Since the world (cosmos) exists and something cannot come from nothing, there must be a creator, thus God exists. This argument is an application of the first Law of Thermodynamics
a) The First law of thermodymanics is not "something cannot come from nothing"; otherwise it would be contradicted by a number of quantum phenomena where something comes from nothing.
b) Why should the First Law, presumably a description of behavior within the universe, be expected to apply to the universe itself?
Order and useful arrangement in a system imply intelligence and purpose in its organizing cause.
Unsupported assertion. Random mutation and natural selection give rise to order; crystals are highly ordered but never is it asserted that crystals are always the product of anything but the laws of physics.
A blind force (such as evolution) could never produce a man with intellect, sensibility, will, conscience, and an inherent belief in a creator.
a) The existence of atheists like me shows that there's no such thing as an "inherent belief in a creator."
b)This is simply assertion; there's no reason to believe that any of this is true.
Related to the Anthropological Argument. Since man has an innate awareness of right and wrong, I.E. a sense of morality, and this cannot be attributed to any evolutionary process, it must have come from a moral being who placed it within man.
a) Kin selection shows that many moral systems can be attributed to survival advantage.
b) The extensive variance of moral systems between cultures, as well as the existence of human sociopaths, demonstrates that there is in fact no "innate awareness of right and wrong." If there were, all cultures would agree on what is right and wrong; they do not.
An imperfect, finite being could not of himself concieve of a perfect and infinite God.
I submit that no conception of God is truly infinite or perfect, despite assertions to the contrary; especially the Christian God, who is both highly limited and far from perfect.
Since no human has in fact succeeded in conceptualizing a perfect, infinite God, your proof fails on that count. Furthermore, even if I succeeded in conceptualizing something perfect, that doesn't mean that that thing is compelled to exist. I can posit the Perfect Island; no amount of positing will cause that island to come into existence.
Ok, well, that was simple enough. Next!