That is, the laws of physics operate the same everywhere in the universe. We can't empirically verify that, of course, since it would require running an infinite number of experiments everywhere in the universe, but you can't do science unless you make that assumption. Incidentally, that idea only makes sense if you assume there is one Lawgiver, that is, one Creator who decides all the laws of physics and is also in control of the whole universe.
There is a giant leap of logic from "laws of physics throughout the universe are constant" to "therefore there must be a lawgiver". I do not see how the former implies the latter.
That is quite distinct, however, from the idea that "we should never presume we’re a special case",
Except for the fact that all the evidence points to us not necessarily being a special case. Let's stay right here on Earth before making any claims about what is "out there". Even if we limit ourselves to just Earth, there's pretty solid evidence that we aren't the only sentient species on this planet. The dolphins are excellent candidates for "other intelligent beings sharing our world." They call one another by name. They can communicate with us using language. They also experience erotic love in a way not much different from humans. I'm pretty sure I can find citations to back up all of those 3 assertions. For that matter, there is at least one known case of a dolphin willfully ending his own life due to heartbreak. So even right here on Earth, I wouldn't conclude definitively that humans are a special case.
If dolphins are sentient, as I think likely, do they have souls that require saving? Did Jesus die for dolphinkind too? What was the equivalent of original sin for dolphinkind? Likely they would not understand the principle of an eye for an eye, because they didn't have their equivalent of bronze-age Mesopatamian lugals like Hammurabi filling their heads with that strain of morality.
First of all, the universe did not form through natural processes. It was brought into being through a supernatural act of creation. According to the Book of Genesis
Prove it!
According to at least one Egyptian version, the universe was created by the god Atum, while he was masturbating to orgasm. His hand represented the female principle within him. I was a weed-smoking teenager when I learned about that one. I think my thought process was: "Whoa, far out! I wonder if there is a universe where the creator god is a guy named Chris who got really hot and bothered reading something from alt.sex.stories on usenet?" Perhaps in that universe, the equivalent of Satan and his demons are the bullies who tormented me in high school? Anyway, if you accept that the universe was created, then the Atum story is just as plausible as the one featuring talking snakes.
Or alternatively, I posit that the universe was created by the Flying Spaghetti Monster (FSM) in 3 minutes, when he waved his noodley appendage over the vat of primordial tomato sauce, whilst singing obscene Italian limericks.
So if you believe the literal 6-day creation story of Genesis, do you likewise believe the literal truth of Joshua 10:13? Here it is, for people who don't have a Bible at hand. Quoting the KJV:
"And the sun stood still, and the moon stayed, until the people had avenged themselves upon their enemies. Is not this written in the book of Jasher? So the sun stood still in the midst of heaven, and hasted not to go down about a whole day."
When I was a pious Christian, I would have said "No! Certainly not. That's metaphorical language, intended for ancient people who didn't know about heliocentrism." And yeah, there was a time when I believed the whole six-literal-day thing too. So if you're willing to grant that Joshua 10:13 is metaphor, then why could the same not be true of the first few chapters of Genesis? For what it is worth, even the church father Origen believed that the six day thing was a metaphor.
Anti-theists are fond of dismissing the sun as a run-of-the-mill star in a not-too-special place in a spiral arm of the Milky Way Galaxy [....] Recent research has called the sun 'exceptional'. Our sun is among the top 10% (by mass) of stars in its neighbourhood (most stars are red dwarfs invisible to the naked eye). It is actually an ideal size to support life on Earth [....]
Rare is not unique. If I recall correctly, there are plenty of star systems in our astronomical neighborhood sharing enough characteristics in common with Sol to make them suitable for hosting Earth-like planets. The above paragraph also seems to imply that life as seen here on Earth is the only kind of life that could exist. Again, that seems like a leap of logic.