And the most close mindedness and most dishonest belief is, the atheistic view, that all things have come about by chance, which is also the height of absurity.[/b]
There is probably not an atheist on this planet that believes that all things have came about by chance. To say that a god was not the thing that brought all creation into existence is not to claim it all came about by chance. Similarly, not having an explanation as yet as to why the universe came into existence does not mean that you accept that chance must be the solution.
However, the logical problem with your position is that, if you argue that something (such as a god) must have initiated the mind-boggling complexity of the universe and everything that resides in it, the thing that did initiate it must be at least as mind-bogglingly complex to be able to do so. If so, did this thing come into existence "by chance". If so, by your own words, that is absurd. If not, who or what created it? And then, who created that, ad infinitum.
Or if your answer is that the thing always existed, then why can we not say the same of what formed the universe, without invoking a god? I do not see any reason why this explanation is inherently less likely, and many reasons why it is more plausible.
But, unfortunately, no believer in a god that I have met ever attempts to explain why, as I expect we shall see if any believers post in response. All I get is assertions, not explanations.
Some say that is what faith is, but that seems very unsatisfactory, as there are so many things that we might believe in (e.g. the Loch Ness Monster), but we generally don't, either by applying logical thought or by research to test for existence. Why is the possible existence of a god (a far more important question than the Loch Ness Monster) exempt from this process?
I also suspect that many (perhaps not all) of those that make a virtue of the need for faith would, in fact, rejoice in the production of evidence proving the existence of their god, in which case they are admitting that their original argument over the importance of faith would have been a smokescreen for their inability to justify their beliefs. If this is not a smokescreen, why do some religions put such stock in miracles? Aren't these used as evidence, which surely undermines the faith concept.
But I remain hopeful, as I would like to understand why believers are so certain of their views, without any doubts that their beliefs simply reflect their upbringing etc, or why believers in a single god are so sure their god is the only true god when millions of other decent and good people believe the same of another god.