The Universe (Multiverse?) and Time are just too vast for an all-powerful entity not to exist.
This is essentially the "watchmaker argument". And it doesn't hold true. Simply, just because you cannot imagine that the universe does not have a creator, this does not mean that the universe does have a creator. The universe may have a creator, but there is no objective evidence that does.
Besides, you make the assumption that the universe is so complex that it must have a creator. But surely, if the creator created the universe then they must be more complex. So who or what created the creator? And, as the creator of the creator must be again even more complex, who or what created that? This argument goes on forever, and there's never a creator that does not in turn require creating.
Evidence of supernatural experiences is also huge, but is ignored by many simply because they would rather assume these don't actually happen often with no evidence to support their "counter-claim".
They are "ignored" because they cannot be proven. There is no objective evidence to support the supernatural in any way that I've ever seen, although if I was to provide examples I would need you to say which supernatural phenomena you believe that there is evidence for, and preferably demonstrate the evidence.
The James Randi Educational Foundation did (and I think still does) offer a one million dollar prize to anyone who can prove supernatural powers in objective scientific conditions. The prize has yet to be claimed.
Religion is overwhelming a positive thing, it tells people to behave in a set way and establishes order, it makes people try to become better than what they are.
I strongly refute this statement. Religion is not a force for good in the world, in fact it's hard to ignore the harm that has been caused by religion, and is still caused to this day. Daesh has to be most obvious example today, to go further back we can look at the actions of the Catholic Church in Africa to inhibit efforts to stop the spread of HIV, Christians shooting vulnerable women in Planned Parenthood clinics in the US, parents in the US who deny their children access to medical care in lieu of prayer, the persecution of homosexuals in Iran... I could go on, but there are a multitude of instances where religion has been used as the justification for harm.
Religious people are, of course, generally good people. That is a testament to the fact that people are generally good. Whilst there are positive effects to religion, I would argue that a lot of these exist independent of the religious aspect of their congregation. For example, religious people may serve the community by running a soup kitchen for homeless people, and I think all of us would agree that that is a good venture. However, this could exist independently of religion, requiring simply a group of like minded people.
As an independent and ambitious person, I do not require religion to make me a better person. I make myself a better person through my own actions, with a view to making my own life better and to making the world around me a better place. I do not require religion to become a better person, I need only to work hard to achieve this.
I think the main benefits of religion can be seen as essentially equivalent to the benefits of community.
. I think it's an important point because, while most traditional religions do involve some tradition of worshipping God, it's perfectly possible to believe a God exists without believing that there is any requirement to worship that God. I would suggest that some of the most liberal interpretations of Christianity would err somewhat towards that viewpoint, as would some variants of 'new age'-influenced beliefs. The book, 
