I am asserting no such thing. I am asserting the existence of causal relations outside of science ability to measure it…but not outside of our ability to percieve it. Frankly, I percieve the presence of God in the creation very easily. You may disagree with me on this because you hold to a naturalistic framework. My disagreement with you is that the naturalistic framework is inadequate. There are ways of knowing that fall outside the scope of science. History would be a concrete example.

Presently, it’s impossible to prove a first cause since perception is needed for such an endeavor. Since the first cause supposedly happened many billions of years ago, we’ll never be able to verify it. Moreover, since god cannot be perceived (although some argue against this), then it’s absolutely impossible to assert a first cause.

I am at this point not suggesting any particular kind of God. God by definition is that which is eternal so whatever you call that which is outside of the known universe that originated the universe, that is god. Only when we understand this, does it then behoove us to determine what kind of entity or being god is. Actually, even if you don’t believe in an after life, you can care very much about God. Because if God is an angry cruel being, whose to say he can’t squash our existence and play with us like pets at his whim and leisure. For those who believe this life is all there is, it is very precious to them, and I guarantee they won’t like the idea of not being in control of it.
These are questions everybody has to wrestle with.

This ‘creation’ event could certainly have been caused by a God; but unfortunately that is a somewhat slim possibility – who knows? – we could be the product of any number of things from that ‘other’ place.

The real question is this: Is there life/existence after death?

I contend that even if there is a God, and He created us – if we do not live beyond this life – no one would give a good damn about God…

“When they invoke a moral law, they are assuming a moral law giver. If there is no moral law giver, there is no moral law.”

Which is basically reducible to the statement: “Moral law requires a moral law-giver”.

Rather than agreeing or disagreeing, I’d simply like to point out that this is an assertion you’ve made above, but not one you’ve demonstrated — so you’re not quite proving what you claim you are. Perhaps with some revision it’ll work out better in the future. Or maybe not.

Clearly there are plenty who believe a law of gravitation doesn’t suppose a giver of gravitational law. Think of it like a math class — try to show your work.