It's not that I don't understand your argument, SuperNatural, I do, really. It's Bishop Paley's watchmaker argument, also that of the Intelligent Design movement. The universe is so enormous, so complex, intricate and balanced, that it must have been created by a correspondingly immense and brilliant intelligence; it could not possibly have come into existence by accident. Whether at the astronomical or the microscopic level, such specific, functional, complicated structures imply a wondrous creator. This seems intuitively self-evident to you, so much so that it seems to you that anyone who denies it is either an idiot or has some self-serving reason to deny such an apparent truth.
First, I strongly suggest that you advance your argument without denigrating those who disagree with you. Smarter and better people than either of us are both theists and atheists. Indeed, if anything, empirical evidence suggests a strong correlation between atheism and higher intelligence and education, so I don't think you should go there. One could as well argue that anyone who feels the need to invent an anthropomorphic deity is psychologically immature, so how about if we don't go there, and just deal with the argument itself, O.K.?
There are a number of problems with it. First, the history of science has shown us that almost everything that is intuitively obvious to us turned out to be false. Speaking for myself, it is intuitively obvious to me that the earth is flat and stationary, and I cannot grasp the theory that it is a ball that is both rotating and traveling through space at tremendous speeds. However, the astronomers tell me that the evidence tells them this is true, and I believe them. In general, we find that the scientific approach to things works rather well, though not perfectly, and science instructs us not to accept what seems to be so, but to develop predictions and test them to see whether they are.
For example, it seemed to me that if certain deities exist, as described, then intercessory prayer should work. The evidence indicates that it doesn't, so this strengthens my suspicion that they don't.
Another problem is that if you look at the universe differently, it doesn't look so darned designed. It's kind of subjective. I mean, after all, 99.99% of it is just plain nothing. That's weird. Even within the individual atom, 99.99% of it is plain old nothing, or so they tell me. (Like I said, it all seems crazy to me, but that's what the physicists tell us.) It seems like there's randomness and uncertainty at the core of all existence. That's an odd way to design things. And stuff like that. Certainly human existence seems more random and absurd than well-designed and purposeful.
Also, it seems that our brains have evolved to detect patterns and create stories, whether they are really there or not. When we trip on a rock, we have a tendency to look back at the rock accusingly, even though we know that stuff just happens, and the rock didn't deliberately trip us. So it seems more likely to me that my mind is such that it will tend to leap to the conclusion of something analogous to me, a purposeful actor who thinks and creates, even when there isn't one.
Also, the whole argument is really one of analogy--the universe is LIKE a watch. Obviously the analogy fails on a lot of levels. But even more, we just run into stuff we don't know. We only have one universe, so we don't know whether it's more like a watch or more like a turnip; we have nothing to compare it to.
I think the best answer to the ultimate mystery of life and the universe is just "I don't know." To me it looks like people who aren't comfortable with that see a Being there. Is it really there? Am I more selfish than you, or more brave?
