This is an argument that God is a terrible explanation for any phenomenon, and any reference to God in explanatory form is no more substantial than saying "poof magic" or "the cosmic wizard did it".
This argument stems from the concept of the explanatory virtues, the things that tend to be present in a good explanation. I would argue that God fails almost all categories of explanatory virtue.
The explanatory virtues:
1. Testability: A good explanation has falsifiability or explanatory power sufficient to render predictions.
The God hypothesis clearly fails the first virtue, the hypothesis is neither falsifiable nor able to make predictions about the universe more substantial than those of the 'Nostradamus' type predictions.
2. Comprehensiveness: The explanation explains more types of phenomenon.
It could be argued (and will be by some) that God is a comprehensive explanation, that it can explain endless phenomenon, yet this is because of it's ability to be infinitely ad-hoced, there has never been a substantial and logically consistent concept of God that can explain the occurrence of contrary phenomenon, such as Rowe's E1 and E2 of needless suffering without greater good, such as a fawn trapped in a forest fire, in such instances a theodicy (which is ad hoc) is required to reconcile the difference.
3. Precision: Can give precise and accurate descriptions about the mechanics of phenomenon.
The God hypothesis is saved only by it's incomparable vagueness and it's ability to give precision in explanation of phenomenon is non-existent. This is evidenced by the arguments for the existence of God being almost always arguments from incredulity. The creationist/ID arguments for example attempt not to precisely explain a phenomenon in terms of god, but rather resort to poking holes in evolutionary theory.
4. Simplicity: The best explanations make use of the least number of claims, especially unsupported claims.
The God hypothesis cannot exist without numerous unfounded assumptions. That a mind can be immaterial, that a persona can exist without body, that will is acausal etc. There are many such unfounded assumptions upon which the underline concept is contingent, ruling out it's ability to be truly simple.
5. Consistency wit Background knowledge: A good explanation is consistent with all known phenomenon.
Just like 4. the God hypothesis fails, the immaterial mind, infinite being and acasual will are all things that are completely inconsistent with our background knowledge.
6. Coherency: The explanation can be formulated in a precise way.
The God hypothesis fails this completely, evinced by the absolute lack of agreement on what the concept is by many different belief systems.
These are all reasons why the God hypothesis is a shit explanation for anything. There is no more advantage in saying "God did it" than saying "the cosmic wizard did it" or "poof magic". We are undoubtedly better off with naturalistic explanations wherever they satisfy the virtues, and more intellectually honest saying "we don't know" when the virtues cannot be satisfied.
This argument stems from the concept of the explanatory virtues, the things that tend to be present in a good explanation. I would argue that God fails almost all categories of explanatory virtue.
The explanatory virtues:
1. Testability: A good explanation has falsifiability or explanatory power sufficient to render predictions.
The God hypothesis clearly fails the first virtue, the hypothesis is neither falsifiable nor able to make predictions about the universe more substantial than those of the 'Nostradamus' type predictions.
2. Comprehensiveness: The explanation explains more types of phenomenon.
It could be argued (and will be by some) that God is a comprehensive explanation, that it can explain endless phenomenon, yet this is because of it's ability to be infinitely ad-hoced, there has never been a substantial and logically consistent concept of God that can explain the occurrence of contrary phenomenon, such as Rowe's E1 and E2 of needless suffering without greater good, such as a fawn trapped in a forest fire, in such instances a theodicy (which is ad hoc) is required to reconcile the difference.
3. Precision: Can give precise and accurate descriptions about the mechanics of phenomenon.
The God hypothesis is saved only by it's incomparable vagueness and it's ability to give precision in explanation of phenomenon is non-existent. This is evidenced by the arguments for the existence of God being almost always arguments from incredulity. The creationist/ID arguments for example attempt not to precisely explain a phenomenon in terms of god, but rather resort to poking holes in evolutionary theory.
4. Simplicity: The best explanations make use of the least number of claims, especially unsupported claims.
The God hypothesis cannot exist without numerous unfounded assumptions. That a mind can be immaterial, that a persona can exist without body, that will is acausal etc. There are many such unfounded assumptions upon which the underline concept is contingent, ruling out it's ability to be truly simple.
5. Consistency wit Background knowledge: A good explanation is consistent with all known phenomenon.
Just like 4. the God hypothesis fails, the immaterial mind, infinite being and acasual will are all things that are completely inconsistent with our background knowledge.
6. Coherency: The explanation can be formulated in a precise way.
The God hypothesis fails this completely, evinced by the absolute lack of agreement on what the concept is by many different belief systems.
These are all reasons why the God hypothesis is a shit explanation for anything. There is no more advantage in saying "God did it" than saying "the cosmic wizard did it" or "poof magic". We are undoubtedly better off with naturalistic explanations wherever they satisfy the virtues, and more intellectually honest saying "we don't know" when the virtues cannot be satisfied.
.
