What are laws? They establish a certain process of order. How then can a law that dictates a process of order exist without the intelligence to establish it?

Why evidence is there that a process of order has to be established by something intelligent?  Your argument is circular:

1.) An intelligence created the process of order of the universe.
2.) The universe follows a process of order
3.) The universe was created by something intelligent

Why is it easier to believe that a magical invisible man has existed forever, but the nature of the cosmos, something observable and around you, has not

yeah whatever, a likely excuse.

So, remind me, or maybe you didn’t mention it, but how much time do you dedicate to studying religion and what sources have you used in coming to your present conclusions? In answer to this question, consider your current PROFESSION (if you have one or a hobby you’re good at) and how much time you dedicate to that profession or hobby – how does that amount of time compare to the time you dedicate to studying religion?

What in the world does that have to do with anything.  I've been studying religion off and on for most of my life.  Mostly just when it comes up in debates, but there was a lengthy time when I was in school where we'd debate religion pretty much every day between law class and debate club.  I was in a very religious community and Felt that it was my place to basically tell them to knock it off and let me be atheist, and they wouldn't leave me be.  so through the later years of public school and all of high school I was outed as a minority for not believing in God and my parents nearly disowned me.  I would be a fool to not take the time to explain religion. 

Plus my ex was a brilliant person, and she was huuuge into religion, she pushed me farther into the depths of madness for not believing in God for over a year before we finally broke it off.  I spent like 7 years of my life in a constant debate with religious types on all sides.  I guarantee there's nothing you can possibly bring up at this point that I haven't already heard, considered, and factored into my argument.  I haven't done much in the way of research over the last 4-5 years or so, but I haven't needed to since nobody's presented me with new information. 

The problem with that is that the name of the game in insurance is assessing risk, and while I feel badly for anyone who has a pre existing condition that is no fault of his own, I don't think turning the entire concept of health insurance on its head was wise, nor is it a real solution even though it is politically popular. No one would seriously advocate homeowner's insurance to offer coverage for a house that is already on fire because it's unfair to discriminate against someone with a pre existing condition, but because of the emotional reaction that a medical condition evokes, we're willing to pretend that it's viable to do just that with people. Now that health insurance is just a giant, fucked up, for-profit welfare scheme, it's hard for me to see how fewer people are going to end up suffering as a result of this. Then again, I don't think the third party payer system works anyway, so maybe it's just a matter of going to hell sooner rather than later.

I work in pharmacology, mostly behavioral. I'm just a lowly lab tech, though.

Why should someone establish a rule? Why isn't it part of the universe. Or more to the point: the existance of physical laws lead to the universe we have today. You basically say, that sometimes the laws of the physical world didn't exist. That is needed, so that someone can establish them. It is illogical to assume, that at some point no physical laws existed. Why make such an assumption?

This is why science=atheism people piss me off. Your argument is on par with a Christian shaking his head saying "nope I'm right, you're wrong, it's in the bible." If you want to debate this then you should present your "scientific analysis of the question" instead of saying it's just science 101. By being vague this argument pushes the theist, in this case me, into arguing against science as a whole which we both know is a dead end.

So please get off your high horse and present your findings instead of doing whatever this is. Oh and don't try and argue that I'm not a science guy. I know this is the internet full of people making stuff up but I'm not one of them. My 2011 Nobel prize in telling the truth proves that. (thought ending on humor would lighten the mood)

Religion can be summed up by the Dunning-Kruger effect, nothing more need be said.

We don't need no god!

It is not some "invisible man" that I would liken the Creator to as if he is some old aged guy with a beard having a good time watching what happens on earth while sitting back eating popcorn. I liken God to a omnipotent being who is also Omnipresent.

Science uses the bases of observation. I would ask the same question of you. Why when you look around you seeing us as complex living organisms, our solar system, air, gravity, the vast deep universe with laws that all work together establishing order do you not see it as an amazing creation by a vastly intelligent Omniscient creator? We are here alive as a product of something.

Products are a result of an intelligent influence. When we look at solar systems, galaxies, our bodies we see order, purpose, and enginuity. How, then can you look at it and say that its all just the reslut of a random happens chance that the coding for everythign we see occuring now was all directly written in the very beginnings of the universe without any intelligent influence whatsover?

That is why in the realm of science it defies logic.