Does God exist

Your Origin of the Universe argument is concise with what humanity has observed over the course of a short relative time in our stay in the universe, but what humanity has seen as opposed to the increasing knowledge of the universe is not much, thus, it is more reasonable to address this argument with ignorance; That it is most logical to say "I don't know whether or not the Universe has a cause or not a cause." However that does not mean we will remain ignorant. Our knowledge will change and will be subject to the information and data presented to us. If it changes, or if new data be recognized, our beliefs will be shaped accordingly. Also, if it were the case that the Universe has a cause, many abstract objects can be the cause of it. We can be in a computer simulation, or the universe is caused by an abstract idea that is omnipotent but not conscious and identifiable like a single object like God is. Furthermore, if it also were the case that one would propose that they were so intelligible of the Universe enough to give credit to an abstract idea to a God, it would their burden to absolutely, demonstrably, and deductively prove this to us. Otherwise, It would be unreasonable for anyone to believe you, and rightfully so. We could be in a computer simulation or we could've been created by God, but we cannot absolutely know for sure. However, to believe that we were created by God is also reasonable enough to believe that we are in a Computer simulation; They're both unreasonable. To address the fine tuning argument, If one finds it reasonable enough to believe that because of such specificity in the requirements of life, so a God must have done it, than it is also reasonable enough to believe that because of such specificity in the requirements of life, we must be in a omnipotent computer simulation. Before I address more of these arguments, I'd like to express how your arguments are founded upon your first claim, that 'since the universe has a cause, therefore there must be a creator' which I found to be fallible because a cause does not necessarily mean a conscious, omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent like a God is, thus your subsequent arguments are also fallible. It is true, we are animals, but even animals do have their own moral principles. Why does a mother bear care for her young? Why do wolves hunt in packs? Why don't wolves eat each other? What is ordering them to behave the way they do? It seems to me that our search for why we feel so morally obligated to one another does actually stem from nature than it does from outside this physical realm. We have been able to create amino acids, the natural building blocks of life, under primordial earth-like conditions, and we have found meteors and asteroids containing amino acids. You're right Evolution cannot answer this, as abiogenises and evolution are two separate subjects. Abiogenises reflects upon how life began whereas Evolution explains how life evolves. The Quranic Argument, that is not a solid argument that God exists. If I create a new genre of music that is a perfect mixture of classical and new age, and people deemed it beautiful, does it then mean that there is a God? Quite fallacious to assume the existence of a God due to the complexity of literature, don't you think? I'd like to express once more that all the arguments given were not deductible evidence that a God exists. They were not demonstrable and absolute like a science experiment in University would be, and therefore truly unreasonable to believe such a case.