"You CAN'T actually see design, you're just invoking yet another Argument from Ignorance to get you there ("I can't personally see how something as complex as the eye could have evolved naturally, therefore it didn't, therefore it was designed")."
Yes, you can detect design. (Check out the book "The Design Inference" by William Dembski.) If SETI were to get the prime numbers coming through space (as in the movie Contact), they would immediately conclude the signal was coming from an intelligent source. We immediately recognize the four faces of the U.S. Presidents on Mount Rushmore were done by a sculpture and not the product of natural processes like erosion. When an archaeologist finds a carved stone and determines it is an arrowhead, he is detecting design. If you saw, "John love Mary" written in the sand on the beach you would know immediately it wasn't done my the waves but that someone put it there intentionally.
My argument is not based on what we DON'T know but based on what we DO know. So far as we know, everything that begins to exist has a cause and that cause is always greater than its effect. We also know information always comes from a mind. And we know life always comes from life. So to claim that maybe the universe is the first thing to arise without a cause or that maybe DNA contains the first information to arise without a mind or that maybe, just once, life arose from non-living material through undirected processes is to make an argument from ignorance. I call it a Darwin-of-the-gaps argument.
"You've completely ignored every single word I said about "causes" within our universe and the fallacy of trying to apply this to a "time" before there even was a universe. If relativity breaks down at the quantum level, why don't you understand that causality could too?"
I understand that it COULD but we have no good evidence that it DOES. And until such time as we do, it is more rational to base or arguments on what we actually know and have observed. If you look back, every single one of my arguments is based on what we've actually observed. That's good science. And that's why I don't like fudging with the word "fact" and prefer to reserve it for things that can be tested and verified scientifically. By that definition, I would not even claim that it is a "fact" that God exists. It's an inference to the best explanation.
"Why aren't physicists (even Christian ones) trying to use this argument to demonstrate a beginning? Because it's a BAD argument, Best - that's why."
They do. I quoted them. Here it is again:
Alexander Vilinkin said, "It is said that an argument is what convinces reasonable men and a proof is what it takes to convince even an unreasonable man. With the proof now in place, cosmologists can no longer hide behind the possibility of a past-eternal universe. There is no escape, they have to face the problem of a cosmic beginning (Many Worlds in One [New York: Hill and Wang, 2006], p.176)."
"How pathetic of you. Most suicide bombers are actually theists, as you well know . . . But since you're one of those historically ignorant people who thinks that Stalin killed people "in the name of atheism" I am not remotely surprised."
Yes, but the Tamil Tigers are atheists who invented suicide bombing. I don't claim anyone does anything in the name of atheism because I accept the recent redefining of atheism as "a lack of belief." It is anti-theism which is dangerous and has killed millions.
"I'd torture the baby for 10 seconds. I'd be sobbing as I did it, but I'd do it. What a stupid conundrum. Can't you think of a better one?"
It served my point. You said you wouldn't torture a baby for any reason and I found a scenario where you would. That's why I add in "for fun" because everyone agree that is wrong and thus we have at least one objective moral. That's all we need to infer the existence of God.
By the way, I don't think I could bring myself to torture the baby - even for ten seconds. There are those who will say I am immoral for not saving the lives of a million but I did not kill them. The terrorist did. Two wrongs don't make a right and you don't stop one evil by committing another.
"Would YOU, by the way, let a baby starve to DEATH if there was milk behind a Tesco shop window that you could steal in order to save it?"
I would not steal the milk. It's a false dichotomy. There are other ways to get money to buy the milk. And if I did steal the milk, I would not make excuses and I would admit that it was wrong.
"You seem to be operating under the very odd assumption that if morality cannot be objective, then it can't exist at all."
No, I don't say that. That would be silly.
"Culture CAN explain morality, along with social and biological evolution . . ."
Yes they can. Just not satisfactorily. Do you appeal more to culture or to evolution? I've said repeatedly that I would ultimately have to appeal to evolution for morality if I were an atheist.
"I can't think of many things more immoral than a doctrine that teaches us that it's a sin to be born a human being, that we start to pay for the crimes of someone who ate some fruit they shouldn't have done from the moment we are born, and ought to be grateful that someone was tortured to death on our behalf. I find the basis of Christianity to be sickening, quite honestly."
I find it beautiful and elegant. And I find the basis for atheism selfish and arrogant. But we can still get along. 
"And, the 10 Commandments tell us we should not kill."
Kill means "murder" in this context. Murder is the killing of an innocent person by a guilty person. God never killed anyone who was innocent.
"In parts of America, most conservative Christians hold two views....abortion is wrong (because of the commandment not to kill) but capital punishment is OK (because Jesus says "An eye for an eye")."
Yup. Totally consistent. One kills an innocent person the other kills a guilty person.
"Man, you would really argue that black is white and down is up given half a chance, wouldn't you."
Pot meet kettle. 
"Lack of belief in god and disbelief in God is the same thing."
No they aren't. "Lack" is passive while "dis" is active. (Think of DISrespect). You mean UNbelief. Atheists who do not have an active disbelief in God should really call themselves non-theists.
"I am one of the few atheists on this thread that doesn't just lack belief in a god (in other words, I am unconvinced by theist arguments) I actively believe there is no god & I take the burden of proof upon myself by saying that."
That's what I lappreciate about you, Ellie. You take responsibility for your beliefs and attempt to defend them. Many atheists (and theists too) refuse to do that.
"Why are you so desperate for Einstein not to be an atheist?"
I'm not. I strive for accuracy. When the man's own writings say he was not an atheist, I take him at his word. The problem come in when we re-define words to make them suit our agenda. To Einstein, atheism was an active disbelief which he did not have. He was born Jewish but not practicing. So if Hitler was Catholic then Einstein was Jewish.
"NOT THAT IT MATTERS because I don't believe he did anything because he was a Christian or in the name of Christianity - he had other reasons."
Yes, good. His other reasons were hatred of religion (especially Christianity and Judaism) and a desire to breed the master race based on a bastardization of the theory of evolution.