The existence of god is demonstrated by the fact that the universe is logical. For a logical statement to be either true or false it's state of truth has to exist somewhere. A truth is not physical so the only place it could exist is inside of a consious mind. Well for any truth to be absolute there would have to be a mind that knows the true nature of all things. In this sense a logical universe requires a all knowing god to by its very existence. Even the question, Is there a god? implies Gods existence because without one the question could never have a definitive answer.
If by "definitive answer" you are talking about absolute certainty then this statement is a red-herring b/c you would first have to show that such "absolute" knowledge is possible. Now, just b/c the universe is "logical" (by this I take it to mean you are saying the universe follows specific 'norms') doesn't at all mean that a God 'thing' exists (as it could simply just be
the way things are with no deity required). After all, you do believe that your God just is
don't you? So obviously, at some point, you think there comes a point where one can do no more explaining. I see no need for an extra assumption
of a supernatural deity to explain physical constants or normalities of our local universe.
I further see no reason for thinking there is any ontological "absolute truth". And even if there was, by what means could you claim to know it with "absolute certainty"? These terms are really meaningless, if for no other reason than the fact that human understanding is wholly first person. In short, claiming you have "absolute knowledge" doesn't mean you do. I could just as easily claim that I have absolute knowledge of something contradictory to your claim. Would that make me right?
Now onto God being the embodiment of everything that is good and moral, the idea behind this is that Morality has to be objective in order to exist. People have been advocating Moral Systems for years in which they try and eliminate the objective good. But they all fall on the question: "Why should I do that?" Utilitarianism for example says we should increase utility for all Sentient Creatures, however this is not an elimination of Morals instead it is the forwarding of a system in which there is only one Moral. So then just like truth, for morals to have any validity you need to have some being that is in the state of being truly moral outside of reality, this again then implies a god.
Morality does not "exist" like an atom, quasar, or planet. Morality is the description we put upon the bases of human actions (and whether they are harmful, helpful, and how they pertain to well being). Morality is about
well being and the minimization of harm. If you talk about anything else, then you aren't talking about morality.
Regarding your "objective" claim, I have seen no reason for thinking there is some 'standard' that can apply without anyone around. Each of us values life subjectively
and this fact doesn't make morality "objective" in the way I think you are using the term.
Next lets move on to God as the Creator of the Universe. This can be seen in the fact that everything in the physical universe is based on causation. To say that everything that happens had something that happened before it. Then for the universe to have ever started, for the universe to be here it would have needed an objective creator, an outside cause. This once again arrives at a conscious God.
Just claiming "conscious God" is ad hoc. You need to demonstrate that claim (provide evidence - not just assert). There are many scientific explanations for the origin of this universe. Why would you just jump to some 'God did it' answer? That is just an argument from ignorance fallacy. Our local universe could have been caused by another universe, or it could have been uncaused (just like this 'God' is allegedly uncaused). Why would you jump to mysteries to explain other mysteries? That is just credulity and gullibility.
THe last clams that everything that happens is the physical universe is a result of gods will. This is best shown as a recurrence relation. Given any physical action, the action is defined by the action of its smaller parts. So when a bat hits a baseball, the movement is based on the actions of both object's molecules, which are dependent on the interactions of the atoms wich is based on the interactions of the subatomic particles and so on. Eventually, however the recurrence relation has to reach a base case. Some set of interactions on the tiniest scale that happen arbitrarily. Because they happen for know reason, I am yet to find a reason they could happen outside of the will of an objective being.
Huh? This is another Argument from Incredulity fallacy. Because you personally can't see how X happened...therefore God? NO. Who said things happen for "no reason"? You are really stretching here.