Well, this has slightly evolved into a scientific debate concerning the Big Bang theory. And to be honest, I'm really not too terribly interested in such matters. But you do raise a few points I feel I must address. First of all, concerning tha laws of quantum mechanics, all the arguments you use for God can be used for quantum mechancs (except for the intelligent one which I will address later). Put simply, the laws of quantum mechanics do not require a cause. After all, the laws of quantum mechanics violate the laws of cause and effect anyway! According to quantum mechanics, what happens does not NEED a cause. So what in the universe (or beyond, whatever than is) would make us think that the laws of quantum mechanics require a cause? Put simply, all things don't need a cause. Take for instance the Big Bang. You say it must have had a cause or not have happened. This is dead wrong. In thinking that the Big Bang requires a cause you are just showing me that you don't understand the Big Bang theory -or quantum mechanics -or the fact that cause and effect laws do not always apply.
You also try to ask how I view what the universe is. Well, it can't be summed up in a simple paragraph. But I will address your comcept of order in the universe. Most people have a bad interpratation of what the 2nd law of thermodynamics is all about. No order can come from disorder. Well, that's not entirely it. In a closed system. Thus trees are able to grow. Thus stars are able to form. Thus life can evolve. And this doesn't violate the 2nd law because order is decreasing elsewhere to cause the total decrease in entropy. I would make the ascertion that gravity can cause matter to break the 2nd law. So, these are a couple things to think about.
You keep making the point that we can indirectly observe God through his work in this world. Well, if we can't directly observe him, then indirectly observing him is also not possible. Let me explain. (Using an example of Kai Neilsen) Suppose I say there's a still over there behind that curtain. Now what would indirect evidence of that statement be. Suppose I say well, there's smoke rising up from the curtain. Now, I don't know if that's good indirect evidence or not, but suppose it is for the time being. How would you go about using this direct evidence to prove there's a still there? Well, you'd have to know what the still is. You'd have to know that it makes smoke. The point remains that in order to have indirect evidence, it must be in theory possible to have directly evidence as well. We're back at something like "God made the heavens and the earth" as opposed to "The still made the smoke." The difference is that if you don't know what a still is, I can at least show you the damn still. You can't show me God.
Now I'm going to address your nonmaterialistic world comments. And I'll try to refrain from the 'painter' analogy because I feel I've just addressed it above. Just substitute painter for still and painting for smoke. Actually, I'm not going to respond to the nonmaterialistic world comments. You try to use the '90% of people beleive in a supernatural world' argument. I don't even feel I need to respond to this sort of logic.
Next you venture into the world of morality. Well, there are several ways I can argue on morality. Firstly, the universal morality of happiness can be used. Societal moralities I don't care for too much. Yes, societies are wrong. Yes, people are wrong. At least I think so. But, this really is a far cry for trying to show God's existence. Most atheists have morals, too. My favorite way to argue against theistic morality is to boil it down to a secular morality. And I fell I can do that in one sentence. How do you know God is good and the devil is bad? How do you know it's not the other way around? You must use a secular morality to decide this matter.
Now apparently, you want me to respond to this idea of a supernatural, timeless, creating, intelligent God. Well, we need no creator, so that's out. The first two qualities are necessary only if the third is true -all their support comes from the idea that this entity must exist outside of the universe. Intelligence also heavily relies on creation. But I'll address it differently because I want to make the point that this universe does not require an intelligent creator. The support for the idea that is does is a broad statement that has blindly ignored the idea of evolution. It puts to rest the idea that intelligence is required to create intelligence. This is observed.
Lastly you give us your story of becoming Christian. I'm not to interested in such things, and to be honest, this just shows me that you never understood science to begin with. Science is a process. Religion is a cop-out. Science says "I don't know" where religion says "God." You say you can't believe it [the universe] couldn't have happened without a purpose. Well, again, you're just wrong. It did happen without a purpose. There's no reason I can think of that requires the universe to have a purpose, can you?
"You keep telling me that I need to show what God is. Unless you can either show how my argument (that we can logically conclude that the creator of the universe is supernatural, timeless, creative, and intelligent) is a bad argument, or accept at least this much about Him, then there is really no way our discussion can go any further." -you say. Well, I've shown why this argument is wrong. And now it's your choice to ignore me or take a better route of trying to give reasons why God must exist.