Feel free to name some of the premises that you based your "long process of...reasoning" on.
I suspect one of them was: "Brandon's reason is sufficiently error-free and his observation is sufficiently accurate to come to a legitimate conclusion about the existence of God." Have you explored that premise? Or did you take it as a given?
I've given you a rough outline of the reasoning behind
my atheistic, mechanistic view of the universe twice now, but here it is for a 3rd time:
1. I believe that physical law and not a God rules the universe because to me history seems to indicate this. Throughout history, religious assertions concerning the functioning of nature have had to retreat again and again, as science disproves them (e.g. that the cosmos revolves around the Earth).
2. I see no evidence whatever of the existence of God that is both reliable and not susceptible of more mundane explanations. All of the arguments I have ever seen for the existence of a God appear to have logically fallacies, and usually quite obvious ones.
3. My suspicion is that people believe that the universe is the magical creation of a benign, omnipotent being because (a) this is was a natural assumption for our pre-scientific ancestors, and (b) it is comforting to believe this compared to the alternative. So I additionally believe that the God story is incorrect because I can see how it would arise erroneously.
I will not debate whether this reasoning is correct, because I have done so hundreds of times and am sick of it, and whether I'm right or wrong about it isn't the point. My point is that I favor science over God as an explanation for the universe based on observation and analysis, and do not simply assume it.
Now I have given you three times a sketch of some of the things which have led me to my belief that science and not God is the explanation, and if you accuse me of taking it as a given yet again, I shall simply ignore you.