So the first sentence is a circular reasoning fallacy, you’ve assumed your conclusion in your premise, and the second sentence is clearly an argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy. Sorry but that’s not a very auspicious start, and again my apologies but this kind of irrational claims typify most theistic reasoning I encounter. Food for though perhaps, but I guess no one is obliged to be rational if they don’t want to.
The universe is (based on everything I’ve learned) rationally intelligible, attributing that to anything other than intelligence leads to a contradiction. One can only eliminate intent, intelligence by replacing it with material mechanism. However material mechanism is always attributed to laws, yet laws are attributable to what? more laws? This reasoning (reductionism) is futile, it masquerades to some as understanding but it isn’t.
Which part of this strikes you as irrational? It is very rational to infer an intelligent agency for what we observe, to infer material laws as being the reason there are material laws strikes me as irrational.
I think you may have misunderstood determinism, or at least are making a facile representation of it there, but you would need to demonstrate some objective evidence for your assertion, not merely a false dichotomy fallacy. Ironically it is monotheistic belief that asserts we live in a deterministic universe, though some of them also make the contradictory claim we have “free will” of course. I don’t know how much autonomy evolved apes have. but the idea we have none would also need to be supported by sufficient objective evidence, and then you would need to demonstrate sufficient objective that this “fact” led to your assertion this must mean the universe required intelligence.
No, I think I understand determinism, it underpins materialism, and the mathematical description of nature, science. To what would you attribute determinism? it can only be non-determinism.
As for “free will” it strikes me that this exists, will and intent exist (these are self evident to me anyway). Admitting that will, intent exists enables us to explain the presence of the universe without recourse to that universe, and is therefore a better, more rational explanation.
A thing cannot be an explanation for itself, not if we want explanations to be reductionist which in science they always are.
Now some, perhaps you, believe that (at least apparent) will and intent are consequential, the outcome of laws of nature and material processes but this is putting the cart before the horse, it makes more overall sense to me to posit that intent, will, directive agency is what led to the universe.
Anyway since you are a theist I have a pretty standard question, what objective evidence can you demonstrate for any deity? Or that any deity is even possible?
The presence of the universe, a rationally intelligible universe is evidence. There cannot be a material explanation for the universe.