Lordy, at least you bulleted the points;
1. The universe had a beginning:
ummmm, why? Time and space are one, constructed out of the same stuff, that's pretty well known. So if we want to follow the theory of conservation of mass and energy there are a few theories about massless universes that exploded into mass, releasing stored potential energy, as it may have done countless times before. The visible universe we commonly refer to as the universe is not the whole picture.
The word universe encompasses everything that exists, if God exists then he is within the universe, that's just a definition though. So by every law of physics we know there is every reason to suspect that either we have a misunderstanding of the nature of time and therefore the universe, in a way such that time is a perceptive issue rather than a physical paradox (Holograph theory and some others use this idea) or that time is infinite and its the presence of matter that fluctuates. Man I wish they would finish developing the GUT so we could finally shut down this damned argument, we have so much evidence but the universe is a complex place to explain in a single equation.
2. WRONG wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong. Life is fine tuned to exist on this planet, and anywhere else that life exists. Life is developed to survive in the conditions present. Thinking the universe exists to support life is ridiculous and completely irrational. Best explained by design? A creator that can develop a universe that is so complex as to satisfy your wrongly associated permutation argument would by necessity need to be more complex! We have perfectly acceptable, if not finished, validated theories on development of complexity from simplicity, and yet THAT one is the argument you have a problem with?
3. Science cannot explain life on Earth? Arg, is this what students learn these days too? Scientists cannot replicate the first examples of self-reorganization yet, true. But there are scientists working methodically and devotedly to empirically getting closer and closer to this achievement. The origin of life is a great mystery, its wondrous to think about and to try to replicate, but again all you argue for is to fill in your own knowledge gap with God. Cells are not irreducibly complex, to name an easy example mitochondrial cells actually used to exist in symbiotic relationship with a separate organism that eventually was adapted and replicated with cells automatically. Also, genetic and biochemical research has revealed so many of the steps and processes that refute your argument that "all parts must be in place".....that's not true! There's no supporting evidence, there is nothing that has been found that is irreducibly complex, even the human eye, once a cornerstone of this argument, has been broken down successfully.
Add all of this BS together and you have a nice case for converting uneducated and gullible people to your point, which is shameless.
1. The universe had a beginning:
ummmm, why? Time and space are one, constructed out of the same stuff, that's pretty well known. So if we want to follow the theory of conservation of mass and energy there are a few theories about massless universes that exploded into mass, releasing stored potential energy, as it may have done countless times before. The visible universe we commonly refer to as the universe is not the whole picture.
The word universe encompasses everything that exists, if God exists then he is within the universe, that's just a definition though. So by every law of physics we know there is every reason to suspect that either we have a misunderstanding of the nature of time and therefore the universe, in a way such that time is a perceptive issue rather than a physical paradox (Holograph theory and some others use this idea) or that time is infinite and its the presence of matter that fluctuates. Man I wish they would finish developing the GUT so we could finally shut down this damned argument, we have so much evidence but the universe is a complex place to explain in a single equation.
2. WRONG wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong. Life is fine tuned to exist on this planet, and anywhere else that life exists. Life is developed to survive in the conditions present. Thinking the universe exists to support life is ridiculous and completely irrational. Best explained by design? A creator that can develop a universe that is so complex as to satisfy your wrongly associated permutation argument would by necessity need to be more complex! We have perfectly acceptable, if not finished, validated theories on development of complexity from simplicity, and yet THAT one is the argument you have a problem with?
3. Science cannot explain life on Earth? Arg, is this what students learn these days too? Scientists cannot replicate the first examples of self-reorganization yet, true. But there are scientists working methodically and devotedly to empirically getting closer and closer to this achievement. The origin of life is a great mystery, its wondrous to think about and to try to replicate, but again all you argue for is to fill in your own knowledge gap with God. Cells are not irreducibly complex, to name an easy example mitochondrial cells actually used to exist in symbiotic relationship with a separate organism that eventually was adapted and replicated with cells automatically. Also, genetic and biochemical research has revealed so many of the steps and processes that refute your argument that "all parts must be in place".....that's not true! There's no supporting evidence, there is nothing that has been found that is irreducibly complex, even the human eye, once a cornerstone of this argument, has been broken down successfully.
Add all of this BS together and you have a nice case for converting uneducated and gullible people to your point, which is shameless.
My religion is the understanding of my world. My god is the energy that underlies it all. My worship is my constant endeavor to unravel the mysteries of my religion. 
