This ended up a bit longer than I had anticipated HiddenX so forgive me.
False dichotomy -> then tell me more possibilities, please.
The false dichotomy you gave is that 2 exists at all.
When you meet the universe, you percieve the universe.
Perception in cognitive psychology is when the human mind comprehend and order it's input.
We humans use words like "coincidence" and "pure chance" when something is beyond our capacity to comprehend (and percieve). Thus order and chaos are from our point of view. In fact, where one person see order, another can see chaos, vice versa.
The careful study of the universe may help us to understand some of it's basic properties. When we get aware of these properties we can predict the future with a good chance of being right. Plus is drawn to minus for example. This is an essential natural property of pretty much everything we percieve in this world.
So there is no "pure chance" or "coincidence" just because we fail to comprehend. Thanks to the basic properties of the contents of the universe it could not "happen" any other way.
Let's remember perception when we go to…
a cause, a plan, a beginning, a root, there's a maker -> there's a God
I disagree on "perfect" and "fantastic". -> what is more fantastic and perfect than a beautiful butterfly flying in wind and I can watch it and think and reflect about it ? - just one example.
Each one of the words "cause", "beginning", "perfect", "fantastic", "plan" or "maker" are human. First of all the most important skill of our perception is making patterns in which the idea of "cause" is very important to us. We cannot live without seeing patterns and they help us all day through. This is not a foolproof behavior. Sometimes we do not see patterns where they exist, sometimes we see patterns where they do not exist.
Now the idea "beginning" (or root) is a concept that pretty much only exist within human perception. To introduce the idea of "beginning" or "end" we must first percieve a concept that might begin and end. Freedom, a flower, the universe. Each of these concepts are in the mind of the perciever who comprehend the sum of it's parts. We are the only one who care about the beginning or end of these concepts.
Does "freedom" objectively exist so that it can begin and end? Well, freedom exist to us and that might be all that matter in the end. How about that "flower". The "flower" is what we percieve. In essence it's the sum of particles living their own lives and when that "flower" is dead and gone to us, the particles still exist but take other forms. Here is the important thing about that flower; it exists to
us, regardless what reality have to say about it. We can understand that a flower is a flower to us, enjoy that flower and it's "beauty", but may also understand that it's all in our head. So now we come to the concept of the "universe". The idea of "beginning" or "end" applied to the "universe" is a problematic one, because the "universe" is one of those extremely abstract concepts that we humans use. The question is if we shouldn't even begin to discuss "beginning" of a concept we can't barely grasp or agree on. We can't even agree on "freedom" above, and some might call the flower above ugly and others "perfect".
Let's instead discuss the "maker" and "god".
There are two rules of our perception I wanted to lift forth here. The first is
pareidolia. A healthy human being is an expert of seeing faces and comprehend voices. This is usually good, but it can also be problematic because we might see people where there aren't any, such as the Face of Mars or Electronic Voice Phenomenons. The second is
Theory of Mind. A healthy human will spot another humans intention. This is also good, but we might see intention where there aren't any. We might for example begin to talk with our computers and
cars when they do not behave like we want them to.
The problem with both of these is that we can humanify a non-human concept and try to percieve it's intention. We can percieve "luck" as "lady luck", a mountain as our "father", earth as our "mother", the economy as the "invisible hand", "society" as intelligent, the "state" as either helpful or evil etc. We can then believe that if we only rub these entities in the right way they may help us, so we might carry our lucky charm with us to Las Vegas, we may sacrifice fruits and a goat to the mountain and we might help Mother Nature
even if "she" doesn't care about us at all. We might even think that "the state" or the "economy" will set everything right if we leave it alone.
Now percieving intention and a human-like intelligence behind the basic properties of the universe is thus an understandable behavior in any human being. But just like above, our perception is more often wrong than true.
But all might not be lost to our troublesome thinking. The philosophy of knowledge and the philosophy of science have the goal of developing methods to avoid our mistakes. By being aware of the perception process, where it might misfire, and use external tools like rigid data collection, we might actually distinguish correct patterns from incorrect patterns. And we might still enjoy the experiences that is the essential part of our nature, such as enjoying a flower that we percieve as perfect, after we tossed out all the withered ones ofcourse.
Now, lets discuss "making". What does it mean to "make"? To make something must be made. Making is a subject
rearranging something into a concept. We can make a can of coke. We can make chaos. We can make babies and we can make flowers.
The question is how much we
make, when we merely
guide the basic properties of nature that we know about. When we melt what goes into a can of coke we apply our insight in the properties of the universe (use heat to rearrange what's otherwise solid). When we make babies we do not construct babies. We might breed a flower but we cannot build life.
So the idea that someone "made" the universe because "everything that is created has a creator" is a troublesome idea to begin with. Most of the time, the nature simply realign itself without any intelligence involved.
But lets for once accept the idea of nature as a
person like we humans normally do in our head. Then nature
makes stuff out of itself. Nature makes air. Nature makes humans. Nature makes the universe. If we accept
nature itself as a maker, a human-like intelligence like "God" on top of that is meaningless. Deism is the notion that nature
is God and create itself.
What you say then, is that any creator needs a creator. Humans need a creator (nature) which needs a creator (God). This idea, as has been pointed out, is an endless regress without explanative power since you merely end up with "what created God". I rather stick with "nature".