YAFF wrote:Yes I strongly believe in some kind of "God"
I believe the Bible is a useful resource of information including, of course, some biographical details about Jesus of Nazareth and how Christianity succeeded against the odds.... but I am light years away from claiming the Bible is infallible and "written by God". When I am talking to Bible-believing Christians (like my friend Julymorning) I am able to have a discussion about the Bible due to a couple decades worth of research and experience belonging to several sects.
.....but I don't follow any sect of Christendom and am not closed minded about other Non-Judeo Christian belief systems or even none at all (I've been an atheist, an agnostic, a Deist and a Theist at one time in my life). I try to reconcile my beliefs based on where the evidence leads. For example I can not possibly believe in a Young Earth because of scientific knowledge that the earth is billions of years old. If Science effectively disproves something I believe I think it' would be foolish to hold onto to such a belief.
On the other hand I find the evidence of a "god" of some sort existing much much more probable than not. Like I've said before I believed God has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt. The key word is "reasonable" and also what exactly "God" is. Should new science disprove a beginning of all/any universes, and that nature can blindly produce something as complex as the genetic code, that the universal constants that govern are universe aren't really all that fine-tuned, etc....as it stands now. Based on what we know..God most probably does exist.
The proof you think you've come up with for God seems to me to be based largely on logic. I disagree with that logic, but that's not my point. My point is this - why should the universe obey logic, a system invented by humans? Plenty of things in universe appear 'illogical' but only because we're applying human logic to a system far more complex than we can imagine. A logical proof for God really, really isn't good enough. To be beyond reasonable doubt, the evidence needs to be physical.
Incidentally can any lawyers here tell us if a logical argument alone would be enough to prove something beyond reasonable doubt in court? I suspect the answer is no. It might defy all logic for a stranger to kill a woman, and the most logical explanation would be that her cuckolded husband did it, but surely that alone wouldn't secure a conviction.
As for fine-tuning - you're assuming that just because constants have values, that those values could be different. Is there any evidence that the gravitational constant, the weak nuclear force, the strong nuclear force or electromagnetism could be anything other than what they are? I agree that IF they were different we might not be here, but COULD they be? Until there's evidence that fine-tuning is even possible, there's no reason to believe in a divine fine-tuner/knob-twiddler.