I don't know if there is a God. If I knew for certain, this piece of knowledge could serve as a foundation for my world view. Some people are confident they know the answer (both theists and atheists) and their world view is based on this faith. If their faith is wrong, then it calls into question everything they believe. I suggest the possibility that belief or disbelief in God may not be the best foundation for a person's worldview.
I think we should ask if there is a God. It's an important question, but a dangerous one. Once you come up with an answer (even if the answer is I don't know) it tends to provide a context for everything else. It may be better to first provide a context for the question. The act of asking whether there is a God involves assumptions (such as a preconceived notion of what this imagined God may be like). It should be helpful to analyse these assumptions first.
I now find myself in a bit of a philosophical mess and feel poorly prepared to continue, but I'll try to explain my thinking. It involves analysing the level of certainty we can have about anything. There is only one thing that I can be absolutely certain of. That is that I am conscious. It is my personal knowledge that I somehow experience the world. (whatever the world is) I also assume that others have the same experience. I'm not saying that personal experience is a reliable guide to truth as is believed in some religions. I'm just saying that I know my experience exists in some way. I have consciousness.
This basic fact is fundamental to many religions, especially certain eastern religions, gnosticism, etc. Other religions are more external and ignore or suppress this basic wisdom. I'm not advocating Eastern type religions. I don't know enough about them and am troubled by some of what I have learned. However, I do believe there is a great danger in other religions that place a great emphasis on external authority and ignore a basic understanding of the self.
I wish I could deduce from my experience of consciousness a satisfying and fulfilling philosophy or religion. Some believe this is possible. I have my doubts. On the other hand, I can use this piece of certainty to better analyse the uncertainty of other ideas. It can help me to identify hidden assumptions and maybe ask better questions. It also suggests to me a question that may be more fundamental then the question of God's existence:
What is the relationship of matter and consciousness? I can't answer this, but I can give reasons to doubt some commonly accepted answers to this question. This would change the context for the question of God's existence. Consider a common line of reasoning. A young person begins to study the universe. He learns that the universe is far bigger and older than he is. He might conclude that a God made the matter of the universe and eventually made Intelligent humans out of this same matter. This explanation may seem satisfying but it is incomplete. It doesn't explain consciousness. One possibility is that consciousness is a property of organised matter. This is a hidden assumption of many people. Another possibility is that consciousness is separate from matter.
Matter is not a certainty. Our only knowledge of matter comes through our consciousness. It seems to be a big jump to conclude that consciousness is just a property of matter. (also it causes scientific problems, any purely materialistic explanation of consciousness would seem to do away with free will. I feel justified in accepting the assumption of free will. Either it exists or it doesn't and I can't change the fact that I believe in it.) It seems more likely that either matter and consciousness coexist or that matter is somehow dependent on, or a product of, consciousness.
It's interesting to speculate about the consequences of the possibility of the mere coexistence of matter and consciousness. (It would indicate that evolution or any purely materialistic theory doesn't have all the answers. Although it wouldn't necessarily demand the existence of a God since claiming that consciousness has to be created by a preexisting consciousness only sidesteps the question of where the first consciousness came from.) I believe it is more probable that matter is somehow dependent on consciousness. This idea has a philosophical appeal for me, but more importantly it has scientific support. I'm talking about quantum physics, not various types of fringe science. Quantum physics includes the role of the observer. The actions of the observer affects the behavior of the things observed. Experiments indicate that particles behave like probability waves that simultaneously exist in multiple states until the probability wave is collapsed by the act of observation by a conscious observer. It's as if the universe needs to be observed in order to exist.
I'm mostly trying to consider a different perspective on the question of God's existence. If matter is dependent on consciousness, then we might not feel compelled to believe in a creator of matter. It would still be worth considering if there is a higher intelligence, but it would be premature to assume that the relationship is simply one of creator verses created. We could also consider the possibility that there is only one great collective intelligence. I'm uneasy about this, but I'm forced to admit that it is a popular idea in some religions and it simplifies some of the difficulties of quantum physics.
Some have also suggested that if the universe needs an observer to exists, then it may have developed as a vast realm of possibilities until the mere possibility of a conscious observer developed to collapse the universe into one of many possible states.. This could dramatically change our view of the possibilities of life coming into existence without the intervention of a traditional creator.
I apologise for rambling on so long. I'm trying to organise my thoughts and I hope that others have similar questions. I look forward to your comments.