I have looked at most of the arguments for the existence of god and I find most of them weak, sometimes even laughable. The biggest problem with most of them is that, at most even a successful argument allows for the existence of a deistic type god, but getting from there to something like a Christian is actually quite a long haul. For example, the Kalam argument by William Lane Craig is thought to be fairly robust, but falls well short of proving that the creator of the universe is in fact the god of the bible. Or that such a creator even knows we are here. Craig uses the term “personal creator” but I think this is more of a linguistic trick than a valid premise. The creator may have to be “personal” in that it has some kind of free will, but that does not mean it “personally” created everything in the universe, like you and me.
I can easily concede that the universe has a superhuman or even supernatural creator, but it does not follow in the least that such a being has the attributes that we give to “god.” The creator does not necessarily have to have all the omni characteristics to create the universe. It does not have to care about us. The universe could be a giant experiment of some kind that we are accidental artifacts of.
Unfortunately for theists, pretty much the only argument for the existence of a “god,” while compelling (with one weakness, which I will get to) in a logical sense does not provide the kind of comfort they are generally looking for. The question: “Why is there something rather than nothing?” is the one that is problematic for atheists. Unfortunately the answer “god” to that question provides cold comfort the the theist.
We can map how we can get from the Big Bang to today, so it is entirely possible that the “creator” simply set off the Big Bang. Or maybe hundreds of them, or billions, who could know? So, “created universe” does not equal “Bible true.” Even “earth created” does not equal “Bible True.” And unfortunately the Kalam argument contains the seed of it’s logical doom.
Sometimes the first premise of the argument is “everything must have a cause.” This obviously leads to an infinite regress which leads nowhere. Other times “god” is defined as “the uncaused cause,” which is obviously begging the question. Either way, postulating a creator just raises the question, “Where did THAT come from?” And still leaves the question, “Why is there something rather than nothing?” If god is the uncaused cause, why does god bother existing?
And then, along comes Ockham’s razor to take a few giant hunks out of the last argument standing. Postulating a god to explain why anything exists simply kicks the can down the road to ask why god exists. Which is more economical to presume, that the universe simply popped into existence due to some kind of quantum fluctuation or that some kind of pre-existing, powerful, intelligent thing got bored and popped everything into existence. Obviously the former rather than the latter.
Now, the most economical explanation is not always the correct one, so Ockham doesn’t definitively rule out some kind of creator, but it does raise the standard of proof quite a bit. And then there is the long, long road from “creator” to all knowing, all loving god.
There is certainly plenty of room for an explanation of the creation of the universe that involves something far beyond human understanding at this time. But this gap in our knowledge does not presuppose anything like our usual deities that personally have some hand in creating each of us and personally cares what we do with our tallywhackers or honey pots.