I am quite astounded by your response to my assertion that the atheist cannot explain the origins of the world because instead of addressing the argument you choose instead to insult me. I make no apology for the argument because it is obviously a valid one. You say that you need scientific proof to believe in something, yet I give you an argument from science, and you criticize me for making it. Christians are often criticized for not being open minded. In this case, I do not think you are being open minded. I provide a legitimate argument and you dismiss it without seriously dealing with it.
I think at the outset, it is helpful to clarify what I am actually arguing and the purpose of the argument. All I am arguing is that it is more rational to believe that there is a Creator. I believe I provided evidence of such. I am NOT saying that because the atheist cannot disprove the existence of God then there must be a God; thus, I am NOT making an argument from ignorance. I am making this argument because (a) you have said that the only truth you are willing to accept is so-called scientific truth; and (b) despite extensive reading on the subject, I have never heard a legitimate rebuttal from an atheist. Also, it is important to note that this has nothing to do with evolution. I believe that the two are not incompatible, that is, it is rational to believe that the world is created and still believe that evolution occurred after the creation.
1. You are right that this is a common argument for the existence of God. This is because Christians simply cannot comprehend the atheist's position because it is so inconceivable to believe that a world as complex as ours came from chance. A child looks at Monet and he does not think that Monet just happened to appear on the canvas in a random display of color; the world is much more complex than a Monet painting, yet the atheist would have us believe that the world is simply good luck. Yet, you try to say that my argument is not rational. It is more rational to believe that a "Higher Power" created the world.
2. Although you are trying to mock the argument by using Thor as an example, by admitting that it may have been Thor who created the world, you are admitting that the world was created by a "Higher Power. This is not a comparative religion blog. I thought the purpose of this blog was for us each to present arguments concerning the existence of God. Once you accept that a Higher Power exists, I will happily provide you with arguments as to why I think the Christian God is the right one, but that is a completely different argument.
3. I am not sure what type of argument you are looking for. I am not sure that you will legitimately accept any argument. I will happily provide you with why I personally believe in God, but I feel like you will completely discount my personal beliefs as opinion so I am not sure that is helpful. To a large extent you are correct in that I do not believe in God based on the argument that God created the world. On the other hand, when I see a beautiful sunset, millions of stars, or the beauty of the world under the ocean, it strengthens my belief in God. We Christians believe that, "the heavens declare the glory of God."
In conclusion, it seems to me that you have admitted that the world is created. If not, then provide me with an argument for why it is more rational to believe that the world occurred by chance than that the world created. Finally, please clarify that you really do want me to share my personal beliefs, and if so to what end?