Why I'm an agnostic-atheist.

[Doubting Thomas]

The whole "if I see a painting I know it has a painter" thing is midly convincing to me.

That argument is convincing as long as we're talking about paintings. When it comes to nature, though, it's not very convincing. It's just the old "everything has to have a creator" argument, which for some reason doesn't apply to God. If God could have always existed, the universe could have always existed, with or without God. To say that it couldn't is just special pleading.

The Kalam argument I'm refering to is William Lane Craig's version. Like the design argument it had its flaws. One flaw imo is that it doesn't accept that nature could be the "first cause" of the big bang. It says it has to be God.

First you have to prove that God exists, and then you have to prove why the big bang couldn't have occurred without God. Since we don't know what caused the big bang, we can't say one way or another that a god was needed to make it happen. But since invoking a god is just another way of saying it magically happened, it's not scientific nor does it add to human knowledge.

At any rate, as I pointed out earlier, even if you could prove that the entire universe was designed by a higher intelligence, it doesn't prove that Christianity is the right religion to follow. It may be support for the Deist position, but there's no logical way to get from "the universe was created" to "worship Jesus or burn in hell forever."