What's the lamest defence of Theism you've ever heard?

[robvalue]

The null hypothesis is that we don't know the answer. Any claim may be true, or it may be false. We don't know. We simply don't accept the claim as true until such time as it is established to be true. How do we tell the useful claims from the useless? Evidence.

Any other default position should already be established by evidence, or be an axiom we cannot function without.

Anything else is the argument from ignorance. Again, logic is very important. It's just one more factor you can't ignore if you wish to do science of any value. What practical use is, "I think this is designed", anyway? It works as a system, yes. That much is blatantly obvious. Only an idiot would focus entirely on one aspect of it and pay no regard to how the whole might be affected.