You don't truly actually have evidence though. You haven't actually been to seen him. You are just assuming he/she is real because of things you've seen and experienced in the past.
There is a difference between knowing the exact individual who made it, & knowing that it is a human production. Hence why I don't claim to know who personally built the computer--also because it was likely multiple people. With the universe, there is nothing I can point to that indicates what kind of person may have created it, if there was more than one, or if that thing was a "person" in any sense of the word.
There are, however, explanations for its existence that seem to not necessitate a creator, so I tentatively say that it did not have one.
I could also go see God, it's just a different way of going about it.
An important difference, I would say. Any way of allegedly contacting God (such as prayer) does not work for any other person or object in existence, so why should it work in this case? Especially because studies do not find a significant difference between prayer & the placebo effect. Also, how does this explain people who deconvert & then say, "You know, looking back, I get the impression that God was never really there, or if he was, he wasn't listening"?
What I don't understand is why you can't follow that same logic to the conclusion that something like the human eye is less likely to have just came together on its own than a keyboard.
Because that is not the same logic. With the keyboard, I have an object I am examining (keys), & attempting to determine if they are of natural OR man-made origin.
I ALSO have an item that I KNOW is of man-made origin (the alphabet).
Since the keys include the alphabet, in fact the FULL alphabet, with punctuation, I can conclude with nearly 100% certainty that this is a man-made item. The uncertainty continues to diminish dramatically when I combine this with the other evidence.
With the eyeball, if I try to determine whether it is natural or designed, all I've got is that it is made of human cells. There isn't really any kind of symbol or trait I can point to that says, "This is a thing that I already know this dude named God makes, therefore, this was designed by him." It's not about being "complicated," it's about what I already know from other experiences.
Good examples of something being "complicated" but not designed--the Rorschach ink blot tests. Those can result in some pretty complex patterns, but are really just randomly deposited blots of ink. Also, ice crystals. What appear to have intricate patterns are really just the way that the water randomly froze.
The differences between the complicated structure of the human eye and an HP laptop are astronomical.
Why, yes, they are.