It's a very presumptuous position to assume that there is real objective evidence for a creator. You still have yet to make such evidence visible.

No one, at least me, has ever suggested that. Quite the contrary actually. I've stated that no phenomena exists uncaused (that would suggest inherently existing). I've stated directly opposite to what you are suggesting. I've said countless times that phenomena exist but they're dependent-arising. They're dependent upon countless conditions and causes.

Evolution, even does not suggest that. The very essence of evolution suggests everything is dependent-arising (species exist from their environmental and material causes and conditions and manifest over eons of trial and error [thus, quite opposite to 'random']).

It depends on what you mean by "we", but if you're talking about the origination of reality and existence; what I think about this ontological question is irrelevant because of the limitations of my (and humanity's) knowledge derived from subjective experience. Even the true answer (if there is one) is also irrelevant to our practical lives.

To make the presumptuous position that somehow I am ordained with the objective knowledge of ultimate truth is one of the most arrogant, and irrational positions taken by humanity. The God-concept is such an irrational position because it claims to know the unknowable.

And does the God-concept really solve this problem? When I ask you where God came from (because obviously your philosophy is that reality exists so it must have an ultimate cause, and therefore if god exists he too must have a cause), you give me the answer 'just because'.