Like OAA, I question my own knowledge. It is how I ended up where I am. I still now think, "well, what if I could be wrong about that" and when I do, I look it up, I try to find out what I can and educate myself.
I accept the possibility that a supreme being, whatever it may be, exists. However the evidence to suggest such a thing is so insignificant, I don't find it's worth believing. Just like I don't believe unicorns, leprechauns or SpongeBob. All of those things have equal believability in my eyes. I will accept there's a possibility for each of them, yes, even SpongeBob, but I may not necessarily see credit due to the lack of support. In the case of SpongeBob, remember we don't understand how the universe works 100%, I would have to accept the possibility that a world where the human imagination has a creative power (in that it is able to create real things), kind of like the South Park episode called 'Imagination Land' or maybe Stephen Hillenburg actually based his cartoon on a real sea sponge he encountered diving, we could be talking about a part of the ocean he's not been able to find and probably kept his mouth shut due to the mockery he would receive in telling people SpongeBob is real. There are in an infinite number of 'possibilities' due to lack of knowledge, but it doesn't mean I get to pick and choose what's 'true' to fill in those gaps.
What I find people who believe there's evidence for supreme beings, be it a deity or aliens or whatever, what they call evidence is generally untested and is dependent on how they choose to interpret what's there. Give your analogy about reading isn't giving me much reassurances about what you'd consider evidence. It's not about how you 'see' things. Evidence is about looking what's there, piecing it with other evidence, sure you may create a hypothesis, but it doesn't really stand until the evidence is highly conclusive.
I would say as it stands the 'supreme' remains as a hypothesis. Exactly what evidence is there? What people tend to do is use the 'god of the gaps' argument and in the case of other supreme beings (usually aliens) a 'supreme being of the gaps' argument, which is basically, "I don't understand this, so a supreme being must have done it". People can't accept that marvels of ancient society couldn't have been created by ancient civilisation, because they simply would have not been able. Who says they're not able? Who says they needed the assistance of a higher being? Humanity itself is capable of great and fantastic things, we can see this with modern marvels, I mean for Christ sakes, I'm creating this post with a device made of metal and plastic fed by electricity. No supreme beings invented the computer, the internet nor have they possessed the power to harness electricity to bring us devices powered by electricity. These much more modern marvels are well documented and we know how the discoveries were made.
So it always baffles me that when we have such amazing things we take for granted today that people in ancient society weren't also capable of doing amazing things.