You have failed to provide a serious rebutall to this ONE argument, your dealing with the big guns here, you'r word play and sophistry is of no import to us here.
Put up or shut up.
Oh, please. You are no 'big gun'; just an arrogant and largely ignorant small-bore regurgitating a well trodden (and well trodden on) 'argument'. You have already demonstrated on multiple occasions your total lack of comprehension of both the debate going on around you and of the philosphical terminology you lob into it at random. Your bluster does little to conceal your abject failure to answer the points raised.
I have used no 'word play' or 'sophistry', just pointed out that the assumptions and premises - which in this case amount to much the same thing - of your argument are highly questionable, to the extent that the argument itself has little force. They fall on two grounds. The first is what is known as the 'Problem of Evil' which an intellectual superstar such as yourself should already know all about. If you really want me to present it in full, so you can churn out the same ol' unconvincing responses, I'm happy to do so. To put it simply, though, lets start with your own babble;
What about the massive degree of wonders, goodness, kindness, generosity in the world? did you miss those? OPEN your eyes and take your head out of your ass.
Of course I didn't miss them. But their presence is totally consistent with an unguided and undesigned universe - as is that of their opposites which unlike you, seemingly, I also haven't missed. The presence of those opposites, though, is
not consistent with a posited omnipotent omni-benevolent God.
The second is simply the absurdity, as has already been pointed out, of claiming nature is 'perfect'. That can be interpreted in one of two ways, either analytic or holistic, as it were. In the first case, such an observation just seems to indicate a standard of perfection that conflicts with common sense. A young child dies painfully of cancer; their body killing them with its own imperfection. 'Perfect'? The rains don't come, the crops fail, and millions starve. 'Perfect?' If you say so. Most would consider such a claim ludicrous.
In the second case, the suggestion is that the universe as a whole is 'perfect'. As a master of logic such a yourself will instantly recognise, the only way that can be true is by definition; in other words the universe is 'perfect' just because you say it is. There can be no objective measure as, there being only one universe (that we can ever experience, anyway), there are no 'imperfect' ones to compare it to. The universe is neither perfect or imperfect, as those terms have no meaning in relation to it. It simply is.
Add to that the totally unjustifiable leap to the existence of a creator even if assumptions of perfection are accepted (I'm afraid the wishful use of the word 'obvious' just expresses an intuition or opinion, not 'logic') and the argument is exposed for the nonsense it is. Unless, of course, you accept the necessity of faith as, mercifully, the theists rather wiser than yourself are quite happy to do.
Incidently, the 'what caused the Big Bang' thing is rather old-hat these days. You might want to read up on the 'Ekpyrotic Universe' or 'Big Splat' model which at least suggests the question might need quite substantial revision before we even consider the answer. Of course, one thing looks likely to remain unchanged; the undoubted appeal of ignoring such considerations in favour of simply labelling what we don't understand as 'God' and marking the problem as solved.
