Well as I've stated before, I think it takes far more faith to think that all of creation exists by chance but we disagree. Simple as that.
I don't think we do disagree. I don't have any commitment to the belief that the universe or 'creation' as you call it exists by chance. I'm not entirely sure that strictly speaking it makes sense to even say that: you think that creation happened by 'chance' in the sense that the creator 'just happened to exist by chance' and that 'by chance' it created us (as opposed to creating something else). On the other hand, I think that if we had access to the real answers we'd find that the universe could be no other way than the way it is, and that 'chance' is merely an illusion. Or we could flip it the other way around. Maybe you understand the antithesis of your position and you are taking a poorly chosen linguistic shortcut. Or maybe, you don't and you really think that 'it exists by chance' is a geniunely good summary of it. Either way - I don't think your summary is meaningful if it can be used to dismiss both actual positions.
Better, perhaps, would be to suggest that it takes more faith to believe that the universe (probably wise to avoid 'creation', for what its worth), exists without an intentional agent causally responsible for this state of affairs. That seems like a more accurate portrayal, would you agree?
I believe that intelligence and complexity existing without a universe or the like is highly improbable on the face of it. And that an intelligent agent with universe creating powers simply 'existing' is more miraculous than the universe gradually changing through simple physical reactions to have intelligence in it that goes on to erroneously conclude that an intelligent agent like itself but better was behind the whole shebang.
We are quite happy to have scientists talk about other dimensions but if theologians talk of God's dimension it is quickly dismissed. It seems to me that the more we learn the more aware we become of how much we don't know.
Scientists do the math. Theologians just wave their hands. That's why I am happy for the scientists to carry on doing their thing, and why I criticize theologians for pretending to be anywhere near capable of developing an explanatory framework with the same power that scientists do.
But your last sentence is precisely my point: we don't know much. In fact we often make mistakes.
So what is more likely: that the pre-scientific common-sense, intuitive notion that there is agency behind the universe is a mistake. A false positive on the old agency detector so to speak is triggered when dealing with concepts for which our brains were not evolved to handle.
Or
There is an agent that for no reason simply exists, and it created us or 'by chance' it happened to be the type of agent that was inclined to create a universe that looks like this with agents like ourselves in it.
Take a look at
this picture. Which is more miraculous:
That the image is moving, but never goes anywhere, despite it being an image format with no animation in it and it continues to move even after you print it on paper...
Or
That the brain is taking a cognitive shortcut which leads to a very convincing perceptual mistake that the picture is moving - even when on another level you are sure that it isn't.
And we're only discussing one miracle - the deist's miracle, or perhaps a sequence of inter-related miracles (the right intelligent agent to create us (that is, the agent we have seems to be fine-tuned to create universes that are fine-tuned to create life like us), happens to be the one that, in reality exists, and not only is it capable and inclined to create such a universe, but actually goes ahead and does it! Miracle upon miracle!) . The religious rarely stop there, the intelligent agent sometimes creates things in a fashion that miraculously defies the known laws of physics, of the evidence discovered by geologists and biologists. It embodies itself the body of one of the lesser entities on one of the planets with intelligent life to give platitutes disguised as wisdom, perform some local miracles to credulous observers, raising from the dead, changing properties of physical matter, defying gravity/increasing surface tension of liquids, flying around on impossible chimerical beasts.
What's more miraculous: That one of these religions happens to be right? Or the 'god of the gaps' or near hands off deist-deity is right? Or that it's all a product of our clever, but very imperfect brains?
Feel free to disagree - but do more than that - give us an argument.