Yaknow, if you're going to assert your bible as an authority, we need to see the independent support for it. It isn't a text book or reference library. And if just existing as a large book is enough to make it authoritative, then there's just as much evidence for the existence of a school for wizards and witches in the UK.
As for the rest of the argument, it's just the "But... but... but... rainbows! Sunsets! Puppies! Therefore god!" argument writ large, and it's still not compelling.
Stars don't have a 'purpose' beyond fusing hydrogen (and if large enough, heavier elements), and perhaps exploding. What they have is an explanation. We know, to the limits of current observation and theory, how they work and how they come about. And that knowledge is subject to change as further information and better theories come in.
This is why science is better than faith: it has both the humility and the wisdom to say, "I don't know everything, so let's independently check my result -- which is provisional anyway pending better observations and a more complete theory." They don't say (except for a couple rare exceptions, physical limitation things like not having fractional atomic numbers) that something is definitely the case, period, end of statement.
The god hypothesis offers nothing of value in comparison to that. No awe, no wonder, no drive to look further.