Why is it that most people seem to need the idea that we were created by a god?

Does this mean that most people think that god is something magical?Each person that believes in god, whatever form it may take either has felt an other worldly experience,has faith in someone outside of this material world that can't be explained via the five senses.It is their individual personal right to believe whatever makes them live a full life.

Wrong again my ignorant denialist atheist friend.

The first cause argument tells us that God must exist logically , and the alternative which atheists must desperately hold onto is infinite regression which is a logical contradiction. It is you atheists that believe in magic and logical contradictions, not us theists. So in closing, it is the atheist that must resort to magic and contradiction in order to hold onto their magical atheists beliefs. God is the first uncaused cause that makes sense out of all existence. You atheists need to take a few courses in logic, philosophy and critical thinking, but then again critical thinking isnt teh strong suite of atheists, or else why would they still be atheists.

Cat said:""This happens when parents include this notion, in the education of their children when they are very young, like they do with Santa Claus. In fact if parents never said their kids Santa doesn't exist finally well, people still believe in it. ""

Cat this shows me that you dont understand the theistic view of God so u create a straw man and proceed to knock it down. Your french what can we expect except for someone like u to follow the herd instead of thinking for yourself. To compare teh concept of God to santa shows me that you have a very child like mentality.

Peter Kreeft explains it beautifully and logically here why God MUST exist.

http://www.peterkreeft.com/topics/first-cause.htm

The argument is basically very simple, natural, intuitive, and commonsensical. We have to become complex and clever in order to doubt or dispute it. It is based on an instinct of mind that we all share: the instinct that says everything needs an explanation. Nothing just is without a reason why it is. Everything that is has some adequate or sufficient reason why it is.

Philosophers call this the Principle of Sufficient Reason. We use it every day, in common sense and in science as well as in philosophy and theology. If we saw a rabbit suddenly appear on an empty table, we would not blandly say, "Hi, rabbit. You came from nowhere, didn't you?" No, we would look for a cause, assuming there has to be one. Did the rabbit fall from the ceiling? Did a magician put it there when we weren't looking? If there seems to be no physical cause, we look for a psychological cause: perhaps someone hypnotized us. As a last resort, we look for a supernatural cause, a miracle. But there must be some cause. We never deny the Principle of Sufficient Reason itself. No one believes the Pop Theory: that things just pop into existence for no reason at all. Perhaps we will never find the cause, but there must be a cause for everything that comes into existence.

Now the whole universe is a vast, interlocking chain of things that come into existence. Each of these things must therefore have a cause. My parents caused me, my grandparents caused them, et cetera. But it is not that simple. I would not be here without billions of causes, from the Big Bang through the cooling of the galaxies and the evolution of the protein molecule to the marriages of my ancestors. The universe is a vast and complex chain of causes. But does the universe as a whole have a cause? Is there a first cause, an uncaused cause, a transcendent cause of the whole chain of causes? If not, then there is an infinite regress of causes, with no first link in the great cosmic chain. If so, then there is an eternal, necessary, independent, self-explanatory being with nothing above it, before it, or supporting it. It would have to explain itself as well as everything else, for if it needed something else as its explanation, its reason, its cause, then it would not be the first and uncaused cause. Such a being would have to be God, of course. If we can prove there is such a first cause, we will have proved there is a God.

Why must there be a first cause? Because if there isn't, then the whole universe is unexplained, and we have violated our Principle of Sufficient Reason for everything. If there is no first cause, each particular thing in the universe is explained in the short run, or proximately, by some other thing, but nothing is explained in the long run, or ultimately, and the universe as a whole is not explained. Everyone and everything says in turn, "Don't look to me for the final explanation. I'm just an instrument. Something else caused me." If that's all there is, then we have an endless passing of the buck. God is the one who says, "The buck stops here."

If there is no first cause, then the universe is like a great chain with many links; each link is held up by the link above it, but the whole chain is held up by nothing. If there is no first cause, then the universe is like a railroad train moving without an engine. Each car's motion is explained proximately by the motion of the car in front of it: the caboose moves because the boxcar pulls it, the boxcar moves because the cattle car pulls it, et cetera. But there is no engine to pull the first car and the whole train. That would be impossible, of course. But that is what the universe is like if there is no first cause: impossible.

.

Not so much a need as a want.

People want answers.

Religious writings, such as The Bible, supplies them for many people.

Of course all but one religion is wrong.

.

it's all ego. Being the result of evolution just like every other species of life doesn't make them feel special enough. They demand to be the result of special creation. It's what their overblown egos need.

Their ego demands it...their superstition caters for it..