Surely this has been said before: a lack of explanation is not proof for the existence of God.
We must speak plainly; the belief of theism is about the benefit of power. [We know this is the case because there is no revision.]
A theist starts out with a very specific idea of God. But when we challenge the nature of this belief (when we ask a man why he is a Trinitarianism as opposed to a Deist) we are met with silence. Of course, there are those who believe they can prove a supernatural thing from the basis of a historical claim. But even if we grant the credibility of their historical claim, it does not lead to the conclusion of the existence of a very specific supernatural thing.
I have generally found that theists are not aware of the nature of their belief, which is to say, their critical thinking skills are so poor they cannot tell when their theism has been refuted. Where is the theist that understands the fallacy of Non-Sequitur; where is the theist that understands the fallacy of Special Pleading? [which explains why these are the common modes of justification.] A man insists on being a Christian for the sake of power (honesty has nothing to do with) (truth has nothing to do with it).
So let us grant the premise that life requires a Creator. (Is it also possible to conclude, from the basis of this logic, that this Creator is one as opposed to many)? That he is personal as opposed to indifferent? To do this the theist must violate the logic of his original syllogism. He must not only appeal to another syllogism, but he must impose this syllogism on the original thesis.
An honest theist would follow the logic wherever it leads. An honest theist would join us in the refutation and repudiation of religion (because at best he would be a deist or a polytheist). But why does the theist insist (even after we have granted the premise of his natural theology) on holding onto his specific deity? This is because his belief is about power; he is only interested in the declaratory power the belief can bring. He wants to use his belief to dictate reality to men, which puts him in the place of the master of reality; the propositions of his particular religion give him a sense of significance and superiority (which amount to nothing more than authoritarian assertions).
This particular kind of religious man loves to moralize; he loves to set his fellow man straight according to the dictates of his metaphysics. He loves to use the word sin! We call this a sickness; we call this a manifestation of the incompetence of the person, an intellectual and moral insecurity.