I suppose that God uses the foolish and weak things of the world to shame the wise and powerful. Maybe that's why HE used what I now recognize as bad reasoning but can not concieve of disbelieving. *Shrugs*
After discovering that it was non-sequitir reasoning that led you to believing god, instead of reevaluating your beliefs you accepted it anyway? Surely there are other reasons for you believing him. And why is your name Zealot if you don't mind me asking?
Sorry, some of what I am about to say is going to be cumbersome and difficult. I wish I could write more elligantly, but especially about Him the words don't always come nicely.
From the inside, Christianity is coherent, or at least it seems more so than anything else I have studied. What I mean is that it explains what I regard to be the critical questions of being, such as the nature of rational thought (such that it is not always founded in quantum theory and therefore always invalid). It also explains conundrums such as the question of the one and the many (are individual rational beings, or the groups that they make up more important/significant?) We tend to want to say yes, rather than insisting one way or the other, and when a culture slides too far one way or the other the results are destruction. By claiming that God takes a personal form which is as different from ours as line-segments are from triangles we can see how both can be equilly important. There are also arguments such as the Ontological argument, Plato's First Cause, the Teliological argument in it's various forms, and so on which support the notion that God is really real. I'm only going to give you a run-down of one such argument, the Ontological argument for God's existance.
The Ontological argument starts with nothing more than a deffinition which you have seen before if you have read all my recent posts: God is the being for which no greater being can be concieved. Presumably most people agree that if God is anything this is probably about the best deffinition of what the concept means which we can hope to come up with. Note that I haven't possited God's existance yet, only defined what I mean by the word, just as if I were to define the word "unicorn" that is not the same as actually insisting that there are unicorns. Contained within this deffinition are a host of implications, but only one is really important: God can do all doable things except becoming in any way less than HE is. We can note that even the least of things which actually exist is more powerful than the highest of things which do not exist. (You have to be careful to accept a very broad deffinition of existance, all that I mean is that the thing really is part of the complete list of everything which is). Consiquentially God has to exist.
Before I met God I never would have found this argument compelling. But ironically, now I see that it really is. Yet it probably never has and never will convince anybody. That isn't the job of theology though, but of the work of God's Spirit. This deffinition is actually more important for giving me something of a map of God.
From the outside it is not possible to demonstrate the kind of super-personal, all-powerful God that Christianity possits. We can come to the gates and look in as it were (Plato's first cause does just that). But there is simply no way into that country by our power alone. I think that it is the divine humility of God which makes things this way. However I'm not sure how to explain what I mean beyond simply suggesting that God is too intent on thinking about and loving me to feel need for boasting about Himself, and the same can be said of absolutely every one of His creatures. As it were, "it never would occure" to Him to forcefully reveal Himself to those who don't want to know Him. Forced love is rape, not affection.
Zealot is actually something of an observation about myself. The zealots were a revolutionary movement in Palestine that existed around Jesus' time. One of His disciples, Simon (who Jesus renamed Peter) was a zealot. That's why when Jesus was arrested Simon drew his sword and attacked the high priest's servant. He thought that Jesus had come to facilitate political transformation, and Simon was part of messiah's army. Jesus scolded Simon, and healed the servant. Last time he came, Jesus came to be God's suffering servant from Isaiah 53, not the returning King of Israel, and all that is. A lot of times I get ahead of myself and act rashly, much as Simon did that night. One of these days it will probably get me killed, much as it did him. The name is a reminder every time I look at it to think before I hit that "add reply" button...