How likely is it that your God doesn't exist?

Haha, lack of proof is not necessarily proof to the contary, but these agnostic intellectuals seem to assume so. Because they can't come up with a reason to believe something, they refuse to believe it. And so their belief is bounded by their ignorance. What about believing a plausible idea until one finds a good reason to disprove it? That always made more sense to me.

But still, sometimes truth transcends reason and one can know certain truths without knowing how or why, and in that case reasoning for or against such gnostic insights is irrelevant since it's not even in the territory of logical debate. These guys want everything to be uniform and tidy without room for personal choice for what to believe...faithless and spiritless they are.

Here's one argument the site proposed against the idea of a Creator that sustains existence:

In quantum physics, without "something" turning wave functions into manifested realities, reality would not exist -- that "something" cannot be accounted for under any physical theory or measurement, therefore it's outside this physical universe. The sustainer of physicality resides beyond physicality.

Another thought: In a dream, what dream laws point to there needing to be a mind sustaining the dreamscape?

Ah well, if their belief in the non-existence of god gives them security, then so be it. Their choice.

Quote below is from:

The Fire From Within:
http://www.prismagems.com/castaneda/donjuan7.html

To see the mold of man on your own, unaided by anyone, is an important step, because all of us have certain ideas that must be broken before we are free; the seer who travels into the unknown to see the unknowable must be in an impeccable state of being. To be in an impeccable state of being is to be free of rational assumptions and rational fears.
      The old seers as well as the mystics of our world have one thing in common--they have been able to see the mold of man but not understand what it is. Mystics, throughout the centuries, have given us moving accounts of their experiences. But these accounts, however beautiful, are flawed by the gross and despairing mistake of believing the mold of man to be an omnipotent, omniscient creator; and so is the interpretation of the old seers, who called the mold of man a friendly spirit, a protector of man.
      The new seers are the only ones who have the sobriety to see the mold of man and understand what it is; the pattern of every human attribute we can think of and some we cannot even conceive. We are what it stamps us with.
      Anyone who sees the mold of man automatically assumes that it is God. The new seers have seen that what we call God is a static prototype of humanness without any power. We are simply the product of its stamp; we are its impression. The mold of man is exactly what its name tells us it is, a pattern, a form, a cast that groups together a particular bunch of fiberlike elements, which we call man.
      * * *
     
      There are two ways of seeing the mold of man. You can see it as a man or you can see it as a light. That depends on the shift of the assemblage point. If the shift is lateral, the mold is a human being; if the shift is in the midsection of man's band, the mold is a light.
      The position where one sees the mold of man is very close to that where the dreaming body and the barrier of perception appear. That is the reason the new seers recommend that the mold of man be seen and understood.

I like that! Very deep and profound. 

I don't know if this is on topic or not, but my recent experiences has led me to a 'conclusion' of sorts.  This is mostly about beliefs.  What I've come to conclude (although concluding must be some sort of belief ) is that most (maybe all?) beliefs stop someone from learning and growing.  Once you believe in something, the ego will defend that view point in the hopes of keeping its power and control over the individual.  The other day I was having a discussion with my friend about what constitutes balence.  Using terms from Star Wars I concluded that balence is when all the Sith (representing negativity) no longer exist, while my friend went on to say that you need negativity and positivity to co-exist (like balencing a scale).  Then we proceeded to qustion "How can you be happy without the sad?" And that lead to the end of the conversation as we both ended up at the start. 

So as I was reading Stwart Wilde (once again) and he began to comment on judgement.  Then I came to the conclusion that by judging a situation/experience as negative/postitive you create conflict and/or duality!  So back to the conversation I was having with my friend, even before asking the question "How can you be happy without the sad?" you have to let go of the judgement of the situation and just BE. 

So my point is that although some -isms (religion) might have some truths in them, that one should never hold on to one's beliefs because in the end they will inprison him/her.  So this just led me to live a more centered and balenced life, eg. eat good food, medatation, excercise, detachment from media(both sides) etc.