Then by all means, propose this "much more probable" explanation.

To an extent this behavior is, but it's much different in humans than in any other species of animal. While animals do express sorrow, depression, and the likes, humans are the species that most prominently tie these feelings to their actions as opposed to what happens around them. For example, someone feels good for donating money to a charity. Someone feels bad for having sex with some random person they've never met. The actions that animals show emotion from are generally reactionary, whereas with humans it's a response to what they themselves did.

I'd also add, again, that consciousness seems odd not simply because it doesn't drive us to do things that would benefit us, but because it often drives us to do things that are against our best survival interests.

Quote Tree Shortened - Conegamer

I seriously hope you don't mean that the burden of proof of one of the greatest scientific challenges is on me, because you claim a god did it? There was a time when we thought the sun rotated around the earth and by just looking at it, you could easily assume that. Does that mean a god was behind the sun revolving around the earth, just because we hadn't found out it was the other way around yet? Just because we don't know the explanation for something, doesn't give us the right to make the most outrageous claim without proof. So in conclusion, neither you or me has any theory that we can prove, so why is a god suddenly the most probable explanation?

Quote Tree Shortened - Conegamer

Come on Spurge, there's no need for comments like this one. 

So you know I thought a lot of what you said made sense (at least initially) to me; even if I disagree with it being an atheist. 

I'm sure we can all agree, though, that quote trees are bad. So cut 'em down!

By telling me to not reply, you're basically saying that you do not want to hear the truth that religion is merely a product of human imagination. You know that all this time and energy that you've spent on trying to promote an imaginary character could have been spent on something more useful. The point of religion isn't to worship an idea of an omnitpotent entity. Religion started to get people together so that they can live as a community. However, you apparently don't understand what religion is truly about and you are indeed, a Christian-In-Name-Only. I'm sorry, but that isn't hateful. That's realism.

Whatever makes you happy man.

I'll be happy when Christians, Jews, Muslims, and other religion practitioners actually follow their religion rather than pretending. Buddhism is, so far for me personally, is the only religion that has been practiced the right way. Buddhist monks don't force their theology on other people. Heck, the Dalai Lama himself admits that Buddhism and religion, in general, aren't for everyone. However, he wants everyone to live peacefully with one another, something that everyone wants, too, whether they be religious or not.

EDIT: Very well said, Shadow1980.

The burden of proof isn't on you, no, but you suggested the existence of some much more probable theory, so I'm looking forward to what exactly you have. You invited the burden of proof upon yourself with your proposal, in much the same way that a defense attorney claiming they have decisive evidence that proves their client innocent does not have the burden of proof, but still should present this supposed evidence all the same.

I'll respond to the argument of:

"What I am getting at is that people should keep god out of these discussions and only use god as part of your faith, nothing else."

 With: "Why should we keep God out of these conversations?" Why not consider the possibilities, and form an opinion based on the (admittedly limited) facts before us? Simply because our knowledge is limited in certain areas should not keep us from theorizing about what is out there.

As for proof, you're certainly right, I have none. That said, we have some being, action, or likewise that is beyond the laws of the universe, creating the universe from the outside with some astounding attention to detail, and some fairly difficult odds being beaten to wind up with intelligent life here (even if you do throw in the vast, vast number of planets in the green zones of their respective solar systems). That to me is more than enough to warrant the discussion of God.

On some of these, you could probably just say they haven't happened yet. As for the other ones, I answered a few (Although not perfectly):

Israelites will be unbeatable

The Israelistes are only undefeatable when they listen to God. It says when they don't, they loose against their enemies, and the land becomes unprosperous in terms of harvest.

Virgin birth

Mary wasn't married to Joseph when Jesus was born. The "marrige" was when the man and the woman had sex, which is when they were "joined together", which means that being a maiden meant that you were a virgin. So, the prophecy was still fulfilled, whether "virgin" was the correct translation or not.

The messiah will be born in Bethlehem

 It doesn't matter exactly what happened, Jesus was still born in Bethelehem.

The great disappointment

William Miller being wrong does not confirm whether the prophecy is correct or not.

Cyrus will conquer Babylon

Like the author said, Isaiah 45 never mentions Babylon, so you can't call it a Bible prophecy in the first place...

Realism, you say?