1. Life requires a Creator.
2. The Creator of life necessarily possesses at least some of the crucial attributes of God.
3a.The laws that precisely constrain and purposefully govern aimless, inanimate matter further support the existence of this Creator.
3b.The universe also further supports the existence of this Creator.
4. It is reasonable to conclude that the Creator of all three (life, the physical laws, and the universe) is one and the same.
5. The only reasonable candidate for this Creator is the God of the Bible.
6. The life, death, and resurrection of Jesus serve as further dramatic evidence for #5.
7. The voracity of the Bible adds even more evidence for #5.
Let us simply grant the premise that life "requires" a Creator.
Now we can laugh... we can fall out of our chair from the assertion of premise 5:
"The only reasonable candidate for this Creator is the God of the Bible."
This is hilarious! Which God of the Bible; the Judaic one or the Christian one? Traditional Monotheism or Neo-Hebrew Trinitarianism? [The great apologist goes from the observation of life to the authority of the Protestant Canon... surely this must be a joke?]
But it gets worse; there is a wide divergence as to the nature of the Trinity itself. Are we shocked to learn that theologians disagree? [Indeed, one does not even find the Trinity in the majority of Biblical texts!] In fact, it is doubtful whether this concept is contained in the Bible at all (and here we are not speaking about the word)? Are we suppose to believe, for example, that the writer of Ecclesiastes believed in the Trinity? On the basis of what evidence--- the assertions of some other book, which means the interpretation of an entirely separate document, imposed on Ecclesiastes!
Well at least our clever friend has figured things out.
"The only reasonable candidate for this Creator is the Trinity." That is to say, the Holy Spirit which is the third person of God, wherein God is the Father at the same time he is also the Son, at the same time he is also the mystical Spirit. And we know this must be true because a particular interpretation (which is an arbitrary fusing of divergent books) is decreed to have authority. We simply let Oppy speak:
"...when one considers the difficulties that are raised by the existence of many scriptures, by the apparent need to justify the contention that (certain) claims that are made in a given scripture can be trusted, by the need to interpret scriptural text, and by the ready availability of alternative - naturalistic- explanations of the existence of a proliferation of scriptural texts, it seems clear that the difficulties that confront the construction of any such argument are severe indeed." Arguing About Gods, pg.344
There is nothing more to say, the man who made the above argument (which is to say the man who finds it to be profound) is an idiot... he has merely given us a picture of his limited critical capacity. He has simply made it known to us that he is susceptible to Christian sophistry. He is like a man holding up a sign in the street which reads: I fell for these assertions and believe you will too. In the future I will use this argument to exemplify the kind of conversation I do not have, nor am willing to have, with theists.