The earth is more than 4.5 billion years old. The first primitive prokaryotic cells appeared about 3.9 billion years ago. Are you able to intuitively grasp how long 3.9 billion years is, and the kinds of things that evolution can accomplish in such a period of time? If not, then your intuition is a very poor basis for forming conclusions on this subject, because it’s led you to believe that magic is a more probable explanation for advanced life than the empirical evidence for evolution.
If one can postulate an eternal God and a universe that got created, why not skip a step to postulate an eternal universe?
True enough, but if you believe the universe is eternal you have eliminated a step.
Ninja’ed. 
At Step 7, you ask whether we believe that laws of logic, mathematics, science, and absolute morality are changing or unchanging. I certainly believe they are changing. Physical matter changes, and thus the laws we’ve determined for them change when our knowledge increases. The heart used to be considered the center of the body until actually cutting corpses open proved otherwise. Earth used to be considered the center of the universe until telescopes proved otherwise. Humanity makes these laws based on perceptions of reality. The more acute our perception becomes, the better we can define and refine our laws. You lumped all the mysteries of the universe to be as constant and reliable as a sip of water, and it doesn’t work that way.
In your conclusion, you say “Universal, immaterial, unchanging laws cannot be accounted for if the universe was random or only material in nature.” You haven’t established that our universe is governed by unchangeable laws. You haven’t proved that there are universal laws that everyone agrees with. You also seem to think that since laws aren’t made of matter, they can’t be changed. So what if they aren’t physical objects? What does that have to do with anything?
We haven’t discovered all the laws of the universe yet. We’ve come to find out that not all answers are easy. We can all agree that 2+2=4, but that only accounts for one property of the universe, not all of them. Don’t fall into the trap of thinking one simple truth can answer everything.
I’m just here to remind all of you that this is exactly why we can never make new friends.
Now to the OP:
Not even a little bit true.
I, like so many others in this world, don’t “assume God” for even a second in our day to day lives. We live our lives without so much as a thought of god, or the bible, or religious observance of any kind.
The only time I am compelled to “argue against Him” is when someone like you comes along and presumes to offer “Proof That God Exists”, and uses tautological arguments to support that assertion.
The Bible is the word of God.
It says that Noah took 2 of each animal and seven pairs of each bird. There are almost 10,000 bird species and some 5,000 mammals. So we’re up to 140,000 birds and 10,000 mammals on the ark, we’ll leave the reptiles and insects out for now.
OK, let’s have a look at the law of math, shall we?
We have reached the stage where we can manipulate gene’s should we now start to think that evolution is managed by a higher power
The OP did come to the right place to get the Straight Dope, though I can’t imagine they’ll like it …
I think I’m reiterating what wolfpup said in post #34 … I think scientific method is going to fail here. For example the creation of Man was a unique event, there is no experiment we can conduct now that would prove or disprove this creation of Man so long ago. It happened once and will happen never again. The OP is taking a philosophical question and wrapping it as a scientific question. That doesn’t work. Hell’s bells we could spend another 4,000 years trying to define “God” and still be no closer.
Vanity of vanities, saith the Preacher, vanity of vanities; all is vanity – Ecc 1:2
Does this vanity come with double sinks?
The English language is a product of atheist philosophy, therefore everyone who uses English, including the OP, demonstrates the validity of atheist philosophy. QED.
I kind of wish I could believe in “absolute moral laws”, but I don’t. While technically I suppose I therefore believe in some sort of (non-caricatured) version of situational ethics, I admit I can’t really come up with any situations in which I think rape and child molestation are the right thing to do.
But…that’s not what the Bible says:
We should think that the truth is determined by where the empirical evidence leads us, not where our faulty uninformed intuition or wishful thinking might lead us. A statement like “life is too complex to be an accident of nature” is unfounded with no basis in fact and in science.
Bolding mine.
Soooo if the universe in all its complexity needs a more complex creator why aren’t you worshiping the creator of your creators creator? (its really an infinite chain of ever more complex creators)
There are philosophical frameworks that seek to establish objective standards of morality (e.g.- Kant’s Categorical Imperative), but regardless, as I and others have said, moral laws such as they may be are a completely different entity from physical laws, and as noted, the OP is wrong about physical laws, too.
BTW, nice Bible quote! I think I may have used that one myself in an argument with a religionist at some other time.
It’s creators, all the way down.
Of all the gallops, this is the Gishiest.
If that’s really the case, then his argument doesn’t work for a universe that is eternal and hence hasn’t ‘arisen’ at all, like ours. So I guess he’s really arguing that there is no God?
While we are on the topic of Noah . . . did the ark have aquariums? Freshwater fish are usually poisoned by salt water. Yahweh could have altered them to be able to breathe salt-water. But, couldn’t he modify terrestrial creatures to breathe underwater . . . or modify sinful creatures to be dead and obviate the global flood entirely?
This kind of inscrutable taking unnecessary steps to bizarre ends for unfathomable reasons presages the episode millennia later when god sacrifices himself, to himself, so he can forgive people for the sins of their distant ancestors, transgressions they neither abetted, nor could have prevented.
This is the “simplest and most logical explanation” . . . according to xian theologians.
You build a (somewhat tottering) edifice of logic, and then make the above incorrect assertion as if it was obvious.