Maybe I'll check out the book. Thanks for the conversation.

@William Davis: " I just wish there was a way to detach the requirement of belief."

My personal experience is that it cannot be done. I have experienced this exact thing (from my post above): "At first I simply loved (as an act of the will) that which I easily related to - He who must be the Truth. But, that simple act, a movement of the will to trust in God, made all the difference. It didn't happen overnight, but faith came. It truly worked in this manner (as described in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, section 158) :"Faith seeks understanding":33 it is intrinsic to faith that a believer desires to know better the One in whom he has put his faith, and to understand better what He has revealed; a more penetrating knowledge will in turn call forth a greater faith, increasingly set afire by love. The grace of faith opens "the eyes of your hearts"34 to a lively understanding of the contents of Revelation: that is, of the totality of God's plan and the mysteries of faith, of their connection with each other and with Christ, the center of the revealed mystery. "The same Holy Spirit constantly perfects faith by his gifts, so that Revelation may be more and more profoundly understood."35 In the words of St. Augustine, "I believe, in order to understand; and I understand, the better to believe."3633 St. Anselm, Prosl. prooem.:PL 153,225A.
34 Eph 1:18.
35 DV 5.
36 St. Augustine, Sermo 43,7,9:PL 38,257-258.

This book might resonate with you: Jacob's Ladder: Ten Steps to Truth by Peter Kreeft.

Reread the comment I just replied to. The brain is plastic my friend, you changed your environment, social pressures, ect. Psychology has pretty much proven that emotion drives the human brain, reason follows. I'm emotionally attached to marveling at the mysteries of the universe from the scientific perspective. I've found great comfort and emotional solace in buddhist teachings and meditation, though I'm not exactly a buddhist. I was raised in an emotionally and physically abusive protestant church. I don't doubt that the last ruined Christianity for me, but I've done everything in my power to overcome that last. I've had mental problems (anxiety depression) until I found buddhism, and I found Buddhism through reading books on psychology and depression. You see I am religious, and appreciate your faith, I just wish there was a way to detach the requirement of belief. I'm still surrounded by Christians (90% protestant) and I'd like to participate, but when I look deep inside, I find I think I'm past believing. I don't look at this as some kind of achievement, just an internal truth.
I enjoy the religious experience, that feeling of being connected to everything. You can call it God or whatever you want, but it is a powerful experience. I go there sometimes when I meditate, there are different places I can go. I hate so many miss out on this poignant part of the human experience. I see you are not, and I'm glad :)

@Willliam Davis: "What we think we become."

Hmm. Then, how could I move past atheism? That's all I "thought"....all I accepted.....all I knew/had to argue with. I did not have any desire to become Catholic, or to even know God. I plain didn't care.

"“All that we are is the result of what we have thought. The mind is everything. What we think we become.” Gautama Siddharta
Belief is a powerful thing isn't it? The most consistently effective medicine is placebo. Too bad we can't harness the power of belief without the side effects. I often check the comment history of people I chat with just to get an idea of who I am dealing with. I'm glad this faith has done so much for you. I just ask that you don't hold it against me that I do not share it :)

Chris, the necessity that Aquinas speaks of (as well as Joe) in this argument is not "absolute" necessity, i.e., God. Note what Joe writes:

"Shrewd atheists will sometimes object at this point that this doesn't prove God. They're right; at this point, we've just shown that at least one thing can't not exist. That could be God, or gods, or angels, or a Demiurge, or matter, or mathematical laws... or more than one of these things."

What Aquinas means by necessity is simply that which cannot go out of existence by nature. This DOES NOT equal God. As Joe points out, it can be an angel. An angel cannot not exist by nature because it is an incorporeal being. In other words, once it comes into being, it stays in being (necessity).

The next step of the argument, as Joe points out, asks whether there can be an infinite regress of beings that have received their necessity (remember, necessity = can't go out of existence). The answer is no. Thus the conclusion is that there must be one that is "absolutely" necessary - in other words, the fact that it cannot not exist is not derived from some other being (its nature is not received and thus not contingent - it is uncaused).

Check out Dr. Edward Feser's treatment of this proof in his book Aquinas. He explains the difference between received necessity and absolute necessity.

Not really sure how that answers my objection. He is just summarizing his debate with Harris. Is it just, for an all just God to infinitely punish souls in hell for all eternity for finite offenses. It would be analogous to us giving life sentences for traffic violations.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZZDR1WjOiV8

So this all good God, infinitely punishes people for all eternity for finite offenses. That is a terrible thing.