I subscribe to classical theism (vs personalist neotheism) with scholastic Aristotelian-Thomist metaphysics (hylemorphism and essentialism), and natural law theory as ethics.
This worldview implies that I endorse the following (often hardcore common sense) notions that mostly would have to be denied by a consistent materialism and naturalism (compare Alexander Rosenberg's book "An Atheist's Guide to Reality"):
As committed Christian theist I reject the incoherent world view of naturalism, which necessarily implies atheistic materialism and scientism and thus automatically leads to nihilism.
As Aristotelian-Thomist thinker I subscribe to a relational view of time (change is fundamental) and space (contra the substantival view of the Minkowski spacetime block universe), a neo-Lorentzian interpretation of special relativity, an Aristotelian-Thomist interpretation (sensu Wolfgang Smith) of quantum mechanics, and possibly a canonical quantum gravity with fixed foliation. I support the Aristotelian view of immanent teleology pervading all of nature, and thus reject purely mechanistic explanations of biological complexity and diversity. However, unlike some Thomist philosophers (e.g., Edward Feser) I reject the deistic notion of "Theistic Evolution" (sensu BioLogos) and endorse the necessity of divine intervention (infusion of information) in the origin and history of life.
I currently evaluate the merits of a monistic (quantum) idealism and weak (Palamite) panentheism, which would consider the spatiotemporal world as a kind of simulation in the timeless mind of God. Such an idealistic metaphysics arguably could be compatible with orthodox Christianity as elaborated by Johanan Raatz, Michael Jones from Inspiring Philosophy, and Christian Idealism and Apologetics. However, I definitely prefer AT metaphysics, because I fail to see how monistic idealism could be compatible with or superior to classical theism. I also reject its commitment to an eternalist view of time as unacceptable.
What about other alternative world views?
During my nearly 15 years of intensive studies of metaphysics and philosophy, I thoroughly evaluated very different alternative world views like atheistic materialism (naturalism), Eastern non-dualism, Integral Thought, quantum mysticism, process philosophy, objective idealism, neoplatonism, mathematical monism, and deism. I studied most of the pro and con arguments, and ultimately came to the conclusion that there are only three serious and potentially viable alternatives to a theistic world view:
However, all three alternatives ultimately involve much more severe problems, absurdities, and incoherences than theistic world view:
No world view apart from theism can really account for an enduring and unified self. Thus, if you do believe that YOU exist, than you must accept theism! There is an easy test if you do believe that you exist as an enduring and unified self with free will:
If you answered any of these questions with yes, than you are highly irrational if you still embrace atheism and materialism, because these world views are totally incompatible with the fundamental beliefs you just confirmed.
In my view the following propositions represent metaphysical laws that prove theism:
* Non-existence (non-being) can never give rise to existence (being)
* Potentiality can never give rise to actuality
* Non-life can never give rise to life (self-reproduction and maintaining order against entropy)
* Non-sentient matter can never give rise to sentience (consciousness, qualia)
* Impersonality can never give rise to personality
* Non-rationality can never give rise to rationality (intelligence)
* Non-intentionality can never give rise to intentionality (aboutness)
* Non-information (chaos) can never give rise to (complex) information
* Non-value can never give rise to value
* 'Is' can never give rise to ought (morality, moral obligation)
* Imperfection can never give rise to perfection
* Contingency can never give rise to necessity
* Finitude can never give rise to infinity
To sum up: There are no reasonable alternatives to theism, and therefore as rational human one should believe in God.