I will explain my argument in more detail, then you may understand. If there is no Creator God, then the universe just originated from objects. If it originated from objects then it is extremely unlikely that a subject-object correlation would be established thereby preventing us, subjects, from ever being able to know if what we are observing is what is really there, ie an objective world. But if there is a Creator God, then when He created the universe He established that subject-object correlation, thereby giving us a rational basis for believing that we what we observe is what is actually there.
No, that's a false dichotomy, we don't know the universe's origin method, we can only speculate in terms of something demonstrable, otherwise you're making claims about reality you cannot substantiate meaningfully, just claim it's the "most reasonable" which is necessarily subjective based on knowledge and perspective
No, we emerge from biological processes that don't have a mind behind them, in the same way that life emerged from non life in a complex process that we are beginning to understand. You're suggesting falsely that because there is no agency behind nature in a nontheistic metaphysic that we cannot be anything but solipists, which is insane, because there are plenty of epistemological systems and few require the appeal to an outside agency for them to be cogent and defensible.
The subject object correlation you're referring to seems far less complex than you're making it: I perceive things with my senses and understand that I could be mistaken in my perception, but that doesn't mean I cannot have some degree of confidence that the things I interact with, the objects I perceive, are independent of my perception, otherwise my computer, my desk, my chair, would all cease to exist when I leave the house or go to sleep, because I no longer perceive or conceive of them. I as a subject can interact with objects, there isn't a need for the relationship to be established by an external agent apart from your assertion as such with no basis prior to it. We naturally interact with things and have an understanding of them as our brains continue to develop (mirror neurons come to mind, something I'm only mildly familiar with)
Object permanence in the basic notion of things persisting even when we are not interacting with them is already a decent case for the notion itself, even if it isn't absolutely conclusive: we could be in the Matrix and it's an elaborate trick in regards to simulating all these complex brain states that regard a consistent reality, but that boils down to speculation and not something that lends itself to a functional view of reality, because it's on the level of a paranoid schizophrenic believing something we have no good reason or evidence to believe is true apart form their delusions.
Seems to me you're dangerously close to a transcendental argument for God's existence that presuppositionalists like Darth Dawkins, Matt Slick and the like use to suggest that without God we cannot be confident or even provisionally certain that reality is the way it is independent of our perception, which needlessly muddies the waters in a discussion where the major disagreement is qualitative, particular conclusions about the model of reality versus the agreement we tend to have that reality works consistently.
