We run into the same argument countless times - I suppose science and religion looks at fairly different ideas.
Theism attempts to answer the origins of the world/universe, and it appears as if science continuously attempts to disregard these searches - whether it simply be because it's impossible to know, and therefore tiresome or because they are afraid to attempt to search, I'm unsure.
In any case, from what I gathered in my anthropological course, I've come to question, if evolution is truly possible, then why haven't we evolved yet? Surely we are not perfect, but we are definitely adaptable - so if adaptation is evolution, I can accept that, but I don't understand the likelihood of a mutation occurring and overhauling an entire population to creating a new species, gradual or not. Perhaps you could explain this, because I'm reading directly out of my lecture notes from that semester - but she was a poor teacher, so maybe you'll have a better explanation.
In regards to abiogenesis, I relate back to my first comment - it seems as if science rarely wants to find the origins, they just want to find more about the future and what will happen. I might be wrong, but from nearly every argument I've had regarding theology vs science (which I still don't see conflicting), I've noticed that science-based explanations attempt to brush off any explanation of where the initial "anything" came from.
A prime example, in talking to my physics teacher, is the everlasting question of "Where did all the energy come from to cause the Big Bang?" Science has yet to provide an answer because if it did, it would contradict it's own laws - energy cannot be created nor destroyed.
Theology attempts to provide a solution - I recognize the provided solution is on the surface no better than a guess, but in any case you cannot deny that it attempts to provide reason for the source of where an occurence may come from, that science has yet (and probably never will be able to) answer.
I'm not in disagreement with science, you should note: I'm majoring in computer science and that requires several physics semesters, which I thoroughly am enjoying currently.
A literal interpretation of the Genesis story, for example, is clearly and definitively false,
Plenty of well-educated scientists are in disagreement with evolution.
The keyword here is literal. If the story is really being considered, you'd see it has nothing against the Big Bang. And, to a degree, even if evolution were to be correct, it wouldn't necessarily contradict the Bible to any degree to really shake it.
...Therefore, it's not essentially fair to simply assume the seven proposed days in Genesis are the same as the days humans maintain. Our 24-hour day is not the same as a, say, billion or trillion year "day" for God.
I don't think it's necessarily fair to say that if I don't agree with evolution, I might as well disagree with gravity and am in disagreement with science. Gravity is a law - you can't really argue against it with any support. Evolution has substantial arguments against it, and in support of all three arguments that God does exist (ontological, cosmological, and teleological), it seems pretty rational to say that intelligent design is a fair theory. Evolution isn't science itself, it's a theory of a branch of science. Saying I disagree with a proposed segment doesn't mean I disagree with science - that's a really large assumption you are determining about me as a person when you say that. However, you might be onto something if you had claimed I'm more mathematically inclined than scientifically incline - had you said that, I'd say that's fair.
On one of your last claims, you mentioned that the net energy is 0. I again would have to point to the question of if it is 0, then why is any activity occurring at all. Wouldn't it be more likely/realistic that if there is no energy, that we a) shouldn't be able to measure/manipulate energy for our benefit, and b) shouldn't exist at all?
And regarding your statement of it being nonsensical - I'd say that fits right along with the ontological argument, though opposition of the statement doesn't provide negative support towards the argument. However, since I am in opposition of there being nothing prior to it, relating to my initial statement at the beginning of this paragraph.
Also, note you took my "no better than a guess" out of context - I definitely mentioned "on the surface" as well. I have legitimate reasons why I believe what I believe, and whilst there is a leap of faith, I personally would say I have more faith in being a theist than atheist.
I'm interested in why you think the Ontological argument is flawed. There are other things to discuss here, but the only arguments I've heard against the Ontological argument were incredibly weak. The argument that a "vampire" or "grenlin" must then exist aren't valid because the characteristics of such creatures are attributed to other properties that have been experienced. However, the properties of an omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent, and all-loving being (God is defined with all 4, at least the Christian God anyways), are not attributed to any other "thing" in the universe. (On a second note, I'm really actually interested in your opinion as to why it's weak. I personally have never heard a strong argument as to why it is weak, but I don't believe that the Christian God would make himself knowable - it would have to be faith-based, and therefore I don't see how a specific proof can justify a God. It seems that it's so simple that it is actually skipping a few steps, but at least on the surface it appears logically sound. This question is nearly purely educational and maybe only 5% argumentative.)
On to something else. Yesterday, I spent roughly 4-5 hours simply studying various evolution experts, the arguments against, and everything you have stated (including the resources you led me to). I had a discussion with my previous anthropology teacher, and I'd actually like to change my mind regarding evolution. Honestly, I was looking at the situation from a biased standpoint with very little evidence as to necessarily why, but after doing my homework have come to agreement, through analyzing both sides of the situation. Considerably, and note that this will adhere to your argument about the "annoyance of God being unfalsifiable," I will have to maintain that creationism may still maintain a support for evolution, and I think that creationist scientists fail to recognize this. I would say that intelligent design is still possible, and that (take this less as an argument, and more as a theological perspective) God created the rules of the universe to allow evolution to happen the way that it did. Genesis does maintain that God created the creatures before man, so it's "possible" that as he wanted man to be made in His image, he experimented with Primates (or some story along those lines).
However, this story, I'd rather not discuss. The fact is it will go in a circle, and whilst the claim is dogmatic I'm still maintaining the belief that through logic and empirical evidence (essentially, the accounts of the New Testament are purely empirical), there is a mixture of both dogmatic and progressive reasons to believe the Bible. Not as strong as pure science mind you, but that's again a whole other discussion.
Hm, your concept of the Ontological Argument is a bit flawed here. You are relating the word "greatest" with just "[insert word here]."
Also, reading the non-existence argument, it has a contradiction in it. It says it assumes the world to be the most marvelous achievement. I'd immediately disagree with that. I'd say the universe is a more impressive feat...
...than the Earth. However, I'll allow the principle of doubt to apply here. If premise 1 is correct (which is also rather opinionated - not allowed), then skip over to step 5. It contradicts mathematics here. It says it would be greater for a God who doesn't exist to have created the world.
This part brings up a couple things. First, is the property of existence. Anselm proposed existence to be a perfection, but this seems a little... tricky. Rather, I'd rather talk about the mathematical error. It says a God who exists as close is it possibly can with this "handicap" is less than a God that does not exist.
Well, mathematically this turns into:
0.00000000000000001 < 0, which is definitely false. It was a good attempt, but it's still impractical.
That said, I still have an issue with the Ontological Argument (I don't think God would make himself known so easily), but I've yet to find a substantial reason why I shouldn't agree with it. So far no logic has been cast against it.