God created the universe

Your first point is directly circular, as you ask me to open my mind to the possibility of intent behind the universe in order for me to accept that there may be "why" questions in the universe. But then you use the existence of "why" questions as a reason to think that it makes god, the intent behind the universe, more likely. This is circular as you first assume a god to see the "why" questions in the universe which in turn are supposed to convince me of god. If you would play the game honestly you would first go out and look whether there are any why questions and whether they actually are why questions and not directly explained by your knowledge of the universe and then as you found them you can argue in favor of god. As I have demonstrated earlier that there is no evidence to believe that the universe has purpose or "why", as you can"t apply common sense to the universe in the whole, there is still no reason to ask the "why" questions. Therefore there is still nothing to make the universe as a whole similar to our human society with purpose. Now you say that it is a less common sense claim that there is no reason for the universe than the opposite claim, but exactly this is the point. You can"t work with common sense of human affairs if you evaluate the universe which is why we look with the scientific method and see that the universe obeys laws and that there are no exceptions for something like a purposeful god. I still agree with you that god would be necessary for objective morality. I still can"t see any reason to believe that our morality actually is universal and objective, as you just state possible problems. Whether you believe that it is universal or not is of absolutely no interest as we can look at morality in our society and evaluate whether it is or is not objective and as I have demonstrated there are scores of reasons to think that morality is a subjective concept which was devised by society. I know that well being is a concept that is not well enough defined to allow for us to argue well about the concept of morality but it at least allows the argument about morality which ultimately can result in moral growth in questions such as slavery. Not making moral absolutes is a positive thing if you look for example at the thought that life is sacred and that even a zygote has this moral right. While at first seemingly unproblematic it quickly becomes so if we look at embryonic stem cell research and the possible positive effect which are obviously way more important that a cell with no feelings etc.. The moral absolute here has clear immoral effect not possible with a morality that is open for debate. Therefore in general I see no reason to think that morality is objective or that a objective static morality would even be something positive. Therefore I would like to see your evidence for your claim that morality is objective. Yes, I do think that causation works inside the universe (while not so clear in the quantum world) but this is not at all my point. Neither is that I think god would need a cause (while still the definition of god seems to just evade any questioning). The point is the question of causation if we look at something beginning to exist. In causation we have always a material cause which is the thing being caused to become the effect (e.g.: the wood being caused to become the table). Every causation has this material cause. Therefore beginning to exist in the universe means something else being caused to reassemble to become another thing. Now let"s apply this to an actual beginning of existence you claim has happened as god caused the universe to begin to exist. As with all causation we have the thing causing which is god and also we need the thing caused to become the universe. The problem here is that this actual beginning of existence lacks the material cause. There is nothing god could have caused to become the universe. Therefore such a real beginning of existence can"t be evaluated by the principle of causation. As we have no evidence or experience of something actually beginning to exist we can"t make any claim whether or not there is a need for something similar to causation. We have to start with some general points. If we look at the way in which our universe is build and the laws of the universe were installed, we are always talking about theories as first and for most we have to say "we don"t know". The important point here is that you don"t know either. The only thing we can do now is to say that we need a model that works with the data we observe inside our universe as if it doesn"t even this it can be discarded. Now as neither side knows anything that would be necessary to say something from the standpoint of knowledge, both have to give models. We have some kind of eternal multiverse (therefore not created and again there is no need) or similar in the naturalistic model and a god on the theistic side. Now firstly as with every theory it has to be in itself well defined and working and we already come to problems with the theistic model as it seems to be as we will see later that all observations can be made to fit with the mode making it essentially not falsifiable. All multiverse theories are falsifiable as they predict data inside our universe and therefore can be discarded if not working. Then it has to fit with the observed data and again we come to problems with the theistic model if we assume it to be well defined. We have multiverse theories that can explain many things for example the laws of nature in our universe, but we obviously don"t claim that any of them are proven. We are even sure that all of them are not at the end of the full knowledge. Therefore all in all it is not the problem that god isn"t considered but that the theistic hypothesis just is a very bad one. Now this is a direct example of how bad the theistic theory is. You say that there is no reason to think that god fills everything up, but there is just as well no reason to think the opposite. It is not important what the observation is because you can always say that is exactly what god would have done. A good theory has predictions it makes as this is the way we evaluate the quality of the theory. You say that just everything fits the theory making it infalsifiable. Therefore such claims about what god would have done are useless. Now if we can agree upon the thought that through evolution a simple cell with just a membrane and a replicating nucleic acid (this replication with mistakes is the driving force in evolution and we know evolution works) we can now come to the problem how this first cell came about. The first answer is that we don"t know, because we have no direct data. Therefore the thing that is searched for is one possible pathway that could be taken as this proves that it is possible to get there just by natural processes. Whether it is this mechanism or another similar one that build life on earth, can"t be said. Now the question is whether there is a good reason to believe that such a pathway can be found and the answer can be seen in modern science. While not so far able to go all the way from the primordial soup to a cell, our knowledge so far leads us to believe that it is possible. To start with the membrane, we have no problem as all kinds of fatty acids build in water micelles which are small multilayered vesicles. Also it is found that they can split up through elongation and breaking. The nucleic acid we search for is certainly not DNA as it is to complex but rather something as RNA. We know that the early earth had all the monomers and starting points needed to build them. Now for the self assembly we have different possible mechanisms going from self-catalysis to clay as a catalyst. While we have so far no full mechanism it is clear that we come closer and the problems remaining are, while hard, nothing requiring transcendent help.