Interesting ideas. I thought it would be a futile discussion, but some neat thoughts coming out. Why indeed should God want us to be around? God is lonely? God needs admiration or even love? Seems like a narcissist on an uninhabited island. I thought it'd be 'It all makes sense to God' (and variants) but you boys (or girls, I don't read the profiles) make me think.
Thing is that we know a bit about love, and ....demystified, and don't take this the wrong way as i just LUV love
.... it is a release of goodfeel chemicals so we opt for the survival mechanism like individual, family and social bonding. This may disappoint (if they accepted it, since they won't) believers in acts of divine magic that does stuff like love, morality and the religious awe that is so often uncomfortably like reverence for royals and dictators, but I don't discount the pleasures of art, music and Love, even if I know they are human conventions based on communication and survival instincts, and you may say that a god (name your own) rather than evolutionary forces, did all that.
But I'm left being decidedly skeptical that such evolutionary primate chemical experiences can have anything to do with a god. A long time ago, when I was still trying to interact with a razor or a girl without damaging myself, I decided that a god (if it existed) could not have human feelings. Let alone espouse a particular religion or send people to the eternal bliss of grovelling to a glowing thing on a throne or eternal torture on the basis of which place they lived and which religion they were taught.
If there is an Intelligence that created and runs the universe (as i don't rule that out as atheism is based on agnosticism) it is the 'God of Einstein' as I dubbed it back then and nothing to worry about, no more than gravity or the speed of light.
p.s - I have to address the remark about ten second goldfish. 'That may be good enough for you but it isn't for me', or words to that effect. It's like this, or these.
'Music? 'Well if just scraping wood or blowing through metal tubes is good enough for you..'. Or 'If human love is just chemicals.' .. Or indeed "if nature is just particles of dirt and hot gas' (instead of a big advertisement for God)...."
This is a very persuasive but actually wrong apologetic. It is essentially the Keats fallacy or the innocent ear fallacy. That is there are some who said they didn't want to Know about music as it would spoil the magic. Ok, I know it can look like it can ruin the Magic if you know that Schubert had syphilis and Mussorgsky was an alcoholic, but the fact is that Knowing it enhances the appreciation, it doesn't ruin it. Just as knowing how nature works does not ruin the Awe (though it does remove the Goddunnit - advert pasted over it) but increases the awe and appreciation.
Thus the Keats fallacy. I believe it was Keats who pushed this idea of 'knowledge ruins beauty' idea. But in a poem (to a nightingale, I think it was) he drools over the evening star. But shows that he knows it is actually a planet revolving around the sun. It does not spoil his sense of beauty. Thus he refuted his own spiel.
So this theist snarl that living life without the God - delusion somehow lessens and spoils our experience is wrong, but they will never know that until or unless they do it.