Peacefulpete, with all due respect, I really don't think it's I who's missing the point here. Think about what you're saying for a moment. In essence you're saying that just about everything that happens in life is the net result of countless illions of improbable coincidences all converging at a given moment in time and space and that the astronomical improbability of it all does not, of itself alone, argue for the existence of some supernatural controling force. You're right! Of course it doesn't! But that scenario is nothing akin to the emergence of biological, intelligent life from nothing. While all of the countless incidents in your scenario were random and none deliberately designed and instigated to accomplish the ultimate result or end, each and every one of those incidents is the effect of a specific cause. Deliberate or not, designed or not, each component of your scenario is the result of mental and physical processes already in existence. You surely don't think that is comparable in probability to the emergence of a universe of uncomprehensible symetry, complexity and aparent purpose out of essentially nothing and without a specific cause!
But let me just say a couple of more things. First, my perception of intelligence and design in the universe does not arbitrarily insinuate a belief in "God", in the traditional religious context. If there is indeed an entity, or entities, of intelligence and power involved in our being here, I seriously doubt he, she, they, it, would bear much resemblance to the common religious conceptions of "God".
Secondly, what we're really discussing here is nothing more than probability. We all conduct our lives and make choices and decisions each day based on probabilities. I go to sleep each night confident the sun will rise tomorrow, based on the probability it will, but allowing for the possibility I might be wrong. My belief that intelligence and design are manifest in the universe is based on the probability of such being the case, from my assessment and finite understanding of the evidence. However, I also allow for the possibility I may be wrong. There is simply too much we don't know, to be to closed-minded and dogmatic about what we think we do know.