> Again you artfully dodge explaining how universal, abstract, invariant eternal laws, and the uniformity of nature comport with your worldview.

I've told you several times now - I merely assume they exist, just like you do, even though you try to dress it up as something else.

I'll remind you, though, that I am not the person here claiming that my worldview is better than everyone else's. I am merely claiming that yours is not as solid as you think it is. That's the difference you do not seem to grasp: You say I am wrong because I do not believe what you do. I say you are wrong because you believe what you do.

> Again, assuming a God with these logical traits makes sense to me, assuming immaterial, universal, invariant, laws existing on their own forever, makes no sense to me, and explains nothing.

In other words, you have no justifications for your assumption other than the fact that you like it. I should point out that most christians I know would agree with me here - they take god on faith, and do not feel the need to build elaborate logical frameworks around him to justify him to themselves or anybody else.