I realize you guys are stating your opinion and not trying to write some textbook with official answers. Here is my opinion on your opinions.
You guys are essentially saying, "I can't explain this, therefore I can explain this." Your only justification for using god as an explanation is ignorance. Not saying you guys are ignorant...I am saying that you are pointing to ignorance, to the lack of knowledge, and using that lack of knowledge as a basis to draw a conclusion. Can you think of any other area where the argument from ignorance turned out to be valid? This is what we call non-logic.
Do you not see the irrationality in going from 'unexplained' to 'explained by god' with no logic in the middle?
And of course this brings up the problem of infinite regress. If the universe is so complicated as to need a creator, wouldn't that creator be even more complicated himself? If this creator is more complicated, and we have already established that complication needs a design, then who designed the creator? Did he have an even more complicated designer which needs designing? Or was the creator brought about by random natural events? It would seem odd to accept randomness in the case of the creator but not the universe, since the creator is even more complicated. When we think about it this way, we see creationism compounds the problem rather than supplying us with answers.
The argument from incredulity is a logical fallacy that essentially relies on a lack of imagination in the audience.
The general form of the argument is as follows.
Major premise: One can't imagine (or has not imagined) how P could be so.
Minor premise (unstated): If P were so, one could imagine (or would have imagined) how.
Conclusion: Not-P.
As an example, creationists incessantly use some difficult-to-explain facet of biology as "proof" of a creator. The problem is that, though there is no non-design explanation for how precisely a certain organ could have evolved at the moment, one may be discovered in the future. Contrary to the instincts of many creationists, lack of an explanation does not justify confecting whatever explanation one would prefer. The inexplicable is just that, and does not justify speculation as proof.
.
