So maybe you’re right.
Maybe the reality we see is not designed by a creator as Christians believe, but rather as some scientists believe it is a result of the random interactions of subatomic particles mindlessly obeying the laws of nature, having popped out from nothing.
If your view is correct, randomness is the ultimate reality. This means that everything must be explainable as originating from an ultimately random and meaningless event or events.
But this view cannot be correct for many reasons—here are just two:
1) if the universe were ultimately of a random nature there could be no fine tuning.
2) A random universe fails to account for the existence of semiotics—information, language.
Even if you could prove deism tomorrow, all of your work would still be ahead of you, since a deistic creator does not give meaning or purpose to the universe, nor does it prove that Jesus rose from the dead.
Scientists have been aware of the fine tuning argument for a long time, but not only does it NOT prove theism, it makes us ask 'what is the alternative'?
The alternative is a universe where intelligent life cannot exist, and therefore cannot question it's own existence, so it's really a circular argument.