To the question of does God exist, the answer is whether Intelligence created Life

[Paleophyte]

There are two ways of thinking about a problem:
1. Thinking emotionally.
2. Thinking logically.
If you think emotionally, your mind becomes foggy and you cannot find the solution.
If you think logically, then the chances of finding the solution increase.
If an attempt is made to explain intelligence emotionally, then conceptual confusion is created and slogan-based answers are given.
If an attempt is made to explain intelligence logically, then it is rewarded or refuted logically.

M'kay, I haven't seen any logic from you yet, but here you go. With respect to your first law:

 - The lead-in is entirely unnecessary. You could just skip to the statement of your first law. I will note that capitalizing Important Words and giving them ostentatious names like First Law won't help you. Rather the opposite.
 - You've got this funny buildup where you suggest that nobody has ever defined intelligence before. Then you slap down something generic that looks like it was plucked from a Google search with a Ta-Tah!. You might want to rethink that approach, unless you're suggesting that some dude on the interwebs has cracked what decades of research into cognitive science and millennia of philosophy hasn't been able to figure out.

As to the logic, you've simply plunked down a couple of propositions, without any support. This is what we call argumentation by definition. As you might imagine, it doesn't fly very far around here.
 - Your first proposition is what you call your first absolute law of logic. You don't support it, you just kinda state it. Since it doesn't have anything to do with logic you probably ought to have named it the First Absolute Intelligence Law so that we could have a chuckle at the acronym.
 - Your second proposition is what you call the paradox of self-reference. It isn't paradoxical at all. We call those tautologies, and they're neither useful nor impressive. Your second proposition is also just stated, without any support.
So there you have it, two unsupported statements, and that's supposed to be some sort of argument? It's entirely possible for either or both of those statements to be false. If it's the first, then it can take the form of a 'False therefore False' tautology and if it's the second then your first statement simply isn't self-referential. By way of example:

(P1) All thinking creatures have their brains in their feet.
(P2) You would need to use the brains in your feet to prove P1 wrong and, in doing so, would prove P1 right.
   QED Your brains are in your feet!

I think that you can see that both of those are wrong, but they're logically equivalent to your work.