I am just saying it has been my experience that such is not the case. I am a deist, as such I do not believe in any revealed religions, just a creator. Since most of what we have created is not found in nature, I highly doubt a non-intelligence (nature) could have created life, something we have yet to create, besides bacteria genomes. And even if we could create intelligent life, that would just prove to me even more that it takes intelligence to create life.
there is lots of evidence for
Abiogenisis Evolution is pretty much as close to proven fact as its possible to get.
I'll assume that you agree with both these premises, and that by "create life" you mean create the conditions for life. If however you think there is a theory with more evidence than evolution and abiogenesis, then I'll be happy to talk about those, but I'm trying to keep this post to a reasonable size.
Even if there was no evidence on abiogenesis or evolution, it would not make your position any more or less reasonable.
Whether or not we know how life was made does nothing to address the validity in claims about god.
We don't know where X came from so god must have made X is deeply flawed thinking, it also works for every conceivable deity.
What reason is there to believe your deity made the universe anymore than Nyx, Ymir, or transdimensional pixies?. In your words you've already structured the issue so that a god is a neccesary answer. for life to be created, it needs a creator. This same linguistic presumption occurs when referring to existence as "creation" or asking "if god didn't make the universe,
who did?"
I'll come at this in 2 ways.
1. The reasoning that, because we don't know the origin of life, or the origin of existence, is not answered in anyway by saying a god did it. What made the god? the usual answer is, it was just there / was always there. This adds nothing, you could equally say the universe was there. It does nothing to explain a mystery (how did existence come about?) by replacing it by a bigger mystery (how did god come about?).
2. You are not providing any evidence for the existence of a creator god. You have merely stated that because you do not know any other way life could have come about, god must have done this. This is not a logical way to deduce facts about reality, as it is in essence a non-sequitir. I could just as easily say, I don't know anyway life could have come into being, so all atoms must actually be super intelligent beings that self organize in complicated ways.
This is commonly known as the
Argument from Incredulity, or the Argument from ignorance.
"The solar system must be younger than a million years because even if the sun were made of solid coal and oxygen it would have burned up within that time at the rate it generates heat." (An argument from ignorance, from 19th century encyclopedias, based on the assumption that because there was no means known at that time of producing heat more efficient than coal, this logically put a limit on the Sun's possible age. In fact in the 20th century with the discovery of radioactivity and nuclear fusion, the sun's age was more correctly dated at many billions of years old instead. The 'ignorance' in this case was assuming that no fuel source could be more efficient than coal and oxygen.)
Your argument also relies on the god of the gaps. Because we cannot explain something scientifically, god must have done it.
Say one day we 100% without a doubt prove how life came about without the existence of a god. Would you really concede no god exists? or would you merely shift the gap of explanation say, Well where does energy come from? Who made the laws of reality? Well if you can't answer it, I can't think of a way it could have been made except by a great intelligence, so there must be a super intelligent being that has done this.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_of_the_gapsThis of course excludes the possibility that no being created the universe, that the universe has always been here, or another option. I have absolutely no idea how the universe came into being, however, this doesn't make it logical for me to inject whatever idea I prefer. At one point humans had absolutely no knowledge of what stars where, or that stars were formed in nebula. It would not have been logical to invent a god to explain it, rather it would be reasonable to accept our lack of knowledge, and strive to explain it with evidence, not just an invented preference.
you have done nothing to actually provide any evidence of this god, rather you have seen something in the universe, and you are going to claim a god created it. In order for this position to have any validity, you then need to prove this god exists, or show how the existence of life
As I have mentioned before, the argument for incredulity has superficial explanatory power, but it can be used for anything. There is no logical connect between you not being able to think of any other explanation, and it being so.
Extremely complex structures can form from chaotic systems. I could claim that the
giants causeway had to have been made by intelligence, because I don't know any way complex rock formations could be made without intelligence, and if smarter minds than I hadn't worked out how it was made, that might fly for a while.
Hell, its called the Giants causeway because people used the myth of a giant to explain how it was formed. Would it prove the existence of giants if we had no explanation? Would it be rational believe a giant did it just because there was no explanation for it 300 years ago? No. It is a fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of fact, to believe that anything should be believed until it is disproved.
I've been sloppy here and given you lots of room to address things that aren't actually important, so I'll condense my thoughts.
1. I have pointed out a number of fallacies I have seen in your argument, I'd like to get your feedback on them. If you disagree these are fallacies, then I am happy to go more in depth of the fallacy before we move on.
2. To condense point 1, I would like to see you demonstrate the existence of god without resorting to an Argument from Ignorance.
For example, if I were to try and prove the existence of the sun, I would not start by claiming that I don't know any other way the earth would get heat energy, as that already assumes that the sun exists, and since there are no other explanations it must be the sun.
A proper account of proof for existence of the sun would involve observations of its properties and effects, observation about its origin, and an account for the fallibility of its existence.
It is a falsehood to believe atheism to be the opposing view of deism. It is not a choice between either the universe has no reason or explanation, or it was made by a god. Atheism is merely addressing the claim of existence of gods.
I'm not sure where the idea comes about that it is so terrible to accept that there are some things that are impossible to know at the present moment, and why therefore by default, any explanation must be more valid than no explanation. The burden of proof is on the claimant. I could claim that since we don't know exactly how the brain works, then it must be a transcendent soul that provides us with intelligence, but it would be a stupid position to take because my lack of knowledge of the brain does nothing to prove the existence of a soul, rather i am just using the gap of knowledge to back up belief in something i want to believe in.
I have seen no evidence to believe in any god, over any other supernatural being, ghosts, pixies, demons. This is not meant to be sarcastic or belittling, if you think your belief is more valid than these others, then I would like to see the basis you use that cannot equally be applied to other supernatural beliefs.