Is Utopianism Actually a Bad Thing?

In order for something to create, you have to be in some way Beyond what you are creating. That is, if I create a program on the computer, I am not a line of code inside that computer, I am a being outside that computer.

That is, the only acceptable solution to the rule that everything must be created is either something outside and exempt (not "a line of code"), or the rule is universal and this Creator also created himself.
That everything is created... except the universe, which seems to have clearly defined rules binding it but you say arose by chance, is not an acceptable solution. If it arose by chance, our universe should look more like the non-Euclidean mess you see in some of Lovecraft's work. So why do we have neat laws like density, momentum, friction, magnetism, if our universe should be random? This doesn't add up. If the very framework of the universe was
creared randomly, then everything that results would be in random configuration unless there were strict laws guiding it into certain limits. I could randomly build a house, but laws of architecture mean that certain structures stand, and certain others fall. Likewise, tou have to explain where these laws came from.

Recycling the same stuff over and over again. Doesn't it tire you out?

I've had plenty of people tell me that I could be wrong about something like this. I've never had anyone explain WHY that I would be wrong about something like this. They dodge the question. This is because the truth is that there isn't an acceptable answer to this question.

Let's propose some blind guesses, as you put it, and I'll show how likely all of them are. For convenience sake, I marked these either "+", "-", or "?" due to their likelihood of happening.

(?) 1. UFOs from another dimension created everything. They came from outside this universe, and have machines that were able to terraform worlds, as well as artificially split or recombine matter, or generate (however, these critters are still created beings so this begs the question of where they came from)
(?) 2. Super psychics with godlike powers (sort of the type you'd see in a Star Trek episode). Unfortunately, the same problem of being created beings. Even if they were very powerful, powerful enough to make entire worlds with just their minds, there's the "elephants all the way down" problem. Created beings have creators. The only way out of this is a self-creating being.
(?) 3. A life form that attained godlike status, forming a stable time loop (see the film Lucy). Unlike the first two, the time loop part makes it plausible, in that the self-creating being does in fact solve the how of their creation. However, there is still the matter of "where." You see, humans have lived on Earth since we started out. So a human who attained godhood would still have to create the Earth they lived in before evolving into a god. And...now I have a headache.
(?) 4. The view that the universe is eternal. Honestly, this neatly sidesteps the question of creation entirely, making most of the rest of this moot. It does however raise questions about how fully-formed planets exist.
(+) 5. A sentient cosmic force, such as the Tao, Dust (see His Dark Materials), or the Force. This is perfectly fine because such an existence does not to breathe or exist on a planet, removing the need for a "where" event. Such does not even need a working universe. The thing about this one is that it has many of the traits of intelligent design while still not requiring one to subscribe to theism. This is classic pantheism, and perfectly fine by me.
(+) 6. Polytheism. Pretty much the same strengths of the one before. Intelligent design makes sense. Unlike the nonsense of an uncreated universe (which immediately must address the problem of shapeless void), intelligent design solves this. For the moment, it doesn't matter whether this is one God, many gods, or some cosmic force.
(+) 7. Monotheism. Honestly, the only difference between one God and many gods, is that with polytheism, you are subject to the whims of multiple deities. You may make sacrifices to the god of sea to have safe passage on a ship, but the god of winds decides you're ignoring her. You may make sacrifices to the god of war for victory, but the god of death wants your life. And you can't two-time them. Because of this, polytheism is problematic even if it were true. You would never be able to keep any of them happy. This is the main strength of theism, keep faithful to one God. The only problem is if you get mixed up and suddenly start worshiping the wrong god or a false version of God. There are definitely issues with monotheism.
(+) 8. Henotheism. Ah, the word nobody who isn't college educated in religious studies says, "what now?" Henotheism is polytheism with a center deity creating the others. None of these really seem to have any issues with the location of creation, the eternal timeline required to create something before time existed, and the sense of an ordered universe.
(-) 9. Lovecraft. Lovecraft's pantheon has all the hallmarks of polytheism, except for two major differences. First, these "gods" are evil. The problem with this is that they have no good reason to create anything in the first place, except to torture it. The second is the disordered state of these beings, where basically all of them think in alien terms. If this is the case, anything they create looks like this...

if it doesn't just look like this.

This is explained away in our world with its scientific rules and such by the notion that only when the stars are "right" do they come out of dormancy, and turn the universe to suit them.
(-) 10. Lastly, we have the idea that I am wrong. Okay, shoot. Explain why the universe doesn't look like one of those two images above? Without any intelligent design, things either DO NOT EXIST or they are shapeless weirdness. Random causes create random effects. And nonexistent causes create nonexistent effects.

Has [Science] Eliminated the Need for a Creator?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nSaI0OaTLAU

"You're just imagining things. That gas light was always on. You forget things so easily, dear."

(Paraphrasing Gaslight, from where the term came)

Gaslighting is common trick of abusers, convince you that what you've seen isn't real. And this what atheists do, even when they pose as agnostics (hint: true agnostics typically get left alone and leave others alone, because their conversations to all but the most proselytizing of Christians ends with "good luck on your quest for answers!" while fake agnostics troll forums as paid state shills to control the narrative, similar to CCP trolls who spew pro-communist crap). They gaslight people and tell them they are blind guessing.

I have told you that Hell isn't real, that's not entirely true. Heaven/Hell are the same place, Afterlife. But typically, atheists and agnostics are slated either for rebirth (read Buddhism and its view on rebirth as described as a flame, then read about a lake of fire in Christianity end times stuff) or extinction. You (not @Leadfoot, I reply rather than ReplyToAll because I'm lazy and it's a faster thing) will never deal with Hell. You'll have to be memory wiped as your body and spirit are melted down and reforged again and again, hoping this time it will be pure enough either to be hot for Jesus (part of why Hell is depicted as hot is that it's the tortured tsundere relationship, where the believer is unable to connect properly with his true Dearest) or cool enough to walk away and transcend reality (that's pretty cool too). The people who are "lukewarm" are not passionate enough to be either. Typically, committed atheists are caught in the same damned cycle until they realize a way out of it, or accept help from Jesus. Stuck in the middle, only rebirth (btw, rebirth isn't reincarnation, you are stuck as an amnesiac) results.
The Bible says those in the lake of fire are destroyed forever, and that is true. But I see what fire actually does to things, and it very much does not destroy them. "The flames will not hurt you, I only design, thy dross to consume and thy gold to refine." For the average Christian, these tests of God will simply refine them into what God intends. But this lake of fire is like a big cauldron for smelting. The wicked are also smelted, but this time, in a lack of fire. Most of their memories are fished out as dross, in order to make a brand new spirit.

So no, izzy and such think that Christians hate ppl like them (if they think at all, if as I suspect they are paid trolls, they do not necessarily have their own opinions, in which case I feel even worse for them being used in that way) but actually most of them feel pity. If I am right, God will make a way for them to be redeemed. If not, they are basically deceived beings marching toward destruction. A destruction that is not like they think it is ("things will be so peaceful" -> you will feel like all the air is sucked out, and you'll be filled with sudden dread, then you'll be stuck as spiritually dead). Yeah, I wouldn't want that on myself, and I certainly wouldn't want someone deceived to that extent.

See, ladies and gentlemen, and raving mongrel hordes, this is what gaslighting looks like.

Oh dearest, you don't know what you're talking about.

You're taken with such wild and unfortunate fantasies. Oceania was always at war with Eastasia, you didn't REALLY see them change sides. What you think is real, is really a blind guess, and the sooner you make the choice to admit it is or admit how small a person/stupid you are (this is not a choice, these two are the same option) the more relieved you'll feel having thrown away such notions.

(Just go to sleep, stop thinking, everything will be alright)

Or maybe, I know exactly what I'm talking about.

You're not getting it. That was you, snookums.

You're the one saying all this "Oh dearest you don't know what you're talking about." That's what I've been hearing out of you.

I do babble.

And you repeat yourself.

I've heard your blind guesses speech a fair number of times. So who are you really trying to convince? Me (then it's not working)? Or you?

That's right. If you are truly agnostic, you are indifferent. But this liar wants to accuse and dissuade those who believe.

I am agnostic on many things...many of which I am FAR from indifferent about.

I am agnostic about whether or not any alien civilizations have looked in on us on planet Earth...and perhaps have managed to live among us undetected. But there is no way I am indifferent about it.

I am agnostic about whether or not our Republic (the American Republic) will survive the damage it has suffered at the hands of Trump and his enablers...and I guarantee you that I am FAR from indifferent about it.

I am agnostic about whether there are gods responsible for what we humans call "the universe"...and there is no way I am indifferent about the answer.

What the hell makes you think that if one is "truly agnostic"...the person is indifferent?