I’m surprised you actually responded! Most people run off. I will answer back, but please don’t be offended. I don’t mean any attack personally on you, it’s just that I have seen all these argument before. Okay so I hope you can get through it.

1. So you’re telling me here you do not believe in science. Either that or you don’t understand it. The evidence that something came from nothing, is that we are here. That’s what the big bang is. And keep in mind that’s where space and time came from, not just the material.
2. You are unclear on the definitions here as well. God doesn’t just tell us what good is. He is “The Good”. The debate here is not on societal norms, such as the age of consent. The concern is on morality itself. Your position is that there is no moral difference between having sex with your wife, and having sex with a newborn infant, and then torturing it. This is the position you are defending, and I find it reprehensible.
3. Your position is that when a lion kills an antelope, it’s murder? Or when one bacteria eats another one, that’s murder? You find no difference in your child getting run over by a car, then them being picked up and sacrifice by Satanic cult? I just think that the position where there is no objective moral values and duties, it’s just so unpalatable as to be disgusting. It’s sad that you hate God so much, but know so little about the world, or Him. Why are you blaming Him for the evil man propagates?
4. You can believe that the universe might be cyclical, but that’s not science. It’s called metaphysics, theory, conjecture, make-believe. There was a big bang. At least we know in the direction of the past, it cannot be infinite. If you re-wound the clock it would eventually stop. When time stops, you are no longer talking about nature, you are talking about the supernatural in its strictest definition. Your inability to grasp God goes hand-in-hand with your imaginary reality.
5. I didn’t make this up. This argument goes back hundreds of years. It’s called The Kalam Cosmological Argument, and more articles have been written about this philosophical discovery than any other philosophy in the last hundred years. This is not huge logical leaps, this is a deductive argument, meaning if the premises are true, the conclusion follows logically. It is inescapable. I suggest you research some of it, it’s fascinating.
6. Very true, but you’re stuck on evolution, probably because it’s the only thing you have ever been exposed to. What about all the other finely tuned characteristics of the universe itself? The strength of gravity when measured against electromagnetism is finally tune for life. The strength of the strong nuclear force. The differences between the masses of the two quirks. The strength of the week force. The cosmological constant. The global cosmic energy density. The initial entropy of the universe. These had to literally be balanced on the edge of a knife in order for life to happen, before any neo-Darwinian adaptation through mutation and natural selection. I’m wondering if pop scientists like Hawkins and Dawkins are the only “scientists” you have looked at.

All right, so I really would suggest you look at some of the guys I mentioned earlier. Anybody with any sort of credential in academia has gone up against William Lane Craig, and lost because he is right. It is really fascinating and at very least would give you a little bit more sophistication when discussing this with somebody like me, who is actually looked into this stuff, and can’t be bluffed. In any case, I’ve done this a lot and doubt you’ll go any further. You don’t research to discover the truth, you only learn enough so you can do what you want, and not have to answer to God for it. But you’re fooling yourself. We will all have to stand before Him, and what will you say when that day comes?