As far as taking the challenge of choosing a religion and defending it is concerned, I’ve had a few goes in my mind and always ended when I came to the point where I would say to myself, “But if I argue xyz, then I know for a fact that there is no answer to the argument, ‘that can’t be because of abc.’ Thus I fail.”
I probably need to re-read your argument, which is one of those that is superficially attractive, but I did like your third paragraph. Yet, even this is stating there is a god by virtue of defining ‘god’ in the way that suits your argument; in this case, whatever was the beginning of life is god which leads us to think that perhaps some murky pool in a far galaxy is god. But it is just a murky pool, probably lacking all self-awareness.
I recall a post about a year back; some Mormon was proselytizing and was asked “Define your god.” Before he could get any further, a poster I took to be a more senior Mormon, leaped in and, with something akin to panic, ordered, “Don’t do that! Don’t give any definition!”
And that is one trouble with gods – once defined, they are no longer gods; see murky pool above. But to support a belief in them you have to have an idea of what they are like. This idea always falls short of a definition.
I could play the fundamentalist and, as Quesi and Anfauglir suggest, trot out a few apologetics, baseless claims, circular arguments and biblical quotes but I know I will be shot down with, ‘that can’t be because of abc.’ Thus I fail.