You must not have read my post carefully; I did not even mention God in my post because I share your opinions, most of them anyway.
I did not want you to tell me the definition (or your perceived definition) of abiogenesis. Yes, experiments have shown how the building blocks of life - amino acids, etc. were able to form. I asked you to explain the situation that would have to occur for that spark - life. Can you explain that without exploding into angry words? I agree with your premise of random+time+movement= life" even though it is a little crude. But I used that as an example because we do not know the exact situation where a chemical process turned into a biological process.
Do not be so quick as to say that nothing is outside of our universe, our "system" as recent (and not-so-recent) posts have pointed out (Godel`s theorem for example) that God exists out of our system. Beware - I am not saying that they are correct, I am just trying to point out to you that you do not know. Our universe is not endless, as you said it was. As we look farther out into space, we are in fact seeing back into time. Basic Relativity. It takes time for light to reach us from the far reaches of our universe. Hubble has detected a type of "haze" dubbed the background radiation from the big bang. This is time = 0. The edge of our universe. Our universe is expanding. To expand, you need something to expand into, but I am not as knowledgeable as I would like to be in cosmology, so I will leave it at that. Remember the "ant on an orange" universe - it can search every square inch of its universe, and not find an edge. Its universe is, therefore, FINITE but unbounded. We do not know for sure if our universe is as such or not.
You said that black holes and superstrings are "pure speculation." This surprised me, to say the least. Even a simple web-search will reveal to you the evidence we have pointing toward the existence of black holes. We do not need to see them to know they are there, however. We have other means of detecting them. In fact, many scientists nowadays, looking at all of the evidence, can safely say that black holes DO indeed exist, and can call many of the conservatively-named "black hole candidates" black holes without fear of being wrong.
From your previous posts I gather that you are not a scientist, especially not a physicist. Many physicists have their own perceptions of the so-called "string theory" or "superstring theory" and have tried to come to terms with it and the up-and-coming "unified field theory" or "everything theory" and they are not so quick as to immediately label superstrings as "pure speculation." You stated that they are explained before they are discovered. This is often true in fields such as quantum physics, because we know that our universe is not entirely chaotic; it has set rules and patterns. We can predict the existence of certain things because of careful observation, and then set out to observe whatever we predicted, prove that it exists. That is the way modern science works nowadays.
"Where is the miracle that proofs God? I can not
see it! Am I blind or smart???"
I have asked myself that same question many times throughout my life; you are not alone in pondering that