I don't know where you're going with this. I think economics is a valid area of study. Whether it's a "science" or not is a matter of semantics.

Exponential economic growth has happened. I'm not sure it's sustainable. What does it have to do with anything?

Surely if he has the computer skills to maintain a BC wallet, he's capable of doing something that pays more than clicking linkfarms.

It's not "I could do better than that". It's "an omnipotent super-being could do better than that".

Well, greater minds than mine have spent more time on it than I'm inclined to.

Lots of exhilarating reading on Wikipedia about the Simulation Hypothesis. ... and an article about the probability thing.

Obviously we haven't observed evolution from single-celled organism to mammal -- although the fossil evidence is strong.

We have observed evolution in the wild and in the lab, because organisms with short reproductive cycles can evolve in observable timescales.

One example is the wing colouration of the Peppered Moth.

(Playing Devil's Advocate here)

Energy and mass (and also time) are phenomena associated with this universe. God isn't part of this universe. So your question isn't valid.

Some forms of Christianity like to emphasise the trancendence of God - he is unknowable and independent of the material universe. There is an abstract canopy above one of the altars at St Paul's Cathedral which is, apparently, supposed to remind us of this.

Having said that, Christianity also likes to emphasis God's immanence - a complete contradiction of the above. Still, if you can grok the Trinity, you can grok that contradiction too.

I think you're underestimating infant mortality rates in prehistory -- and even, say, 400 years ago.

Just completely hypothetically, imagine you had a computer program that ran a massive physics simulation. And imagine your lifespan is such that you can observe it for massive periods of time. So you set up the starting conditions for a Big Bang, and hit the 'run simulation' button, and watch it go. And eventually, as you knew they would (because of the physics you programmed, and because of statistical likelihoods), some of the matter clusters into solar systems and planets, then on one planet some primitive proteins come about in some inorganic process, then prokaryotes, then an evolutionary process that eventually results in humans.

At that point, you could conceivably think, OK, these interesting entities in a remote corner of my simulation are doing some weird things. They seem to be controlling themselves in this structure in their heads. Perhaps I can put some hooks into the simulation so that I can observe what's happening in those brains. If I can reverse-engineer the structure that's evolved, I guess I could read their thoughts - and even write their thoughts.

And there's a mechanism, whereby "the guy running the simulation" can appear in visions, hear "prayer", and, if he also manipulates the rest of the simulation, perform "acts of god".

I thing somewhere there's a calculation that indicates that, if Moore's Law continues, the probability that this universe is a simulation running on a computer is greater than the probability we're in "real life". But I can't help but instinctively think it's fanciful.

You speak as if "monkeys on a floating rock" is absurd.

But we can see the monkeys. We can see the rock. We can poke at them both, collaboratively, and agree "yep, that's a monkey alright. On a floating rock. No doubt about it." There's nothing absurd about it at all.

I assume by "primordial goo", you mean a mass of single-celled living organisms.

Given what we know about mutation and selection, if prokaryotes existed 3.6 billion years ago, it's pretty much inevitable that they would have evolved into something as complex as humans by now (and fungi, and trees, and birds, and slugs, whales, and all that other stuff ...)

Now, we can look at fossil prokaryotes in the form of Stromatolite.

So if you're going to state that our evolution from these isn't the most likely explanation for our existence, you have to explain what prevented evolution from taking its natural course. Perhaps God did some intervention to suppress mutation, or to distort the effects of natural selection?

But humans are very good at maintaining two conflicting views at the same time. Frankly, if we couldn't we'd go mad.

So it's quite possible for an evolutionary scientist to do his job based on a firm assumption that all life on earth evolved from a single-celled organism -- and yet go to church on Sunday and sincerely praise God for creating Adam and Eve in His own image. We just compartmentalise our conflicting sides.

Actually it turns out that kindness, cooperation and charity are very good herd survival strategies. Which is why humans (and other successful species) evolved to exhibit those traits so much.

If it's in the universe, it ain't a god, in my book.

Since space and time is all I can observe, even indirectly, "exists outside of space and time" is equivalent to "invisible".

I am not the OP, but I would agree that all religion is false and a placebo.

In fact it's a pretty good definition of religion -- "Believing in stuff that isn't real, because it feels good".