Entropy, Kalam, and First Cause

[Esquilax]

So, a recurring theme which I observe in the explanations here is the response to my admission that I can't wrap my mind around the issue. You guys say that it's natural to not be able to understand this stuff, there are a lot of unknowns and we really don't have answers, but reality is not constrained by our ability to grasp it; if something is true then it is true, whether we understand and acknowledge it or not.

My concern is that all of that sounds remarkably similar to what the theists tell me to believe- "God is real even if we cannot comprehend him. It may not all make sense but the fact that you can't wrap your mind around it logically or scientifically doesn't mean it is false."

Do I really have to point out the obvious difference between those two sentiments? Okay... the former is discussing something demonstrably real, namely the universe. It's an acknowledgement that we don't understand everything about reality yet, which is true, but the topic under discussion has the advantage of being readily observable by all, meaning that the basic concept expressed is merely a statement about reality.

But when talking about god, there's no demonstration at all. God is not demonstrable, there is no evidence that supports his existence, and so what you're hearing from theists is a cover for that fact, rather than an observation of reality; after all, such an observation would require something to observe, rather than, you know, nothing at all.

And, to be honest, given all of the unknowns which you guys readily admit, shouldn't we seek the explanation which has the most explanatory power for the facts which we do have? As far as I can tell, the Christian understanding of God, creation, time, space, etc fits the available data very well and explains things better than all the shaky, unknown speculation atheists propose. (of course, either way it is shaky and unknown and you are going to be making guesses that can't be proven)

The god idea has no explanatory power at all. No, really. Think about it: what do you actually want, out of an explanation? You want to know how what you're asking about happened, don't you?

But you don't get that from god. When people supply god as an answer, they don't know how he created the universe, they don't even try to explain the actual thing you're asking about. They give you the what, but act as though the how is of no consequence. Where's the explanatory power in that? There's no mechanism, no evidence, no justification, just "god did it."

If you asked me how hotdogs are made, and I answered back "meat," and stopped there, would you think that my answer had any explanatory power? Would you be at all satisfied with that? Would you go "oh, okay," and wander off as though I'd remotely answered the question you asked?

Chances are, you probably wouldn't. So why would you do that with regards to god, an answer with even less justification than the one to the hotdog question? At least the hotdog question is technically correct, you can't even show that a god is possible.

Another way of putting my point: it seems like some kind of "god"-explanation is the most reasonable conclusion; the only reason one would reject such an explanation is if he were already predisposed against the notion of god. (i.e. approaches the question with unwarranted naturalistic/materialistic presuppositions)

For a conclusion to be reasonable, it first has to be possible. Nobody has been able to foster any evidence that a timeless, spaceless universe creator is even possible. Hell, nobody has been able to demonstrate that conscious universe creation is even a thing. The reason one should reject the god claim isn't a presupposition of naturalism- though thank you for engaging in the same presumptuous, offensive assumptions that so many theists do- but rather that the god claim has yet to fulfill even basic things that are required for claims to be reasonable, let alone true.