. It would just be nice if the tolerance for other people’s beliefs extended beyond a thin veneer. What is important, is how people ACT.

My command is this: Love each other as I have loved you. Greater love has no one than this, that he lay down his life for his friends.

Further Reading:
The Weaknesses of Dawkins
Interview with Alvin J. Schmidt, author of “How Christianity Changed the World” (ISBN 0310264499)
POP goes the fulminating atheist bubble

David Farrar has listed ten excellent reasons to vote National:

1. better management of the economy
2. winston peters must go
3. health system bursting at the seams
4. labour = more tax and spend
5. repeal the Electoral Finance Act
6. stronger focus on law & order
7. labour’s record of political interference in public service
8. education needs help
9. lefty coalition will have mishmash of radical policies, economy down the priority list
10. John Key will be great PM !

Allan Chesswas also made some excellent points from a Christian perspective:

Who do you trust? Why I’m voting two ticks National

I promoted National at the last election due to their conservative record against prostitution, civil union and abortion reforms, their generally conservative and theologically friendly outlook, their preference for small government and distaste for welfare dependency, their trustworthiness and their credibility.

This election is not going to be about whose policies are best. They are just too similar. What the election will really be about is who do I trust.

And my answer to Helen Clark’s question of trust is … the National Party.

I am always so impressed by the character and friendliness of National party MPs that I meet. In the last couple of weeks I have had the pleasure of helping Stephen Franks canvass for the Wellington Central electorate, and experienced the basic humanitarian goodness of Stephen and his wife Catharine when I’d had my jacket, wallet and keys stolen, and they helped me out. Chester Borrows picked me up hitch-hiking a few months ago and gave me a ride from Wanganui to Hawera, and we had a great old chat about education and politics. And it was nice to see the party open to accepting the nomination of Jonathan Young, a pentecostal minister, as canididate for New Plymouth for this election.

As I have already stated, I think that how the next government deals with the recent high court ruling on the illegality of current abortion practice is by far the most important issue to consider, when voting at this election. With Bill English attending pro-life conferences, and Key deftly affirming our current abortion law, but not our corrupt abortion supervisory committee, I think the National Party are certainly best-positioned to address this issue with integrity.

Dallas Willard, Hearing God:

The test of character posed by the gentleness of God’s approach to us is especially dangerous for those formed by the ideas that dominate our modern world. We live in a culture that has, for centuries now, cultivated the idea that the skeptical person is always smarter than one who believes. You can be almost as stupid as a cabbage, as long as you doubt. The fashion of the age has identified mental sharpness with a pose, not with genuine intellectual method and character.

Only a very hardy individualist or social rebel — or one desperate for another life — therefore stands any chance of discovering the substantiality of the spiritual life today. Today it is the skeptics who are the social conformists, though because of powerful intellectual propaganda they continue to enjoy thinking of themselves as wildly individualistic and unbearably bright.

There is a grand Christian intellectual tradition of which our MTV generation is completely ignorant. I don’t know how people can think orbiting teapots or flying spaghetti monsters constitute a decent argument against the notion of a Creator.

[plagiarized from the excellent Quodlibeta blog, emphasis added]