I found what I'm guessing is the Pew study you referenced. It says 62% of Americans who were raised by two Catholic parents remain Catholic, but another 17% stay within the Christian faith, so that's about 80% that more or less believe what they were told as children. And that's just those raised by two Catholics. For those raised by two Protestants, the number is even higher, with 84% remaining Christian. And, of course, this is in the US, which is a relatively open and pluralistic society. I'm fairly certain if you looked at countries where, for example, Islam is the dominant religion, the number would be even closer to 100%. And the majority of those people are just as convinced as you are that their beliefs are the correct ones. None of this necessarily means you are wrong, but it's important to be aware of our biases, as they often lead to motivated reasoning. And I'm not trying to insult you by accusing you of bias. We all have biases--it's part of the human the condition. But some biases are stronger than others (childhood inculcation being particularly so), and I think one of the keys to being rational is constant vigilance with regards to our own biases.
With regards to free will, you say, "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." What else are we basing the choice on then? It doesn't make sense to say we are basing it on free will. That's like saying we are basing our choice on our ability to make choices. It seems to me that anything you can imagine factoring into your choice (moral upbringing, fear of jail, innate sense of justice instilled by God, etc) is part of a causal chain that stretches back to the beginning of the universe (or beyond). So if everything you are basing your decision on was set in motion before your birth, how can you be responsible for it?
You said, "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." As I hope is clear by now, I think your reasoning is wrong on this point.
Furthermore, since you have confirmed that you wouldn't lower your confidence in God's existence by any amount at all if the first cause argument fails, then I must insist that the argument is actually irrelevant to your belief, regardless of your assertions to the contrary. Your table analogy collapses (pun intended), firstly because I have been around the block are there is nothing like 12 strong arguments for God's existence, much less 12 equally strong ones. But even if there were, a table with 11 legs is closer to collapsing than a table with 12. I do not hold any belief that I wouldn't downgrade my confidence level in, at least a little bit, if one of the strong arguments in its favor was refuted. That's the only rational response, as far as I can see. Unless, of course, your belief isn't based on rational argumentation in the first place.
The fact that we are having a disconnect on this next point is frankly baffling to me. When I talk about a closed system, I mean Omniverse A and Omniverse B don't interact at all. They are completely independent of each other, and thus the causal chains within them are completely independent of each other. I will try to state my argument syllogistically this time, and maybe you can pinpoint the specific part you disagree with.
1) The term "omniverse" is defined as everything which actually exists.
2) Thus, the omniverse can't interact with anything outside itself, since by definition, nothing exists outside the omniverse.
3) Therefore, any possible omniverse one can imagine must contain a causal chain that is independent from the causal chain in any other possible omniverse one can imagine.
4) A "first cause" is defined as a thing which is uncaused, i.e. it exists by its own nature. This is the necessary attribute of a first cause. We will call it attribute N.
5) Thus, the first cause in any possible omniverse must have attribute N.
6) However, the first cause in a given omniverse may have additional attributes.
7) Therefore, we can imagine an omniverse with a first cause with attribute N plus attribute X. We will call this first cause N+X.
8) But we can also imagine a different omniverse with a first cause with attribute N plus attribute Y. We will call this first cause N+Y.
9) Since the causal chains in each possible omniverse are independent of each other (premise #3), there is no logical contradiction with N+X existing in one possible omniverse, and N+Y existing in another possible omniverse.
10) Therefore, the same first cause does not necessarily exist in every possible omniverse.
Does math exist in a void? What about Maxwell's equations? They have no physical existence, and they describe how physical things operate. I mean, there is kind of incoherence to saying anything exists in a void, including God. That's contrary to the nature of a void. One we've agreed we can break the rule and something can exist in the void, it might as well be some root level quantum law that describes how the void will become unstable and generate an inflationary universe.
Also, I still argue it is meaningless to say God is good by nature. If there was a near-void where God was the only thing in existence then there is no point of reference for any descriptor except God. God is good. God is evil. God is up. God is down. God is powerful. God is weak. God is everything. God is nothing. I mean, what else could anything be referring to other than God, if God is the only thing that exists? Every statement boils down to God is God.
And you are right, from a purely philosophical perspective we don't have any right to condemn a murderer anymore than we would condemn a malfunctioning car. But we still have to isolate the dangerous person from society until he can rehabilitated in the same way we have to get the dangerous car off the road until it can be repaired.
You say, "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?" But natural selection is not "perfect for life" at all. It's haphazard and slapdash, full of random errors and dead ends. It results in a bevy of suboptimal designs, and failed experiments. It's only over billions of years that it is able to stumble blindly into complex organisms. That is amazing, for sure, but hardly what I would describe as the perfect handiwork of an omniscient designer.
