How did Christians "select" their God?

Obviously, there are only two possibilities:

1. God exists

2. God doesnt exist

So one can concede that 2 is impossible to prove and 1 is impossible to disprove.

Humans have limited knowledge, and even if there was actual proof of God not existing, it would be negated by category of omnipotence, where apparently an all powerful God can create proof that he doesnt exist and present that proof to humans.

So one must concede that existence of God is unknown and impossible to disprove, which makes his existence possible.

This creates the situation where God both exists and doesnt, since both options cannot be proven neither wrong nor right.

Of course, atheists can claim that theists need to prove their claims, but per law of proof, a claim that cannot be disproved can be true or false, and taking either position does not mean being more likely to be correct.

So naturally, not taking position that given claim is true is not any more likely to be correct.

And since there is a possibility that God exists, theists can justify their belief with that possibility alone, since it is not proven that God's non-existence is more likely, nor can it be.

So even if they had burden of proof, it would be satisfied to a great amount.

Further, since this puts theists at an already equal proof grounds where their claims cannot be disproven, the only thing theists need is to slightly move the proof towards their position.

So presenting arguments such as intelligent design which makes God(intelligent supernatural) necessary to explain the existence and organization of logical consistent laws of universe in the entire universe,

where otherwise there is no other explanation as to what created them and what upholds them constantly and why different laws dont exist,

where God's will and intelligence can explain why such laws are maintained everywhere equally, and why different laws dont exist.

Arguments such as those can move the proof slightly in favor of theists, or so would they assume.

But then we reach an interesting point, which is kinda what places theists back in position of lack of proof.

Option 1 isnt limited to one God.

Option 1 includes all Gods, known and unknown, revealed and non-revealed.

This basically means that an infinite amount of Gods are possible.

So even if theists could prove that God generally exists, they would not be able to prove that their specific God exists.

Theist's position is not "God exists".

Theist's position is "My God exists".

So, in this silly outcome, even if theists were to prove God, they would not prove their God.

Because they believe in a specific God with specific attributes, they cannot prove their God even if they prove God in general.

And that leads to question: "How did Christians select their God?".

Since its impossible to equally consider an infinite amount of Gods, it follows that something other than such consideration had to cause Christians to select their God.

Christians, of course, make an assumption that only the revealed Gods are possible.

A flawed assumption, but it is their only choice.

And from that assumption, they make way towards "selecting" their God, apparently Christian God, through deduction

by usually misrepresenting all other religions, not even studying them, ignoring them, and basically just accepting what their parents taught them.

So no, one cannot say that Christians selected their religion.

Selection would imply a choice, and choice would imply being informed enough and would imply consistent results of choices coming from different circumstances.

Religion cannot be considered a choice, because in most cases it isnt.

If type of family didnt determine your religion, we would expect to see same ratio of Christians being born in Christian family as the ratio of Christians being born in muslim family.

But we dont see same ratio. Not even close to same.

If you are born in a Christian family, you will most likely be a Christian.

If you are born in a muslim family, you will most likely be a muslim. (Not Christian).

How is it a choice, if a type of family you are born in greatly determines your religion?

It is not really a choice.

Most people are limited to going with what they are taught.

Most Christians didnt select their religion.

They simply inherited it from their parents.

It's not just religion. It's also politics and relationships and personalities and characteristics. We grow from a blank slate into adults. Most people lack critical thinking and self awareness... but some don't. The ones that possess it to some extent choose their beliefs 

Humans adopting religion caused evolution to progress.  Natural selection caused religious belief-forming faculties (BFFs) either because they served an adaptive function themselves, or as a by-product of another adaptive function. None of the accounts we discussed maintains that religious beliefs evolved because they are true, so BFFs for religious beliefs would have been selected for whether they produce true beliefs or not. If the beliefs they produce are false, they still yield adaptive benefit or could still evolve as a by-product. Truth thus makes no difference for the evolution of BFFs for religious beliefs. Therefore, according to , Wilkins and Griffiths religious BFFs are off-track, making their justification questionable. W&G acknowledge that other BFFs were also selected by natural selection. To save common-sense beliefs, they argue that true common-sense beliefs can be linked to evolutionary success. We turn to this argument in the next section.

There is however the question as to whether or not God/a god would choose us? Which is a position I personally take. Should that happen, the problem of which God/god for a human to choose is eliminated.

you should google the number of people who are self aware or truly use critical thinking. there's actual science on it, and the number is very small. 

do you think NDEs are a product of evolution? they'd have to be, considering how common they are if they are products of the brain only. how does an end of life hallucination improve one's ability to reproduce? 

Most people cant even describe how critical thinking works.

They think something is true if it sounds good.

Evolution is about survival of the fittest.

There is a standard which is necessary to survive.

Those who fit that standard will survive.

Then there is "beyond survival", where certain things dont help people survive, but can exist because they dont significantly diminish survival either.

I can see how lying and religions help people survive.

In fact, even in early societies, one could make good amount of income if he convinced others that God chose him or that God exists and he is the only one who hears him.

Critical thinking skills didnt really exist back then.

And almost all societies had their version of God or Gods, and every society had a different God.

It shows that religion made some individuals rich and respected in society, so they went for it.

They are a  product of human's ability to imagine and dream.

When I dream, I think that the dream is real.

And one can even affect what he dreams by thinking about it a lot while awake.

Its hard to exactly explain near death experiences just like its hard to explain dreams or hallucinations or crazy people seeing things which others dont.

They just dont diminish survival to the point where we wouldnt be able to exist.

So they are either in category of neccessary for survival or simply of beyond survival.

what advantage do NDEs have in natural selection? 

people who dream say NDEs are more real than this earthly life and they have no question in their mind that it's real, and they no longer fear death. that is the opposite of a dream. people who have had both experiences say they are not at all the same. 

They dont need to have an advantage.

They just need not to be terrible disadvantage and they must have something causing them in order to exist.

So they say, but thats hard to verify or meassure.

People have stronger and less stronger dreams.

If dream near death fits expected image of reality in afterlife, it seems more real.

Those people have an incentive to lie, so they are exaggerating the experience.

All of these are possibilities.

Now, I will admit that I dont know much about near death experiences, and there is plenty of unknowns there.

Still, to accept them would mean to accept something as true just because someone says they saw it.

And nde exist in muslims, and probably in many other religions.

People who are near death often "see" or "hear" their own memories and desires.

Some even call names of people who are dead and claim to see them.

None of that is evidence of those things being real.