All the first Jews and the first Christians decidedly did not believe what they were told as children, and the first Christians were willing to die for their new beliefs. Yes, most people today (according to Pew Research about 60%) believe what they were told as children. But that is only a slight majority.
I was indeed very blessed to be raised in the Catholic faith. But it is not such a "curious concidence" - nearly 17% of the world is Catholic. I had something like a 1 in 6 chance to be raised in the Catholic faith. (And something like a 1 in 3 chance to be raised as a Christian.)
It doesn't matter what scientific knowledge I don't have now, because, as I said, none of my arguments depend on any current level of scientific knowledge. Can you give an example of any possible scientific discovery which could invalidate my reasoning? If scientists discovered with 100% certainty that the universe was created out of nothing by some sort of eternal inanimate object which exists outside of space and time, it wouldn't affect my reasoning at all. That inanimate object cannot be the first cause because of my reasoning - so what caused that inanimate object? It has to be God - directly or indirectly through something else that He created. No matter where we are in science, whether in 100 or 1,000,000 years, this proof is irrefutable.
I'm saying I would not lower my confidence in God at all if the first cause argument was disproved because there are so many other proofs for God's existence. Thus, the table metaphor: A table only needs four legs to be stable. If a table has twelve legs and one is removed it will not fall and will not even become unsteady at all.
A closed system is a system where no or very little matter or energy enters or exits, correct? Then, I ask, how does this change a matter of logic? Surely a closed system is not a system in which logic works differently than everywhere else?
You said, "First Cause X exists by its very nature within the closed system of Omniverse A. But First Cause Y exists by its very nature within the closed system of Omniverse B." Okay. So let's imagine we are in omniverse B, which is our actual omniverse. We can imagine Omniverse A which has the First Cause X, which exists by its very nature. Now, why does First Cause X exist in Omniverse A? Because it exists by its very nature. It is its own reason for existence. Now, why does First Cause X not exist in Omniverse B? Because it is not its own reason for existence? Because it doesn't exist in Omniverse B? No, that makes no sense, because it is its own reason for existence. It cannot not exist by its very nature; otherwise it wouldn't be self-existing and couldn't be the First Cause of any omniverse. So it is impossible for First Cause X to not exist in Omniverse B, or any other omniverse. From this, according to my reasoning in the previous posts, it follows that First Cause Y is in fact First Cause X, which exists in all possible omniverses.
Haha yes, my apologies for the silly phrasing - the laws of physics do exist, of course. What I mean to say is that they have no physical or super physical existence in and of themselves - they cannot exist by themselves in a void. They are descriptions of how physical things operate - which means they are aspects of the nature of physical things. So how could they ever cause the very physical things which they are the nature of?
Moral laws also do not exist by themselves in a void, but exist as an aspect of the nature of God. Neither moral or physical laws can cause anything's existence - but moral laws are immutable because God is immutable, and physical laws easily could have been different because physical things easily could have been different. Physical things always follow physical laws because physical laws are an aspect of their nature, but humans don't always follow moral laws because moral laws are not an inherent aspect of our nature, though our need for them is - for our need for God is part of our nature, and moral laws are an aspect of God's nature. But God always follows moral laws because moral laws are an aspect of His nature.
You said, "The question is why one choice was made . . . rather than another."
Yes, we are not making choices in a vacuum. There are many, many, external factors pushing on us from many sides, pushing us towards one choice or the other - desires being the strongest pusher. But when it comes down to the line, we don't just automatically choose based on these external factors like an automaton. We come to a moment where we can choose for ourselves what to do.
One thing can have many causes. If someone shoots a basketball at a hoop and another person jumps up and catches it before it goes in, then one cause of the defender catching the ball is that the first person threw it at the hoop - but the more proximate cause is that the defender jumped up and grabbed it before it went in and scored a point. Likewise, many external factors are indeed causes of a human choice, but the more proximate and important cause of any human choice is the free will that actually makes the choice.
If this hypothetical murderer did not have free will, then we would have no right to condemn him. But there's a reason why: "It wasn't my fault, it was because she cheated on me, I lost my job, and I bought a pistol years ago" doesn't hold up in court. The murderer still had the choice to not commit murder. No matter what the external influencing factors - the situation, his emotions, his desires, his memories of the past - he had the choice to ignore his desires and to not commit murder (unless he had some sort of extreme mental illness).
Yes, personal feelings do not affect the truth of the matter. But as a species, humans have an inherent desire for real meaning. As C.S. Lewis said - Why are we, as a species, unhappy on earth? Why do we yearn for something more? No other animals are unsatisfied with their lives as they are; but even the most successful humans on earth are never satisfied. All our other desires have a purpose; they can be satisfied. We are thirsty so that we drink; then our thirst is satisfied. We are hungry so that we eat; then our hunger is satisfied. But we desire meaning and purpose so that- what? So that we survive better as a species and sacrifice ourselves for others? But then when we act for the benefit of our species we would be temporarily satisfied with the meaning in our lives - but this does not happen. Nothing on earth can satisfy us. "If we find ourselves with a desire that nothing in this world can satisfy, the most probable explanation is that we were made for another world.” - C.S. Lewis
I don't see how Darwinian natural selection dispenses with my robot-bug analogy - rather, the robot-bug analogy was about Darwinian natural selection. If such a thing so perfect for life as natural selection just happens to exist in a random universe; doesn't it seem more likely that this universe is not so random and was designed?