None of those are logical except a conscious deity
They are all logically possible candidate hypotheses as long as none can be ruled in or out. You choose to disregard the ones that contradict your religious beliefs. Other who are not constrained to do that have not.
You need to toss out the multi verse because it's not an explanation at all, just the opposite.
I'm not tossing any of them out. Also, having explanatory power is not a factor for you, nor for me. The god hypotheses explains nothing more than any of the logical alternatives. I've already explained why it is the least appealing of the possibilities simply for its violation of parsimony. Naturalistic possibilities are always preferred to supernaturalistic ones because the latter require a conscious agent.
Show me an uncaused cause. Show me something that has no beginning. You are still invoking the miraculous, apparently you just can't see that.
Your preferred hypothesis assumes an entity with no beginning.
Furthermore, pure reason tells us that because there is something rather than nothing, that either something has always existed or something came into existence uncaused. No miracles are necessary for that to be the case.
Regarding what others can and cannot see, you are the one viewing the world through a faith-based confirmation bias that assumes that a god exists and allows one to see nothing that contradicts that. Isn't that why all of these other possibilities offend you? To you, they are ridiculous, but not the one you've chosen. That predictable, but not persuasive.
Do hidden properties determine the outcomes, so that they only appear random to us?
No.
This is a whole chapter in physics. This is a discussion that goes back to Einstein, who could not wrap his head around quantum indeterminacy, and who famously dismissed a probabilistic description of reality as being complete by uttering, "
God doesn't play dice with the universe"
"
Bell's theorem is a term encompassing a number of closely-related results in physics, all of which determine that quantum mechanics is incompatible with local hidden-variable theories"
Too many unknowns to make that claim.
That's a bold comment coming from a lay person to a person with a comprehensive knowledge of the subject. Do you not see that what is unknown to you need not be unknown to others? You and I have discussed this before. If you want to suggest that if something is unknown to you that it is unknown, you need to have and demonstrate comprehensive and authoritative knowledge of the subject. The person you are disagreeing with has. And you attempt to impeach his contradictory opinion by fiat as you did the origins hypotheses you didn't like.
I would refer you to the concept of ethos in the philosophy of argumentation. The term refers to the meta-message a speaker or writer sends his audience in addition to the explicit meaning of his argument, such as does he seem knowledgeable, does he seem sincere, does he seem credible, does he seem trustworthy, does he show good judgment, does he seem to have a hidden agenda, is he more interested in convincing with impartial argument or persuading with emotive language or specious argumentation, and the like. You simply lack standing in discussions with others whose ethos suggests competence and sincerity (good faith disputation) in that discussion, as do we all who have not gotten the same education in physics.
You could avoid all of this by simply recognizing that you believe what you do by faith, not reason or knowledge, say so, and stop trying to argue indefensible positions with people who know and can demonstrate to others that you are incorrect, even if you can't see that. Who's going to argue with that position? You'll still have no persuasive power, but your ethos will rise in the other areas - sincerity, good faith, a more realistic assessment of self.
And you give up nothing. It is already understood that your position is faith-based whether you say so or argue as if it were reasoned. You're using arguments that convince nobody of anything except that you can't see what they do and don't realize that what you can't imagine isn't anybody else's standard for what is real or possible.
