-- I am aware of that. But without such anchor, essentially anything can go. And more specifically, Judaism, Christianity, Islam and all its variations cannot all be true yet all think theirs is true. Who is right if even one faction is?? There are multiple other (older) faiths dead and alive involving other creative deities. What's so special about your faith? Why not Islam? What would you say if you were born and raised in Iraq? What if you were raised among Shinto, Buddhists etc?
Just because the Tanach / NT / Quran state it is the Word of God, doesn't automatically make it so. I have extensively researched bible scholarship and I found nothing to suggest it is.
"I reject the notion that there are such things as brute facts, facts that are uninterpreted."
-- Facts are facts. They are bits of truth. Models based on facts are a matter of interpretation. The T of E is an interpretation that matches facts, and crucially it does not fail facts. Insta-creation of all kinds more or less simultaniously does fail facts.
"I reject the idea that there is no philosophy involved in the scientific method. Such thinking is not only naive, it is pure poppycock."
-- What matters in science is if a philosophical concept is falsifiable by use of facts. Those pesky things that function as anchors to keep things realistic and prevent circular reasoning.
"You rule out the historical account of a miracle on the basis that you have never seen one. That is preposterous."
-- You rule out macro-evolution because it has never been witnessed. That is more proposterous since we know evolution as a process is fact and we have facts that indicate this is what happened. Miracles are anything but fact.
-- That is not the only thing why I dismiss ancient supernatural claims. Many are based on ignorance about nature (volcanic eruptions, floods, bad harvests etc). Others like a god triggering an armed invasion I attribute to superstition. And there is the category legends and myths, storytelling, oral tradition.
-- Do you dismiss non-Judeo-Christian claims about supernature? See, at least I am consistent. I dismiss all of it.
"You arbitrarily construct physical properties or laws of nature merely because you observe something happen repeatedly."
-- No, properties constantly matching repeatable, testable facts are not arbitrary. Downplaying that with "merely" is just silly. And comparing it to constantly getting up early even more so. You can turn off your alarm and not go to work. You cannot turn off gravity.
"You posit that finite autonomous human reason can serve as the ultimate reference..;. etc"
-- I posit this is the best we have available to us, and that history / reality shows it. Even if a supernatural grand arbiter exists, we do not posess his ~supposedly~ objective morals ourselves, nor can you convince me any theist has an open line for ongoing morality checks. Reality is we tend to stick to what we were taught, primarily by our parents / caretakers. With or without use of religion. I consider religion a cultural element.
"than accidental blobs of molecules / by chance"
-- Nature is NONRANDOM. CAUSALITY. Dammit, why do you insist on sticking to this ridiculous creationist notion. If you can't even adjust this, it's useless trying to get you to at least understand concepts not your own.
"It's just there."
-- Yes. Including what we call "morality". The fact that we humans do have morality, is not an argument for the existence of (your) god, certainly not since it's subjective.
Cutting right through all the creationist stuff, essentially it comes down to "Life exists. therefore (my) god exists". Gigantic non-sequitur.