As a philosopher, I've been asked to argue for and against several persuasive angles concerning the existence of god. They have all ended in the same scenario. We can essentially say that we "know" only two things that are related to the topic (according to the semantics of their applied definitions and our goal of progressive knowledge). In fact, the concept of infinity really only confirms that we are incapable of understanding the process. William Craig agrees:
"There are temporal phenomena in the world." (The Kalam Cosmological Argument)
We must conclude this to be true. All of our progressive knowledge (knowledge that is based on an increase in satisfaction) is based on the observable and predictable conclusions of different events. The higher the predictable rate of something, the more we "know" it. Any further questioning of what it is to "know" something would seem to digress from the current goal of acquiring satisfaction.
"[temporal phenomena] are caused by other temporal phenomena."(The Kalam Cosmological Argument)
So, there we have it. Things happen because other things cause them to happen. Of course, this presents the problem of infinity. There has to be a beginning, which in itself needs a beginning. Because this is a contradiction, and because we need and observe the first two principles in "truth" - there is a lack of understanding. No matter how you spin it, both of those conditions cannot exist simultaneously. If anything, it makes me wonder why we assume it's possible for us to understand and comprehend everything, because of how straight-forward the contradiction seems to be. Everyone who attempts to explain it runs into the same problem. Even Paley's concept of the "Designer" is so blatantly flawed. Why isn't the designer a design as well? We simply can't touch it. Still, the contradictions continue: an omnipotent god that must act to attain desires? Omnipotence is contradictory to desire, which implies a lack of something. As such, some people may very well accept that they can't understand, yet still attempt to take comfort in this. They subscribe to the lack of understanding and call it "God". Many are even reluctant to avoid the contradictory topics because of the many comforts. In Night, Elie Weisel says he "did not deny God's existence, but I doubted His absolute justice." (Weisel 42) in the most doubting of times. I have no problem with this. I simply don't think that philosophers who proclaim to be searching for the truth can still say that the knowledge implied outside of the contradictions can be considered progressive knowledge.
