Do you think?

When contemplating the universe and God, do you think it requires more faith to believe that the universe we live was created by God, or that it is here but there is no God?

The point of my question is regardless of your answer the universe is here as is, so both answers must account for everything in it.  

That being true both responces equally must carry the same weight making them equal in necessity explanations for everything.

I contemplate just the Universe and it's quite awesome!

The cause of something doesn't have to be able to think you know.

Under many circumstances, you are right, but thinking is required to set up error-checking and integrated systems that function in a homeostatic manner. Throw in writing, reading, information storage, and information directing and executing processes, and those are not the types of things. So, the reasonable inference for the best explanation would be blind chance over time, or a setup job?

"thinking is required to set up error-checking and integrated systems that function in a homeostatic manner"

And yet outside of Creationist ideology this principle is not commonly held. At least most of the smartest scientists on the planet are searching for the naturalistic explanation for the emergence of the Cosmos and that of life. That would be largely a waste of their time if what you claim is true.

Funny, you call the smartest scientists those who buy into chance and time as if it were "the naturalistic" explanation when in fact it is nowhere near it. You cannot find anywhere at any time someone outside of stating a theory show that to be true, just so stories are as close as you get.

Would it be a big deal to God to create a fine tuned universe out of nothing? The alternative explanation is an (I don’t know, I just know God didn’t) as if you had some other explanation to compare it to creation for life to exist.

Finding some proposed explanation to lack plausibility, such that it can't sensibly be believed as fact, is not to dismiss the explanation as being false.

This is why I stopped describing myself as an "atheist" many years ago because it caused some people to think I was denying the very existence of some unspecified creator-entity. There's no way of proving the non-existence of anything, so I now call myself by the simpler 'non-believer'.

I have yet to encounter any description of a creator-entity that's at all plausible.

The problem with the Creator thing is, if you accept that, you must also accept magic. 
That is a giant leap of faith.

Nothing about God being a Creator is unnatural; God creating everything is the natural way of things. You cannot come up with anything that explains reality, or, for that matter, even much simpler issues, such as the information directing biological activity. Saying God isn’t plausible is circular reasoning, assuming He isn't real, so it isn’t possible He is.

"God creating everything is the natural way of things" - if so what might be learnt from it?

Good design examples need to be exemplified; we already draw inspiration from biology and put it to use, so nothing new or different. What do you think we get from believing chance did it all, instead of deliberate causes?

In what sense are you using the term 'design'? What are you claiming was designed?

Everything

You claim nothing is correct, outside of what the living do now?

Ok, let's proceed with this. I know it's becoming a little hackneyed but in order to demonstrate 'design' in living things, you do need to explain this...

"The recurrent laryngeal nerve in a giraffe can be about 4.6 meters (15 feet) long, according to Wikipedia. This length is due to the nerve's circuitous path, descending from the brain, looping around the aorta in the chest, and then returning to the larynx. This long detour is often cited as an example of suboptimal design resulting from evolutionary processes"

Say you buy a new car and not long after you notice that the windscreen (/'windshield') wipers have stopped working. The problem seems to be electrical so you take a look at the wiring diagram and discover that the wire that controls the wipers instead of being routed by the shortest path is taken via a circuitous one all around the rear of the vehicle, down the passenger side and eventually arrives at the motor for the wipers.

What automotive manufacturer would ever 'design' a vehicle like that?

And yet that is what the recurrent laryngeal nerve of the giraffe represents, the outcome that no designer in their right mind would ever design.

Does the design of the giraffe work so that it lives as it is, and do you think you can do better? Why haven't you built a lifeform from scratch?

You're missing, or avoiding (?), the essential point! If it's true that all life is 'designed', as you insist, then aberrations in such design need to be explained.

Would you please explain this aberration?

I can acknowledge the internal workings of a jet engine, but that doesn't mean I can explain why it works or some of the systems within it. You complaining about something that works as if it’s somehow wrong needs to be explained beyond; that is not the way you'd do it.

The argument that a feature can be explained by evolutionary processes but not by any form of 'design' that we understand, is a powerful one.

The bodily layout of the giraffe's aquatic ancestor was a lot more efficient but with the many evolutionary changes that have occurred since, over millions and millions of years, the giraffe is left with a layout that makes no sense at all from the perspective of design.