This is nonsense and a form of generic ad hominem fallacy. You should know better than to start arguing like this, it's lousy debate. It is a perverse, corrosive and commonly touted criticism used by religious people, mystics, new agers and other spiritual people. It really just reflects a number of diverse errors in thinking and reason. Ad hominems also tends to run into debates when a debater has run out of good and spesific arguments. As Christopher Hitchens once said "… I always think it's a sign of victory when they move on to the ad hominem."... I am tempted to agree.  

Being open-minded doesn't mean considering all and every possibility as equally viable, joedirt. This is not only impractical, but many claims, such as the one you present in your post, are completely unsupported by the evidence while others are just straight out ridiculous. To accept claims uncritically, in the absence of supporting evidence, has nothing to do with being open-minded. Accepting claims purely on the basis of belief and wishful thinking is to be credulous, however.

The implicit theme running through this line of fallacious reasoning of yours, is that it generates a kind of false argument in that just because materialists, skeptics and scientists do not endorse and embrace certain claims or ideas about our universe, they must be close-minded. But there is nothing close-minded about openly and objectively considering an idea or claim and then rejecting it or say it's unlikely to be true. Materialists, skeptics and many scientists have done nothing wrong, but have backed an idea with the highest quality evidence, supporting the most reasoned and the most likely account based on this evidence.

If the argument or claim being made by you could be shown to be correct, then an open-minded person will modify their views accordingly – indeed science would demand this in the face of good and consistent evidence. If the argument is found wanting in a number of fundamental aspects on the other hand, such as yours and Hyperspace Fool do, it will be soundly rejected and with good reasons. Clearly, by making an explicit commitment to all knowledge being provisional (as opposed to unquestionable) the way science and open-mindedness actually do, this is the most open-minded stance any knowledge system can take.

Let's examine some of your claims about that the universe must have been created. Your creator hypothesis would reasonably predict that the universe, at the time of creation, should have possessed some degree of order - the design that was inserted by the Grand Designer. In short, our best cosmological understanding of our universe shows that our universe began with no structure or organization at all, designed or otherwise. It was a state of complete chaos. We are then forced to conclude that the complex order we can see today could not have arisen as a result of any initial design built into the fabric of our cosmos at the so-called creation, but through some of the things I have already mentioned in my discussion with Hyperspace Fool.

Another common argument often used, and that it seems that you use, is this (formed as a syllogism in Islamic theology):

1. Whatever begins to exist must have a cause.

2. The universe began to exist.

3. Therefore, the universe has a cause.

Here you, and many others, insert God as the cause. First objection of course is who or what created God? Second objection is that this kalâm argument as it is called, has been severely challenged by philosophers on logical grounds. I will not address this here, because we're interested in the science (or at least I am). The first premise of this argument is taken to be true without any further justification than that of common, everyday experience - the same kind of experience that told us the earth was flat and at the center of the universe. The fact is that physical events at the atomic scale seem to happen without no cause at all. For example, when an atom in an excited state drops down to a lower energy level, it spontanously emits a photon, and this emission is without evident cause. Similar to this, no cause is evident in the decay of radioactive nuclei. These events, by so appearing, contradicts the first premise of this argument. Even if the kalâm argument were true, why should the cause not be a natural one without the need to be God or something supernatural?

Another shot at the this kalâm argument is that the second premise also need not be true. The claim that the universe began with the big bang has no real basis in current cosmology and physics. The observations supporting the big bang does not rule out the possibility that of a prior universe. Many theoretical models have been published that suggests soundly that our universe came into existence from pre-existing universes. We have no real reason to assume the universe actually began with the big bang. As Stephen Hawking also said "(...) if the universe is really completely self-sustained, having no boundary or edge, it would have neither beginning nor end; it would simply be. What place then, for a creator?".

Also worth noting here is that a number of prominent physicists have published, in very reputable scientific journals and peer reviews, a number of other scenarios by which the univers could come into existence "out of nothing" by totally natural causes. None of these things can be "proven" per se, but it serves to illustrate that the argument for the existence of God based on this creation-gap in scientific knowledge fails, because plausible natural mechanisms can be given within the framework of existing knowledge.

The origins and workings of our universe also doesn't require any violation of known physical laws. One might argue where these laws came from, and many state that they must have come from outside this universe. But this is not a demonstrable fact, and there is no reason as to why the laws of physics couldn't have come from within the universe itself.

As to the whole question of why there is something rather than nothing, this is often the last recourse of people believing in God to argue for his/her/thats existence, often when all other arguments have failed. Many conceptual problems arises with this of course; How do we define "nothing"? If it has properties, doesn't that make it something? But many, and you yourself, claim that God is the answer. But then why is there God rather than "nothing"? Assuming we can define nothing, why should "nothing" be a more natural state than something? In fact, our best knowledge of the universe can give plausible answers to why something is more natural than nothing. Many simple particle systems are unstable, that is, they have limited lifetimes as they undergo spontanous phase-transitions to more complex structures of lower energy. Since we can expect nothing to be as simple as it gets, we cannot expect it to be very stable. It would likely undergo spontanous phase-transitions to something more complicated, like for instance a universe of matter. The transition from nothing to something is a natural one, and as Nobel laureate physicist Frank Wilczek has but it, "The answer to the ancient question 'Why is there something rather than nothing?' would then be that 'nothing' is unstable".

Anyway, this post is long enough.

Stay Well.