Lack of evidence for spontaneous mechanisms is exactly what made me become skeptical of atheism. That may sound atypical but I think the vast majority of mankind, from the goat herder to Galileo to Max Plank have always come to the same conclusion about an intelligent creator from the same basic observations at various levels of scientific understanding ; That chance alone is not sufficient to ultimately account for the world we see around us.
Sorry, but that's just flat-out wrong. The reason the vast majority of humanity has come to the conclusion that gods exist is because humans are very good at spotting patterns in things, even patterns that don't actually exist. This is why we see shapes in things like clouds, or patterns in groups of stars. Also, most people don't even understand basic probability patterns
, let alone far more complicated ones that help to account for the world we see around us.
I personally don't think that chance alone is enough to account for things. Fortunately, chaotic determinism keeps that from being an issue.
I think the Leprechaunism is a good illustration here. If you or I told anyone we were skeptical of the existence of leprechauns, is anyone going to ask you to offer an alternative explanation? for what? no one will argue about any hole to fill here.
Bad example. The reason people don't act like leprechauns should exist despite the lack of evidence is because nobody's ever actually found a leprechaun, and it was never all that big of a belief to begin with, so it fell by the wayside as the lack of evidence convinced people that it was a quaint old belief rather than something they should take seriously. And even with that, there are still people who believe in leprechauns.
But obviously this is not true for the universe, it IS here, we're here, and the hole is explaining how it ultimately came to be. Can't we agree that the best starting point is a blank sheet, that there is no 'default' explanation, no 'usual' way we know of that universes come into existence?
The problem is not that we don't know how the universe came about. The problem is that people assume, through preconceived notions that they often don't even question, that the only way it could have come about is if an intelligent creator - basically, a god - caused it to be. However, the implications of that cause problems for the explanation. It's like that old saw about the woman who believed that the world sat on the back of a turtle, and when someone said that the turtle had to stand on something, she claimed that it was turtles all the way down.
It isn't really reasonable to conclude that an intelligent creator is responsible for the universe because then you have the problem of where that intelligent creator came from, how his universe ultimately got started, and so on. It leads to an infinite progression which makes the whole prospect improbable, to say the least. That's why the naturalistic explanation is considered the default - because it doesn't require the additional assumptions that are implicit in theistic beliefs.
There is no direct empirical evidence for any explanation, thiestic or atheistic, creative intelligence or spontaneous mechanism. so we're even there are we not? I think we have to throw out all our assumptions, preferences, feelings on what any answer 'should' look like because it's like no other question.
Which includes this general assumption by humanity that an intelligent creator was responsible for making the universe, yes?
But we do have a couple of clear falsifiable predictions made by the most general theory of theism, that the universe was in fact created in a specific event, and that being made primarily for us, we are the only species with intelligence enough to ponder it. The former was validated in clear contrast with atheist predictions of a static eternal universe, the 2nd still holds while monitoring an entire galaxy. That and power of explanation. Nowhere near proof of course, just a little more weight than the competition in my view.
There is no "general theory of theism". Theism is basically a catch-all term for a huge number of theistic belief systems, many of which tried to explain how the world they knew came to be, and all of which utterly failed to do so. We do know the universe came about somehow, but that's all we really know. The rest of your 'prediction' here is just human egotism at work - the idea that the universe revolves around us, and that we're the best species in the universe. It's no different than the idea that the Earth is at the center of the solar system, at the center of the galaxy, at the center of the universe, whatever. All of which have clearly been shown to be false when we discovered enough to test them.