There are countless volumes that have been written arguing why there just has to be some kind of omnipotent intelligence out there which, like “nargles”, is apparently very good at hiding (my mom and sister are big harry potter fans, I couldn’t resist).
While the specific arguments are vast in number, they are all variations of the same two arguments. That is that everything that exists must be created, and everything complex must be designed.
The obvious problem with this is that any god would have to completely falsify both premises. Any creator or designer would have to exists without being created and be complex without being designed. So if the premises of these arguments for why there must be a god are true, there not only cannot be any gods (since they can’t exist without being created by creators that cannot exist because their creators must also be created by creators and so on into infinity, and their designers must be designed by designed designers that were… you get the idea) but if the premises of these arguments are true then it goes even further than that, for the premises of these arguments to be true there would have to exist nothing. No creator can exist without being created by a creator that cannot exist without a creator and so forth, so obviously there cannot be an infinite string of creators or “designers”, so according to these premises nothing exists and nothing ever can. Clearly not the case.
This is why the people who use this argument have now rephrased it, now they say “nothing that *began* to exist can exist without being created, and god never *began* to exist.
Which is kind of like saying 2 + 2 = a bushel of potatoes, because your godless “math” and “logic” just don’t apply to my number 2. My number 2 can be anything I believe it to be. It can be invisible and send people to the moon and make swimming pools into cottage cheese factories and…
Well you get the idea. Total anarchy of logic. Magical thinking. Now if religious folk want to believe things that aren’t logical, if they want to conclude things based on leaps of faith, this is america and obviously they have that right, but why do they have to pretend to be logical, and scientific and have evidence? Why are there creationist videos with auto mechanics wearing white lab coats and talking about genetics, and why do creationists who call themselves “Dr.” (often without actually being one, eg kent hovind) make a mint?
Why not call it what it is, a leap of faith?
Because that’s rather unsatisfying, I suspect. They want evidence, they want to know they’re right. But there is no evidence, there is no logic. It’s faith.