Atheism and the existence of peanut butter

[R00tKiT]

Yes, as an explanation for the origin of the universe, any unfalsifiable hypothesis it is functionally and practically useless. 

Why do you think that if some disembodied entity or construct x is unfalsifiable, then x is useless?? If we were to play this game, I can say that all true propositions are unfalsifiable, therefore, for example, you can't falsify the fact that there are infinitely many prime numbers, is it clear now that there is a category mistake? Is there some experiment that empirically verifies this property of prime numbers? I really doubt it.

An explanation of the origin of the universe is tautologically outside of the universe, anything that is outside the universe is also outside of the reach of any experiment we can possibly come up with, because it doesn't follow physical/chemical laws. 

Wrong

If a disembodied mind exists, then it interacts with reality, at least thats what theists like you claim all year long. Like telling you what it wants, like inspiring (embodied) minds to write holy books, or to try and kill their kid on an altar.....even creating whole universes.
Whatever...if this disembodied mind exists, its interaction with/effect on reality should be able to be investigated.

It's true that God is said to interact with reality, but it doesn't follow that we can measure this interaction. If some phenomenon isn't replicable or reproducible, then it cannot be subjected to experimentation. God's interactions with reality (aside from creating it) could be rare miraculous interventions, which are, by definition, outside the purview of experimentation.

---

I disagree. The reason we can look at a car engine and know it was designed is that we know through experience that car engines don't arise spontaneously from the application of the laws of nature without a designer. But we also know that there are a great many situations where the laws of nature can produce high complexity *without* a designer being involved because of feedback loops and sensitive dependence on initial conditions.

Why do you separate the laws of nature and the designer? Why can't these laws be an instrument of a supreme designer?

As for the physical laws themselves, I think it is incoherent to talk about their being 'designed' or 'caused' simply because those physical laws are what govern causality. 

Do you have some source or justification of this ? 
So, if there were no physical laws, do you think causality could be violated..???

Instead, it is most coherent to have the laws be basic (uncaused) and the universe obeying such laws naturally. To postulate an intelligent designer requires a great deal *more* complexity. Think about what is required to even have a mind: the number of interacting parts, the feedback loops, the very laws of physics required to allow for such. When that is taken into account, it becomes far *more* probable that a few basic laws are fundamental and that consciousness, minds, and other things like that are the *result* of such laws, not the cause of them.

If we accept this, then it follows that the universe is eternal. If the laws of physics are uncaused, then there always was a universe where these laws apply (since they are descriptive of some existent state of affairs, not prescriptive).

And asserting that the universe is eternal is simply a claim, that I doubt anybody can prove.