Sea Breeze: So far on this thread, I have tried to establish that atheists take for granted a number of things that can only be attributed to the God of the Bible.
The problem is, you haven't established them. You have asserted them. Or you have drawn inferences from a book that also only makes assertions. In every other facet of your life, you reject this approach as facile and dishonest. But on the most profound issue you can face, you fall back on presuppositions and false dichotomy.
I have expressed before, that I do not deny the possibility of a god existing. I am certain it isn't the one you think it is, or any kind of being that would be concerned with our well being. The universe supports this approach quite nicely, aside from the usual problem that no one can seem to find this being, or even detect its influence.
Your god is not the personification of love, at least not love as humans recognize it. He is not a consistent actor, to use your term. We can logically arrive at the conclusion that this being will eventually damn all of creation over the course of eternity. He is given to anger, jealousy, and brutal action taken precipitously. He acts, curiously enough, like a human being. And his rules and attitude reflect the people who existed when these books were written. Logic tells me that these men created god, and not the other way around.
I know you can't demonstrate god without relying on presupposition and gap-filling. I did that myself for many years and ultimately found it unsatisfying. I'd rather accept that there are things I don't know (and probably won't know) than to try to defend something that I can't explain. I don't have to make a choice between your god and a "chance universe", because those aren't the only two choices. And while it's fairly straightforward to show how your god doesn't make sense, I cannot demonstrate how a "chance universe" does or does not produce creatures of reason. Why would I presume to defend either approach?