My biggest hang-up these days are anti-atheists (i.e. Theists or even deists who believe that atheists have something to prove). For example, imagine if 90% of the world believed in the tooth fairy, sighting the existence of teeth as evidence for her existence, & making the claim that since so many people believe it, it's unlikely to be false. Would the 10% who don't believe in the tooth fairy need to prove she doesn't exist? Would they even need to provide any evidence at all that she doesn't exist?
Suppose the believers accepted that most of the time when a tooth under the pillow is replaced by money, that it is indeed the parents of the child who are responsible (this being analogous to theists accepting that most of the world's religions, belief systems, doctrines, & ideas of God are incorrect). BUT that sometimes, it really is the tooth fairy who does it (in other words, their religion is the correct one). Now with that in mind, should the 10% who don't believe in the tooth fairy honestly be expected to provide evidence that every single occasion where a tooth becomes cash is facilitated by a parent, & not by the tooth fairy? Particularly if it was being claimed by believers that only 1% of tooth fairy visits are genuine to begin with.
The people making the claim could cite all sorts of anecdotal evidence for the existence of the tooth fairy. They could claim that the tooth fairy is no longer active, but that she once was & there is documented evidence of her being active. They could claim that it's unlikely that the myth of the tooth fairy could have come out of a vacuum, & that it must have been based on a once living real fairy. But ultimately, the only thing that would satisfy the non-believer would be to catch the tooth fairy in the act. Anything less than that, even video evidence, could ultimately be a fraud. And it would be common sense to call it a fraud, an assertion yes, but an assertion founded in reason & rationality.
As an atheist, i will say this. Yes, the universe could have been created by an intelligence. It could have been created by God. And God may well have a personality profile that matches that of Yahweh, or Jesus, or Zeus, or Baphomet, or the tooth fairy, etc. Or it may be a God purely in the deistic sense, a prime mover, a first cause, an eternal uncaused being. Are any of those options possible? Yes. Is there any evidence (beyond the anecdotal & speculative) for any of them? No. Should i believe any of them, purely on faith? No, i don't think so. Do i believe any of them? No. Would i believe any of them if one of them was proven to me beyond any reasonable doubt? Yes, however it wouldn't be belief, it would simply be the acceptance of a fact. I don't believe in water, i just accept that it exists because i have seen it, felt it, tasted it, & not to mention the fact that i am almost entirely composed of it. Were it not for those things, i certainly wouldn't accept the existence of water on faith.
If the universe as we know it really was created. Then it's just as likely to have been created by a committee of beings rather than just a single being. For all we know, God is an organisation. That would really please the Watchtower wouldn't it. And as for who or what created God, or the God committee, or if they are simply eternal beings, who knows. We don't even know if they exist, so we certainly can't make any claims about their nature, we can only make semi-informed guesses as to what their nature might be, but even that doesn't tell us a whole lot, & ultimately there are far too many variables to consider when trying to make any kind of guess, & quite honestly, i don't think we have even half of those variables in place yet.
Still, i don't think the bible is the place to find answers, if for no other reason than the fact that it makes the following assertion. God is love. Love is not jealous. Yahweh is a jealous God. You'll have to figure that one out, because i sure as hell can't.