Correct. But the reverse is equally true. In which case…
Why shouldn’t it boggle my mind how people are trapped within the “Nature did it” mentality. LOL
Or… one can acknowledge the fact that this is something about which the objective evidence says NOTHING.
So my position? I defend both theism and atheism as both being rational alternatives. This means I reject all the proofs and arguments for the existence of God as being invalid. And yet I am a theist. BECAUSE the failure of these arguments do not equal an argument that God does not exist. The plain fact of the matter is that I am biased against these arguments because they necessarily point to a God which I do not believe in. Objective evidence only exists because of the space-time mathematical equations of the laws of nature which force things on us. Since God is not a part of this mathematical space-time structure then you would not expect there to be any such evidence.
What you would expect if such a God exists (theist kind rather than the Deist kind) is that the laws of nature are not causally closed. And what do you know… they are not. Sure theists have had quite a number of things wrong over the history of mankind. But not always. Theists also have this big “I told you so” when it comes to the universe having a beginning rather than being steady state. Thus there have been surprises for both points of view.
But I suppose you can say that I am at least part agnostic… agnostic with respect to objective knowledge of the existence of God – I don’t think that is possible. But I am still a theist… about 1.5 on the Dawkins scale.
So… why do I believe? Link.