The way I tend to approach questions of theology is by attacking them from this front:
There either is or is not a creator of the universe.
No one has a choice over what the answer is. They can only choose what to believe.
Most people believe that if they do not know why the sky is blue, then no one knows. Religion is an opiate designed to provide answers and placation in the face of uncertainty and fear.
Look at the probability curve. When you make enough measurements, maybe in this case of the position of a star, you may never know for certain the exact location of the star, but with enough data you will begin to see a pattern, and the highest point of the curve is the most likely position of that star.
And so it is with God. We can never prove with certainty the non-existence of a spiritual being, but we can over a period of time and with an abundance of data come to a theory of existence which does not include an omniscient creator.
A lot of people never learn this, but Darwin was an atheist, and his theory of natural selection was based on there being no God. The recent COBE mission proved that the big bang occurred, which one could argue further adds to the data on the 'God does not exist' side of the debate.
As for Enigma's convoluted and quasi-scientific argument, I believe the obvious ignorant nature of it speaks for itself.