(July 28, 2015 at 10:24 am)Pyrrho Wrote:(July 28, 2015 at 8:03 am)RobbyPants Wrote: I wouldn't think about it in terms of "need". I think a better way to phrase that is "science explains more about how the universe works and is better for making predictions about it than God is".
...
I don't think you have that quite right. It is not just that "science explains more about how the universe works and is better for making predictions about it than God is," it is that science actually provides some explanations and predictions, whereas God explains nothing.
Saying "God did it" is not an explanation; it is a pseudo explanation, a fake explanation, because it explains nothing at all. It is merely pretending to have an explanation. Take the rainbow, for example. Saying "God did it" does not explain it at all. One does not know anything more about a rainbow after hearing that than one knew before hearing it. Saying it is caused by the reflection and refraction of light on water droplets is giving an explanation for a rainbow. (For those wanting more details of that explanation, start here.)
This, by the way, is one of the ways that religion impedes knowledge, as it gives people a feeling of having an explanation when they don't have one, and if you already have an explanation, you don't need to look for an explanation.
We find this presently in the question of the origins of the universe (if it has an origin). People pretend that saying "God did it" gives an explanation, when it is no explanation at all.
So the theists who say that God is the best explanation of the origin of the universe are wrong. Not because it isn't "best," but because it explains nothing whatsoever. Just like the rainbow.
And this is what grates on me when these arguments are put forward -- not merely that nothing is explained by invoking God but that the use of that argument leads to one of two outcomes: either the fake explanation obviates the need for further thought or investigation, or it serves as a springboard from which the believer is free to indulge in any manner of pseudo-philosophical speculation (leading unsurprisingly into their shoehorning their favorite ancient literary character into the role they've dreamed up in their ramblings). Either way, there is a pretense of knowledge that is wholly unearned and unjustified dressed up in the borrowed rags of the likes of William Lane Craig.