You are exactly right, even if all the current hypotheses are unreasonable it does not mean that God did it. However if you can't give a reasonable account of your position then it still remains irrational.

So now for my reasonable account for God's existence through cosmology. In responding, if you could comment on each of my formal logical statements in regards to whether or not they are valid. Don't care if your conviniced by it or not (because of course you won't be) but I am interested in your assessment of my formal logical reasoning. If you think it is invalid please point out why.

1. God is reasonable in as far as matter coming into existence.

The problem with there being a natural begining of the universe is the 1st law of thermodynamics. The problem is this: Matter cannot come spontaneously into existence without cause, yet at the beginning of the universe this is what is scientifically accepted as happening. Therefore my 1st logical statement is this: If matter cannot come into existence without a cause, then there was a cause for matter to come into existence.
2nd logical statement is this: If there was a cause for matter to come into existence and no matter existed before this event, then the cause for matter coming into existence was immaterial.

2. God does not commit an Infinite regress.

Other hypotheses which you have suggested to explain how the universe could come into existence without matter coming spontaneously into existence all have one thing in common; they all result in an infinite regression. Infinite regress is 1. (Philosophy, Logic) A causal relationship transmitted through an indefinite number of terms in a series, with no term that begins the causal chain. However a single eternal term does not result in an infinite regression occuring and therefore God as a single infinite term does not commit an infinite regress as you have previously advocated. If the universe could also be shown to be a single eternal term it too would not commit an infinite regression, however the 2nd Law of thermodynamics (atrophy) precludes this possibility.
No logical statement required, as I was just showing how God does not result in an infinite regress like the eternal material universe hypotheses you have suggested do.
3. The immaterial cause for the universe is complex not random.
The universe is highly complex in its workings and delicately balanced. To explain how such an unlikely event as the complex and delicately balanced universe coming into existence as single event by chance, scientists have hypothesised that there are many universes all with differing constants. These do provide explanations as to how a universe could actually exist, however the fact that cosmologists feel that there is a need for such explanations, reveals just how unlikely it is for a single universe to come into existence by chance is. For cosmologists aren't even considering this as much of a possibility. Currently all multiple universe ideas are hypothese and there is no evidence of them. Since we suspend belief in that which there is no evidence for, the assumption which I am working from is that there is only one universe.
3rd Logical statement: If there is only one universe and it is extrememly unlikely to have come into existence by random chance, then it is extemely unlikely that this one universe has not come into existence by random chance.
It is therefore far more probable that the universe is not random and if not random then therefore planned. (unless you can suggest another reason how a singular universe could come into existence in a way which isn't random chance)
4th Logical statement: If the cause for the highly complex universe planned it, then the cause which planned the universe is highly complex.

You may not agree with my conclusions however unless you can show that anything I have written is unresaonable or illogical then you must concede that a complex immaterial cause planned for the universe to come into existence is a reasonable position to hold.

After you have critiqued my formal logical reasonings, I am really quite interested in the first two logical statements.
As is the way with formal logical statements, if you agree with the assumptions then you must accept the conlcusion. So do you agree with the 1st law of thermodynamics? If you do, then you must also accept the conclusion. You now have proof through logical reasoning and the use of science that the reason for the universe is not a natural cause. That is of course unless you want to argue against the 1st LAW of thermodynamics or logical reasoning???

When I said 'strongest', in hiensight it was a bad word choice. What I meant was that to be agnostic is the furtherest position from belief in God which one can take rationally. As I have just shown again. The reason for it being the furtherest position is because, to claim that a 'natural' cause as reason for this universe is irrational. Therefore one cannot be a rationalist and an atheist. Agnosticism is somewhat more rational as there is a possibility that we do have something wrong in our fundament understandings of science and logic, and the proof that an immaterial cause resulted in the physical universe does not give evidence of God.

However the debate should now shift from being between was the cause natural (irrational position) or immaterial, to what was the immaterial cause (rational position).
In regards to this I have given an reasonable account of how this is a highly complex immaterial cause, aka God.