Why am I me?

[lucent]

Please explain to me what aspect of the 'ordering' process is not explained by the dynamical interactions between potential fields. This appears to contradict my understanding of physics. Systems 'order' due the relationships between they and their interacting fields.

The reason it doesn't explain it is because the energy of the explosion would have reduced the initial ordering into complete chaos nearly instantly.

God is not a theory as it only add an unnecessary step, says "stop asking", and makes no distinct future predictions.

Attributing agency to God does not diminish inquiry into mechanisms. It is not "unnecessary" since all research into origins ends in a black hole of obfuscation. You have to get mass from somewhere, and it isn't out of nothing. The bible made predictions that it took science thousands of years to figure out. It predicted the Universe had a beginning, which science had always denied until recently. It also predicted the Universe has an ending, which again science denied until more recently.

Rarity is not an indication of design, and as it is off topic, I suggest starting a new thread or referencing an existing one if you want to discuss it.

The Universe as it is, fine tuned for life, is virtually mathematically impossible to arise by itself. Scientists largely accept that the Universe has at least the "appearance" of design. There is a conspiracy in the laws of physics for life, a set of 30 or so values that if altered in any way would make life impossible. The concordance of these values is mathematically unlikely, to say the least. To make it mathematically probable, you have to postulate multiple universes, but that of course leads to larger problems, and is even more improbable.

The science of origins is nothing but a chain of infinite regress. Either science has to explain how something came from nothing, or it has to deal with an eternal first cause.

This is nonsense. The topic of non-determinism is still contested amongst Christians. Furthermore, physics largely makes no assumptions about will, so the problem of your suggestion is wrong.

What I am talking about is personal autonomy to "do whatever you want". It is a rejection of Gods authority, not of His probability. Yes, there is a debate in Christianity about non-determinilism, but that doesn't speak to the problem I am raising. I am saying that personal autonomy is completely impossible without God, whether He grants it or not.

When you have rationality stemming from irrational forces, when all thought is based on unconscious processes which are themselves undergirded by chemicals, you have no hope of freedom. You will live and die according to things you will never understand, a virtual automoton. Only God can grant you any significant freedom.

That would require a background system...

It could just be entirely God.

I brought this up as an example to explain the apparent contradiction of our subjective existence in an objective world (read: thread topic).

This explanation creates a rather simple solution: the world isn't objective.

Well, I would say it raises more questions than it answers.