That is not a valid comparison with the nature of reality.
Galaxiom: as someone that appears to value logic and reason, you must be aware that simply stating that an argument is invalid is not a refutation of that argument.
But this is beside the point.
Most of my life I've had pretty much the same attitude that you expressed.
My concept of God is not exactly spiritual, and it is
DEFINITELY not biblical.
It is more that the organization of our universe - the known one at
least, implies an intelligence to me.
If you saw a table with a bunch of scrabble tiles arranged on it, and you read what it said, and you saw this exact paragraph written out, would it not be an absurd conclusion to propose that someone had just scattered the tiles without any thought and they happened to be arranged just so? Or would you propose that someone must have arranged them to form these sentences?
If there are more variations on a chess board after just several moves
than there are atoms in the universe (I've heard it said - and it may
not be literally true but it is in spirit), then the likelihood of
this paragraph occurring by random chance is so close to zero that
random chance could not account for it.
The actual universe is far more complex - and who says it started out with this complexity anyway? A life form - especially a multicellular one - especially an intelligent one, is a trillion times more complex than this paragraph or any chess position. A blade of grass has far more going on than the most complicated supercomputer ever conceived of.
But this goes deeper.
Is there a higher intelligence or is there not?
Nobody really knows now, do we? The physicists and the theologians may disagree fundamentally, but neither of them can prove their position. They can only rely on logic or faith, and neither of them can convince the other.
There is simply no proof one way or the other.
For the same buck as believing there is no God, you can just as well
believe there IS one.
And for whatever reason, believing is comforting.