(May 6, 2016 at 8:54 am)SteveII Wrote:(May 5, 2016 at 6:23 pm)Jörmungandr Wrote: It wasn't drawn from any particular source. I tried to list them clearly in my reply, but philosophy of science is a favorite topic with me and the information is drawn from my experience as much as from online sources.
Then please elaborate on Relevance, Explanatory Power (before and after comparison), and Predictiveness and why God fails in these marks while another cause might score higher on such a thing as the creation of the universe. I have to think that applying principles in lab might be a little different when applying them to the creation of physical reality from nothing.
"God" is not a "good explanation" because, 1) No evidence exists for "god"; 2) "God" is infinitely complex, at least in some respects, and "infinite complexity" does not arise ex nihilo; 3) The "Argument from (Natural) evil" disproves a perfectly benevolent "god" but not necessarily an "evil" one; 4) The Universe is its own explanation and cause; the no-boundary theorem of Hawking and Hartle prove this; 5) The "god" hypothesis does not lead to any testable, scientific predictions; 6) The idea of a "timeless, spaceless" being of infinite age that does not change states at all, but then, "all of suddenly", changing states without a cause is absurd; and 7) That a "cause" could be simultaneous with an "effect" is contrary to all known physical laws.