I think God doesn't exist. I am a naturalist. Naturalism is the claim that only natural causal entities with natural causal powers exist. In other words, the natural world is causally closed. Thus, naturalism rules out any and all versions of God. If we consider Naturalism and Theism to be two distinct big pictures that attempt to address the "big questions", then I think the best naturalistic big picture is theoretically superior to the best theistic big picture. I want to make it clear that I am an atheist not due to persuasion by a knockdown argument for atheism. In fact, I think no successful argument for either theism or atheism exists. I like to take a different approach when it comes to settling philosophical disputes, as I think argumentation doesn't yield any fruitful results in this context. Even if you present a successful reductio of someone's worldview, they would still be in their epistemic rights to hold on to their worldview.
So, a better alternative would be to perform a comparative analysis of the competing hypotheses in question regarding a given set of data. The hypothesis that has maximal explanatory breadth, depth, accuracy and minimal problematic ontological commitments is the one we ought to accept.
With that alternative in the picture, let's consider N to be the best naturalistic big picture and T to be the best theistic big picture. T differs from N because T entails that atleast one God exists. It is clear that both T and N are committed to the existence of natural reality. Then, from the standpoint of N, the theistic beliefs are pure additions and the atheistic beliefs are pure subtractions. In the case of all else being equal, there are no clear reasons to prefer the theistic beliefs to the atheistic beliefs. The only compelling reason to commit to the theistic beliefs would be to show that there are certain aspects of natural reality which are best explained by T. And i don't think it is the case that there are certain aspects of natural reality which are best explained by T. Even If we grant for the sake of argument, that both T and N have equal explanatory breadth, depth and accuracy, the fact remains that N has fewer ontological commitments than T. N provides a much more coherent and extensive account of reality with much less ontological commitment. Considering that every phenomenon so far observed and studied can be explained through natural causes and laws, there is no compelling reason to think that the origin of the universe must be explained by something beyond the natural realm. On the other hand, Theism induces inherent complexities. For instance, postulating the existence of a necessary being without any adequate justification. Theism relies on numerous auxiliary hypotheses to maintain its coherence, which in turn, decrease its a priori probability. This is because each new assumption or hypothesis acts as a potential point of failure. Thus, on the grounds of simplicity and explanatory breadth, depth and accuracy, it is clear that Naturalism is a superior worldview to Theism and one ought to endorse naturalism, and as a consequence, atheism.
Regarding your concern as to "who" created the atom, I think the question itself is fundamentally flawed because to ask "who" is to assume a priori a conscious being that is actively indulged in the process of creation, and i don't see any reason to hold such an assumption. Such anthropomorphizations are, I think, baseless. Moreover, I don't think theism does any better job than naturalism in explaining a phenomenon in question. If the theist postulates a necessary being to account for the existence of all reality, it further complicates the setting rather than simplifying it. And so, I don't see any reason to prefer metaphysical foundationalism to other competing and parsimonious hypotheses such as holistic coherentism. The postulation of God as necessary being doesn't help the case for theism. Both theists and atheists can believe in necessary beings. It doesn't bring any explanatory advantage to the theist. Infact, i think metaphysical foundationalism is problematic because it commits to the existence of a necessary being without any adequate justification. The theist has to adequately justify why one ought to prefer foundationalism to holistic coherentism, which i don't think the theist can do. Hence, this argument fails. On the other hand, naturalism can provide a much simpler explanation.
Furthermore, even if I were to grant that there really exists a meta-base to everything in existence, it doesn't follow that the meta-base is theistic. The leap from a "first cause" to a divine being lacks adequate justification. Even if there exists a meta-base, I think it is physical in nature.
Taking every thing said thus far into account, I think we have good reasons to prefer naturalism and reject theism. Following naturalism, I think God or gods don't exist.
