This entire thing sounds like it was written by someone with absolutely no understanding of science misapplying scientific principles to somehow prove the existence of the metaphysical. This is a gross distortion of the scientific method, as any scientist worth his salt will tell you that science can not be used to either prove nor disprove the existence of any supernatural metaphysical creative force; it is simply beyond the realm of what science can claim to test for. So to attempt to distort these principles and arrive at the logical conclusion that everything we don't understand is proof of God's existence is not only unscientific by design, it is completely illogical. Nonetheless, I'll argue some specific points where I take issue with the logic of the author.
I cannot say whether God exists or does not exist. Science doesn't offer the tools to test for the presence of the metaphysical. I respect that. I personally have not seen evidence that convinces me that there is an omnipotent creator, but I am fully aware that I could be wrong. However, I do know that attempting to misrepresent science, attempting to put forth any sort of logical argument to prove or disprove God is folly from the get-go; God is inherently unknowable, unprovable. You can speak pretty words, you can form arguments from either side, at the end of the day, it's all petty banter. The truth is we simply cannot know; not in this lifetime anyway. As long as we live our lives as good people who honestly cares whether or not we all believe in the same metaphysical creative force?
This one is meaningless. First off, there are a number of theories that deal with the concept of space-time, multiple universes, and dimensions that we are not capable of perceiving which call into question the idea that our universe is eternal or infinite. Second, the prevailing theory of the creation of the Universe (the Big Bang) offers us an age of the universe at roughly 14 billion years; that's a long time, but it's certainly not eternal. Since the claim made revolves around a universe that is both eternal and infinite, you must prove that it is either of these things before you can advance an argument around it; the author cannot.
Again, the author shoots himself in the foot. No scientist would ever claim that Mars and the Earth have existed for an infinite amount of time; we are frequently cited 4.5 billion years as the age of the Earth. Assuming a similar age for Mars, we can come up with a rough estimate of exactly how many orbits each has made around the sun; to wit, 4.5 billion for the Earth, 2.25 billion for Mars. These are large numbers, but they are hardly infinite. This renders the author's claims based on "eternity" completely meaningless, as they are based around false data.
Here we are presented with a false dichotomy; either we spontaneously burst into existence from nothingness or we were created by a metaphysical being (presumably from nothingness). But this metaphysical being can't have been created from nothingness, because that would undermine the argument the author is trying to advance, so he conveniently labels this being as eternal. The problem with this logic is that we have absolutely no evidence to support this theory outside of a lack of large amounts of evidence to support other theories. That's not a convincing argument. That's coming up with a solution that effectively absolves you from having to collect any more data or do any experimentation; it's explaining to a child that a lightbulb works by "magic" because you can't be bothered to figure it out yourself.
Again, the author attempts to advance an argument as though it were logical and based around some degree of scientific thought. But the argument is still fundamentally based around a single tenet; I don't understand this, so the only possible explanation is a supernatural metaphysical being. We are so arrogant to assume that if we don't understand something, the only possible explanation is a creator who is even smarter than we are (yet someone we hope we can understand). What hubris. What gall.
I cannot say whether God exists or does not exist. Science doesn't offer the tools to test for the presence of the metaphysical. I respect that. I personally have not seen evidence that convinces me that there is an omnipotent creator, but I am fully aware that I could be wrong. However, I do know that attempting to misrepresent science, attempting to put forth any sort of logical argument to prove or disprove God is folly from the get-go; God is inherently unknowable, unprovable. You can speak pretty words, you can form arguments from either side, at the end of the day, it's all petty banter. The truth is we simply cannot know; not in this lifetime anyway. As long as we live our lives as good people who honestly cares whether or not we all believe in the same metaphysical creative force?