Objective moral values aren’t just my opinion, because some things like torturing babies for fun, are wrong regardless of anyone’s opinion. On the infinite past, God is timeless, so He’s not in the same sequence of days as the universe. On information, DNA meets the definition scientists use, and all our uniform repeated experience is that information comes from a mind. On fine tuning, the constants of physics could be otherwise, and the range that allows life is unimaginably narrow, which is why even many atheists call it fine tuning. The simplest explanation for a finite universe is a timeless, spaceless cause, not another physical universe, which would just push the problem back
Discussion
A timeless, spaceless cause also just pushes the problem back.
Why does God exist? What caused God? The ultimate answer is you don't know.
I don't know what caused outer space to exist or the Big Bang to happen (if it did), and I call my unknowing "ignorance". You don't know either, but you call your unknowing "God".
God, by definition, is the uncaused cause. Only things that begin to exist need a cause, and God did not begin to exist. He is eternal. That is not ignorance, it is a logical necessity. If there is no eternal something, then you are left with something from nothing, which is impossible. We both have to believe in something eternal; the question is whether it is eternal mindless matter, or an eternal intelligent mind. The evidence from the beginning of the universe, fine tuning, and moral law points to the latter.
Why is something from nothing impossible?
Have you got any nothing we can test?
I haven't got to believe in anything eternal, because I have the humility to say "I don't know"
God perhaps did not begin to exist (I agree in a sense) but you claim he began to act. Why? When? How?
This is what I mean when I say you have only given a name to your ignorance.
Something from nothing is impossible because ‘nothing’ has no properties. It cannot cause anything, it cannot change, it cannot act. By ‘nothing’ I mean the absence of anything, not empty space or a vacuum. You cannot test it because there is literally nothing to test.
As for believing in something eternal, it is not about humility but about necessity. If the universe began, something beyond it had to cause it, and that cause has to be eternal by definition. Regarding God acting, an eternal being can will to create without being bound by time, and the moment He creates is the moment time begins. That is not just giving a name to ignorance, it is following the evidence to the kind of cause that fits the effect we see.
"Something from nothing is impossible because 'nothing' has no properties."
Then how did God make something out of nothing? Was it a miracle (a religious synonym for ignorance) or can you actually explain that which you claim to explain?
Secondly, if nothing has no properties then there is no barrier to the arising of something. Empty space does not block the movement of the planets. Perhaps the something we now observe was somewhere else, or in a different form. How did it get here? What made it change? I don't know and neither do you.
"If the universe began, something beyond it had to cause it"
You have no proof of this. It merely seems sensible to you.
"and that cause has to be eternal by definition"
You have no proof of this, and it's not hard at all to imagine a counter-example: Universe A begets Universe B begets Universe C.
"an eternal being can will to create without being bound by time"
Can you prove that or is this just another opinion?
Belief in God is "following the evidence to the kind of cause that fits the effect we see". Except that no evidence points to a Jewish Zombie Space Wizard, or a Greek Lightning swan-fucker (etc) as the Creator. I am doubtful that you can claim the universe was caused, but even if you could you cannot possibly have proof that it was a timeless consciousness outside of the universe, because proof is a concept that describes things in this universe and their relation to each other. You said yourself "nothing has no properties" so there is nothing we can prove about it. You cannot prove that "nothing" is (or contains) a timeless conciousness.
God didn’t make something out of nothing the way a magician pulls a rabbit from a hat. He created the universe without using preexisting material because, as the first cause, He is not limited by matter, space, or time. Nothing has no properties, so it cannot produce anything on its own, which is why something eternal must exist. The idea of universes begetting universes only pushes the problem back, you still need a first cause that is necessary and eternal. An eternal mind creating without time is not just an opinion, it is the only kind of cause that fits a finite, law-based universe. Once you establish that, the question of which God it is comes from historical evidence, such as the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus
"An eternal mind creating without time is not just an opinion, it is the only kind of cause that fits a finite, law-based universe"
You don't know that the universe is finite, and some sort of cause that makes the universe exist doesn't necessarily have a mind. Why would it?
I think you missed my point about the constants of physics.
First, when you say they "could be otherwise" I believe you are just mistaken. I think a more accurate claim is that we can imagine what would happen if they were otherwise.
Secondly, even if the constants of physics could be other than as they are now, this does not imply that the current values are unlikely. If whatever process generates universes almost always generates one with the constants of physics we now observe, then it is unsurprising that we have them and observe them. In order for you to claim it is surprising that we observe the constants of physics as we do, you need to show that whatever process generated these constants was more likely to pick other values. Failing that, it's simply your opinion.
"Things like torturing babies for fun are wrong regardless of anyone's opinion"
This is just an opinion that everyone shares. If it's more than that, prove it.
"On the infinite past, God is timeless, so He's not in the same sequence of days as the universe"
How do you know?
"all our uniform repeated experience is that information comes from a mind"
DNA is actually a great counter-example here, but not the only one. Plants have been shown to send chemical signals to each other which seem to convey information (eg I am being attacked by bug X so prepare your chemical defenses).
If you insist these were created by God and thus evidence of information being created by a mind, that is the claim these examples were meant to prove, so you are begging the question (a form of circular reasoning).
"The simplest explanation for a finute universe is a timeless, spaceless cause, not another physical universe, which would just push the problem back", except your "solution" also just pushes the problem back. I stop at what we can know and admit I know no more. You take it a step further, claiming to know what caused the known, but you don't claim to know what caused the unknown, just that it is a timeless spaceless consciousness that can cause things, for which you have no proof. This is not a better explanation than just saying "I don't know" what caused the universe.