Well if you're not going to spend the time to educate yourself on a topic, you should probably not try and debate on it. It's very strange that you would try to get into a discussion of Richard Dawkins' views on theism and evolution, going so far as to claim he endorses false dichotomies without consideration of options that you present, all with having absolutely no fucking clue as to what he has specifically written on it. You think the whole "maybe god just made the rules", aka. the divine watchmaker/Deism thing is a new idea? Not only is it hundreds of years old, but Dawkins wrote an entire book called "The Blind Watchmaker" on that subject among others. So yeah, there's just a small chance he's heard of your revelation before and taken it into account.
Furthermore, the two options are mutually exclusive. They only appear not to be because you are incorrectly representing them. One states that there is a creator that made the universe the way it is, the other is that there is no creator that made the universe the way it is. It would appear that you are quibbling with phrasing, but this would be another one of those cases in which had you read his extensive writing on the subject you would not have made this mistake. The second option means that there is no creator present, and he has made that abundantly clear. So again, your third option is merely a rephrasing of the first. Whether god is making everything, or just conjuring up principles, it is irrelevant. He's either the one behind it or he isn't. End of story.
As for the 'scientifically supported' thing, perhaps I misphrased it, but it should have been completely obvious that I did not mean scientific studies showed god to be improbable.(considering in this same thread I've mentioned how science can't prove that) What I should have said was that it was logically supported. Again though, I can't imagine how a rational person reading my post would think that I meant there was experimental evidence of some sort.
I'm sorry, but the reasoning is sound. We have no evidence that supports the existence of god, nor do we have any evidence that supports the existence of eternal matter and principles. The eternal matter argument requires fewer steps, requires no creator entity, and requires no anthrocentric view of existence. It is simpler, and therefore more probable. (note: probable)