I don’t understand your confusion. Genesis is one thing and the cosmological argument is another. One is simply a claim that the universe was created thus predicting that the universe had a beginning. The other is an argument from facts concerning causation, explanation, change, motion, contingency, dependency, or finitude that the universe must have a creator.
Yes and I don’t find that argument to be a very strong one. The fact that the universe did have beginning despite what most scientists previously thought is quite a different matter.
I am a frequent critic of Occam’s razor, like: here and here.
For the first one I think I will just point you to my own set of reasons for belief
C. S. Lewis’ Moral argument was that the fact that any moral law exists points to the existence of some non-material origins because he couldn’t see a reason for it in our material existence alone. This is contrasted with the usual argument which is that an objective/absolute morality requires dictation by an absolute being… or something like that. I disagree with both arguments. I think evolution can explain the existence of moral laws. But the problem with the other argument is much greater, even to suggesting that someone who doesn’t believe in God or accepting this absolute moral authority cannot have any morality. But worse than this is the infantilism of reducing all morality to a morality suitable only for toddlers.
Indeed, the assignment of risk is terribly subjective and I demonstrated this in a previous post.