I just watched this debate between Ray Comfort and the Rational Response Squad on whether or not there is a god. Obviously, I'm on the atheistic end of things, given that by god they mean Adonai Eloim Jehova (who is neither Adonai or Eloim to me). However, I didn't really see a good rebuttal to Ray Comfort's argument of the implied artist.

Basically, Comfort asserts that since when we see a painting, we know there is a painter, that when we see the Universe, there must be a creator. I forget the details of the Rational Response Squad's rebuttal, but this is how I would respond if I were in their place:

See this rock? It fits the palm of your hand so well, and it's so smooth. It's like someone wanted you to pick it up. It must've been created no? Except that it can be produced by pure mechanics. We have observed evidence of rubble falling into the stream and being sanded down by friction with the water and other particles in the river it came from. The proximate cause of this phenomena is purely mechanical. No animal or human made this rock: nature itself lent a blind hand. We know that a painting is painted because we have observed humans make such things and have developed a knack for telling what humans have made apart from what nature has made. However, we have observed no invisible hand making the universe. If this one rock can be made by blind physical process, can't it be that all the rest of the world was made through unseeing natural processes?

Of course, it is possible there is a kind of god. We don't know what instigated the Big Bang. For all we know it could have been some kind of intelligence. But the idea that it is Yahweh is highly unlikely. If such an intelligence does exist, it must also have created universe in a way describable by natural law and must posess a fascinating story behind its origin and development—more fascinating than the creation myths of any religion.