God on the other hand is not needed to explain any natural phenomena. If there is a phenomenon we cannot currently explain, saying "god did it" does not actually increase our understanding.
You seem rather persistent in insisting that what you consider "necessary" or "worthwhile" is objectively so, demonstrated simply because you say it is. The scope of "worthwhile" is tautologically defined by the reality you already accept--if it is an extension of philosophical naturalism, it is worthwhile, if it is not, it is not worthwhile. You don't see this stance as rather... limiting?
To address the simple form of the claim directly, it is simply untrue that knowing "God did it" tells us nothing. At minimum, it tells us God did it. This is just a variant of the persistent "god of the gaps" argument that steadfastly refuses to acknowledge we do not have to choose between something's proximate and less-proximate causes, and if we determine a proximate cause, the less-proximate ones do not cease to exist or become irrelevant. Knowing that Hiroshima was destroyed by nuclear fission, and describing that physics process precisely, does not negate, nor make unimportant, the less-proximate cause of Truman ordering it.
It matters if you care about accuracy. If I weigh an object, and get 5 kilos, then you weigh the same object and get 8 kilos, we'd throw away the scale. It's not a reliable tool.
So, your answer is to conjecture up some countervailing experiences? My experiences are consistent with many others' as per the expectations of the religion. If there is disparity, you haven't demonstrated it. Indeed, my religion is quite careful to "test all things" (per the Apostle Paul's statement) regarding experiential claims that have objections based on logical consistency with the religion's premises.
On the other hand, if you ask your deity how old the Earth is, and a Hindu asks his deity how old the Earth is, you'll get different answers.
So what? You get "different answers" asking anything from any diverse group, whether it be in politics, art, or for that matter, physics. From this we infer none of the positions is correct?
Not at all. That was not a claim that religion is false because I have not seen evidence. That was an invitation for you to present evidence.
Remarkable, given it was presented in this very thread, to you. You neither challenged the evidence nor acknowledged it. "Not seeing it", however, seems remarkably unlikely.
You posted a peer reviewed paper supporting the existence of subjective experiences during extreme hypoxia. That is entirely consistent with a naturalistic explanation of consciousness.
This is categorization, not explanation. You have not explained how or why hypoxia results in these specific experiences, consistently.
Again, just because the scientific method can't address a question doesn't mean it's OK to make things up.
Which, ironically, is precisely what you just did. Conjecturing and asserting your conjecture regarding the writings is true.
You don't. You follow the evidence. You observe the world and make a model of it based on those observations. Then you look for predictions made by that model, and see if they match further observations.
Again, selective application of criteria that are unworkable in broader application outside religion (to put it less-tactfully, "hypocrisy"). "The evidence" is for the dominant model of the time, in science in particular. For it to expand, someone has to propose a model contrary to the known evidence, and initially, their hypothesis-formation is highly speculative. This is precisely how we came to accept Einstein's Relativity. This will be how we will determine whether String Theory is ultimately correct. This is how we will determine which of the Interpretations of QM is correct--and one of them is, and none of them are differentiable by testing.
What if a billion people claimed to see Bill shoot Steve? And another billion people claimed to see Steve shoot Bill? And yet another people claimed that Andy shot both Steve and Bill? And another billion people claimed that no one shot anyone at all?
Then people are correct or incorrect based purely and exclusively on whether or not they are correct, based on what actually happened. Conjecturing what might have happened, or noting a lack of knowledge as to what happened, does not alter what happened. If someone saw what happened, they know what happened, regardless of the lack of knowledge of others.
Wouldn't you start to doubt that your eyes are a reliable instrument for observing reality?
No. If my direct empirically-derived direct-experience knowledge is questionable, my experience of others who have no reason to know, telling me otherwise, is equally questionable on the same perceptual basis. It is more questionable when adding the fact they'd have no reason to have experienced the actuality of the situation.
Your personal subjective experience of God cannot be a valid experiment because billions of people have done the same experiment and gotten different results.
You are saying they did, or did not, get validating results? Triangulating doesn't work forever, eventually you need to have a position.