If we could conclude anything from Dawkins’ argument it would be that we should not infer that God exists based on the design of the universe. However, even if that is true, it doesn’t mean that God doesn’t exist; we can believe in God’s existence from other arguments, which include:
• The argument from morality;
• The miracle of the Qur’an;
• The cosmological argument;
• The argument from personal experience;
• The argument from consciousness.
Absolute, timeless, moral values do not exist, they evolve along with the species.
The miraculous revelations of the Qur'an can't even be proven, and if we're talking scientific miracles then there's no great miracle in the Qur'an, all are very disputable and there are a lot of contradictory scientific statements in the Qur'an that are turned strategically into metaphors

.
The cosmological argument can only be used to infer there was a cause to the beginning of the universe, that's it.
Personal experience? Give me a break Mr 'psychologist'.
There is nothing special about consciousness, the brain is a machine that will soon be reverse engineered.