An argument against atheism

In my spare moments and when I am jogging, I like to play mental exercises and give logical validation for theism or while dogmatic atheism is in fact unreasonable. So this isn't athoroughly develop thesis, but just something that came to my brain in the middle of my jogs and stuff like it.

One thing that one can notice in human history is the notion of the divine. While it manifests itself in a variety of different beliefs, there has been a common trend that societies have a sort of spiritualism, if not a form of theism (whether it be polytheism or monotheism).

Now if there is no higher being (or power), then the world is essentially random. But yet how then did humanity come to have notions of the divine if the world is random? The best response would be that because of their lack of knowledge, there were things that did not seem random but upon scientific analysis it would be just some laws of nature at work. Or something to that effect.

If that is the case, what is the "vehicle" so to speak that would make sense of this seemingly non-randomness. The atheist would probably say God or the notion of the divine. But then we must ask the question, where could the notion of God come from? If human knowledge is essentially the totality of all our senses (seeing, hearing, taste, touch, and smell), what human perception would allow for the conceptualizing of God or the divine, since it is not seen? What would lead a person to develop the notion of an being that they can not directly sense?

But then we have a further complication. How does this belief in the divine become common enough to allow it to eventually dominate. It is one thing if one or two people come up with the idea. There have been people who have been the lone individual to bring up a certain notion, but it never gained traction among individuals. So not only must God/the divine be conceptualized, but it must gain prominence within human society in order to explain the common belief among most cultures. What is needed for an idea to gain prominence? It must explain humanity's common experience better than previous notions.

So, the seemingly lack of randomness is looked at, the concept of the divine is developed, and then the world is explained through the notion of the divine? But hold up, there is a problem.

First off, if there is no God, wouldn't the world seem random more often than orderer. In fact, wouldn't the simple people be the ones more prone to see the world as random, and only a more developed mind could put together enough data to see some sort of order that would imply in their minds a higher beings?

Secondly, the argument is often brought up that humans have a innate need to explain the world. However, Maslow's hierarchy of needs postulates that humanity is concerned about substinence, shelter, and clothing first. Humanity won't move on up until they get their first needs met. Now Maslow's theory isn't necessarily perfect. However, if there is some validity to Maslow (and I believe there is), what room would there be for enough humans to be postulating about the existence of God when food, shelter, and clothing were much harder to obtain early in human history?

Also, there is perhaps, to borrow a term from another field, an irreducible complexity when it comes to the relationship between perception of the world as random or ordered and the concept of God. The concept of God needs the perception that the world is ordered in order for it to thrive among the populace (how many people believe in God and yet in a totally random world?). However, in turn, in order for the world to be seen as ordered, there needs to be a way to explain the order. In other words, the concept of the divine and a perception of an order need each other in order to survive and they can not survive apart from each other (unless one has an alternate explanation for the order, but then that would argue against humanity coming to have theistic-like beliefs since a notion that involves the senses would probably be more readily accepted than one that can not be sensed). If this is a valid observation, an atheist would have to explain how humanity could develop one belief apart from the other in order to lead to the other conclusion. The theist on the other hand has some form of divine intervention as a reasonable explanation.

The only explanation I could see are evolutionary memes. However, that conclusion is just as valid for theists and theistic explanations are for atheists. Furthermore, while I won't comment on it here right now, I find the notion of memes to really fall short upon further analysis.

Also, one could substitute animism in place of the God/theism/divine talk. I just don't happen to think animism came before theism, but rather from the reverse and then the God part was deemphasized enough for there to be little talk of God but the perception of beings having souls.

Again, this isn't a thoroughly developed thesis. It perhaps needs a lot more polish and there are no doubt some holes that I have not seen that I might need to close up. Heck, it might not even be very clear. But I basically post it for food for thought for the more brilliant minds out there that might see this post (that isn't necessarily directed towards you Chris :-p).