[CONTINUED FROM ABOVE]
2. Everything within the universe must have a cause. No reaction happens without an action. "X", the action that brought our universe to be, cannot be contained within this universe because if it were, it would have to have its own cause, in which case the universe would have to be infinite, which it is not.
3. No. I simply asserted that the cause of the universe must be supernatural because the universe cannot be self-causing or self-perpetuating. I made no assertion that this proves the existence of God. You seem to be desperately grasping at straws here, hoping that I will try to posture some naturalistic proof of God that you can shoot down. On the contrary my whole point is entirely different: that, unlike your old pal Dawkins asserts, the existence of God is not a scientific claim (it is a statement of faith) and thus is not subject to scrutiny under the scientific method.
I'm glad you got rid of the sarcastic emoticon.
So, you essentially agree with the first two points, but you're basically claiming sanctuary from the third because you claim that you aren't making a scientific hypothesis (even though you're using scientific evidence to back yp your claim; even though you're making an objective claim about the universe). Well, fine, I'll give you that for the sake of argument, but your conclusion is eligible for a purely logical examination. (After all, according to you, either something is logical or it isn't). (Cue the my god is "beyond logic" defense.)
What is more likely the case is that you realize that your god is not logical and simply don't want that fact to be exposed.
EDITED TO ADD: Mike, I really think that you should seriously rethink your position. You believe that your god created the universe with a purpose, yet you are not able to demonstrate it by any means. You simply have faith. Realizing this, you've constructed quite an amusing defense: that faith is reasonable. This makes since if you are the kind of person to buy the NOMA jive, seeing as NOMA arbitrarily erects walls between two different fields. But once you take the NOMA mode of thinking out of the equation, there is no failsafe by which one can reach to escape the fact that faith is anything but reasonable. In fact, by definition, faith is oblivious to reason.
Now, you are free to say that you believe in your god simply because of faith and that would multiple times better than the mess of an argument you're positing. Let me see if I can get this straight: God is a logical necessity yet he cannot be examined logically because logic is a branch of naturalism (a false claim, by the way) and God is unmoved by the tenants of naturalism because he is supernatural. (And save the "this isn't what I said" line because it is.) I mean, wow--there had better be a big piece of cheese at the end of that maze.
Perhaps the most pathetic point in your argument was your failed attempt to demonstrate that I had no standard for belief. You must have realized that I took special exception to that remark considering that I went out of my way to clear it up directly. You were given a chance to take it back, but instead you hit an unnamed dictionary and claimed it's definition to be ubiquitous. Now, I don't want to say that that was an outright lie, in part because I'd have more respect for that position if you were lying, considering the alternative would be to have ignored resources such as Answers.com or dictionary.com which give multiple definitions from several sources. And what do those sites say? They say that your definition is more accurate of faith than it is of belief.
So, though you may use scientific data and logic to boast your belief in your god--its really nothing more than faith. Unreasonable, illogical faith.