Theists, are you immune to being decieved?

[Neo-Scholastic]

I have followed this exchange with great interest. The key question posed by Statler reveals the vacuous metaphysics of ontological naturalism and materialism. The question is as follows:

…you how you can account for…regularities (what we call laws) in a purely material and unguided Universe.

And the position of RS summarized thusly:

You haven’t shown reason to believe there is a cosmic prescriber, only that we as humans describe the cosmos. Descriptions do not imply PRE-scriptions.

This statement is not only false but misleading. You fail to distinguish between physical laws and metaphysical necessities. For example, as currently understood the physical universe operates according to four fundamental fours and a handful of constants. Either these physical laws are the only possible ones for a viable universe OR other equally viable universes exist (multiverse) in which physical laws could be slightly different. In either case, a viable universe must conform to indispensible principles that constrain the possibilities. So you cannot have a universe that both exists and does not exist OR a universe in which mathematics does not work OR where causes do not have effects or effects causes. A universe in which the smallest particle is a Lego seems pretty unlikely, too. In addition, there must be a motivating force that makes change happen and yet keeps everything from collapsing back into nothing, i.e. “why is there something and not nothing?”
Now there is a huge gulf between transcendent principles and a personal god, but at the same time many of the attributes of a basic god-like entity match those of the transcendent principles. As Aquinas would say, “Everyone calls this God.”

…every objective thing in the universe we are aware of, evidence can be found to support it.

When you talk about objective things, I take it that you mean sensible objects. That does not mean that all real ‘things’ are sensible objects. Are you prepared to argue that sadness, anger and joy are not real?
You also mentioned that everything is material even the mind. Tell me which of the following statements would you include in your position: 1) physical processes can cause mental properties to appear; 2) mental properties can influence physical processes; 3) physical processes and mental properties exist in parallel but do not interact?