Some parts are questionable, and some parts are downright absurd.

I like how after he spends alllll that time building up a supposedly sound and valid argument, he goes and resorts to "proof by the obvious" and asserts, without any connection to the previous steps in the argument, that the only possible way these "immaterial, universal, unchanging laws" could exist is if God were around to create them. I'm sorry, but EVEN IF every part of the argument up until that point were sound/valid, the fact of the matter is that God's existence does not follow logically from the existence of the kind of "laws" he describes. He's still going on faith, in the end, and he doesn't even realize it.

Of course, it's not just that -- there are so many other fallacies at work in this "proof" that it's hard to even take it seriously.