Let's just use regular logical reasoning here on slashdot. In this case, you may agree that my belief in a creator of the universe isn't that silly, and does no harm to anyone.
Note that this started when you wrote:
Also, it's not fair to compare this belief that an intelligent being created our universe (which can be neither proved nor disproved) to the belief that someone's dog is that creator (which can be easily disproved).
Am I to understand that you now wish to retract this claim, and agree that belief that an intelligent being created our universe is no more or less reasonable than the belief that someone's dog is that creator?
Because that's what your plea to stick to "regular logical reasoning" amounts to. Either the dog gets to claim supernatural powers just like the intelligent creator does, or neither of them do. Granting such powers to one and not the other just begs the question.
No, you're not following it.
Statement: It's not fair to compare this belief that an intelligent being created our universe (which can be neither proved nor disproved) to the belief that someone's dog is that creator (which can be easily disproved).
Proof that someone's dog is the creator of the universe (using regular logical reasoning), as posted by AC:
Creation implies causation, right?
Causation implies unidirectional time-dependence, right?
Unidirectional time-dependence implies, in turn, that there can be no reverse causation.
Causation also precludes (negatively implies) dependence, right?
Earth is a subset of this universe, right?
If I manage to prove that the Creator claimed-to-be, is dependant on a subset of this universe, I have managed to prove dependence and therefore have precluded creation, right?
Proof that the universe wasn't created by an intelligent being (using regular logical reasoning): no such proof exists.
Therefore, under regular logical reasoning, the statement holds.
So, unless you (or anyone) can disprove the intelligent creator hypothesis, it remains as reasonable as any other hypothesis that was neither proven, nor disproved. Like, for instance, string theory.
Sorry for the late reply.