Evidence for God #2

[DaveD49]

Topic for Debate: DO YOU AGREE OR DISAGREE WITH THE FOLLOWING BEING EVIDENCE FOR THE EXISTENCE OF GOD?
In answering please state clearly whether you agree or disagree
Your reasoning for doing so
Please rate from 1 to 10 with 10 being the strongest what you feel the strength of the evidence is.
If you have something further to add please let me know.

The exact fine-tuning of all the scientific laws and the universal constants.
Category: Mathematics and Science

In my first item of evidence i spoke about the simple existence of universal scientific laws and how they point to the existence of God. Here we are going to look at a more in-depth view of the laws and other universal constants. (A universal constant is defined in Wikipedia as "a physical quantity that is generally believed to be both universal in nature and have constant value in time."). The bottom line is that if these laws and constants were not exactly at the force setting there are at then either the universe could not form, that the universe would only live for a short time and then collapse in on itself, or that the universe would not be able to support life.

The existence of these constants and their fine-tuning is acknowledged by scientists who are theists as well as atheists. For that matter when it became clear at how clearly this evidence of these pointed to a creator, atheistic scientist came up with a number of pseudoscience theories such as the existence of a multiverse. The multiverse and other such theories are referred to as "pseudoscience" by many scientists because they ignore the Scientific Method of being able to provide repeatable proof. In the 1970's scientists acknowledged that there were 4 of these constants. Today they acknowledge 40+ with some scientists speculating that they could be as many as 167 of them. We are talking about the force of gravity, the cosmological constant, the electromagnetic force, the velocity of light in vacuum, the charge of the electron, the mass of the electron, Planck's constant, nuclear forces such as what they call the "strong force" and the "weak force", as well as many more. Had the strength of ANY of these forces and constants varied in the slightest the universe would not exist or not be able to support life.

When trying to explain away these forces a number or them like to use a die. This way there are only 6 possibilities so getting the setting right would be no problem. And besides with the thousands upon thousands of universes proposed by the multiverse, one of them is bound to get the settings right. However the scale is slightly larger than 1 through 6. It has been suggested that if you had a ruler which in 1/2" increments stretched across the universe most of these forces could have been set anywhere along that scale. If it were off by just 1/2" then once again the universe would never exist or not be able to support life.

In one paper titled "Disturbing Implications of a Cosmological Constant" three atheistic scientist from Stanford actually when talking about the evolution of elements in the early universe that it would require a "statistically miraculous (but not impossible) events would be necessary to assemble and preserve the fragile nuclei that would ordinarily be destroyed by the higher temperatures." They went on to appeal to the multiverse to explain it away. They also went on to acknowledge that what we would refer to as "God" was a possibility when they said "Another possibility is an unknown agent intervened in the evolution, and for reasons of its own restarted the universe in the state of low entropy characterizing inflation." (link below. Page 19) If what they refer to as an "agent" had "reasons of its own" they are acknowledging that it would require intelligence and the power to restart the universe. It is also rather strange that they would entitle the paper as "Disturbing Implications of a Cosmological Constant". In a scientific paper why would anything that they found be labeled "disturbing"?


"Disturbing Implications of a Cosmological Constant": https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/25354992.pdf
Planck's Constant: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck_constant
Multiverse::https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiverse
Fine-tuning of the Universe:https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/fine-tuning/

[TRANSPONDER]

In fact, I'm glad you raised this subject as I was wondering whether to do it myself.

You know my view on this, or I have posted it, at least'. There may be (for all we know) an explanation that does not need a god.

I think you need to validate your claim that this 'clearly' indicates an intelligence. Order does not 'clearly' imply Intelligence. The half -life of fissionable isotopes is constant enough to serve as timers for dating, but there is no reason at all to suppose that God is picking off atomic particles to make it happen. I see a fallacy too (double standards) in dismissing multiverses because they are merely theoretical while a god -claim is considered valid until disproven. But that is what a priori godfaith does. God is not a 'given' that needs to be disproved, bit a Claimed hypothesis that needs to be verified.

Thirdly, while I don't recall that 'multiverse' debunks the ID aspect of the nuclear constant, it is, as I recall, a hypothesis based on mathematics. This isn't to be dismissed too lightly, as many a hypothesis from the diameter of the earth to the Higgs -boson particle was based on mathematics, though it required science to verify ihe hypothesist.

Finally, while pointing up what appear to be objections to your airy claim that the universal constant 'clearly' indicated an intelligence, this says nothing about what this intelligence might be. In other words, .which god?'

cue: 'It is all the same god'.
Response to cue: 'Which one is that?'

[DaveD49]

In fact, I'm glad you raised this subject as I was wondering whether to do it myself.

You know my view on this, or I have posted it, at least'. There may be (for all we know) an explanation that does not need a god.

That is exactly what both Hawking and Krauss have said. Each put out a video explaining the one of the theories which seemed were developed solely to discredit the fine-tuning argument. It was a while ago, and I do forget what they actually talking about. I think one of them was talking about the concept of the multiverse. Both said virtually the exact same thing as you.... "there is no need for a God". I thought it was odd since supposedly all they were talking about was the truth of their argument. Why would they say "there is no need for a God" in what was supposed to be a purely scientific discussion? I think it is obvious that the evidence for God which is suggested by the fine-tuning was what was really on their minds.

I think you need to validate your claim that this 'clearly' indicates an intelligence. Order does not 'clearly' imply Intelligence. The half -life of fissionable isotopes is constant enough to serve as timers for dating, but there is no reason at all to suppose that God is picking off atomic particles to make it happen. I see a fallacy too (double standards) in dismissing multiverses because they are merely theoretical while a god -claim is considered valid until disproven. But that is what a priori godfaith does. God is not a 'given' that needs to be disproved, bit a Claimed hypothesis that needs to be verified.

We are not just talking about "order" here. We are talking about the exactitude of settings which could have been 1 in trillions upon trillions, upon trillions, and if it were off by the slightest either no universe or no life. And this was from the very beginnings of the universe.

Thirdly, while I don't recall that 'multiverse' debunks the ID aspect of the nuclear constant, it is, as I recall, a hypothesis based on mathematics. This isn't to be dismissed too lightly, as many a hypothesis from the diameter of the earth to the Higgs -boson particle was based on mathematics, though it required science to verify ihe hypothesist.

I didn't say that the multiverse debunks anything about the nuclear constant. I mentioned the multiverse as one of hypotheses proposed to contradict the exact fine tuning argument and the nuclear constant as one of the constants whose setting were so exact as to cause a question. Nor did I dismiss the concept of the multiverse outright. In fact if there are indeed as scientists have said "other universe" and "other dimensions" with universe of their own that could support life completely different than our own the are in fact giving more evidence for God is as they are acknowledging the existence of the supernatural.

Finally, while pointing up what appear to be objections to your airy claim that the universal constant 'clearly' indicated an intelligence, this says nothing about what this intelligence might be. In other words, .which god?'

cue: 'It is all the same god'.
Response to cue: 'Which one is that?'

Well, there is only one, but you are right, it says nothing about what this intelligence might be like. But it does point to His existence. Other arguments make clear the various traits of God.

[TRANSPONDER]

In fact, I'm glad you raised this subject as I was wondering whether to do it myself.

You know my view on this, or I have posted it, at least'. There may be (for all we know) an explanation that does not need a god.

That is exactly what both Hawking and Krauss have said. Each put out a video explaining the one of the theories which seemed were developed solely to discredit the fine-tuning argument. It was a while ago, and I do forget what they actually talking about. I think one of them was talking about the concept of the multiverse. Both said virtually the exact same thing as you.... "there is no need for a God". I thought it was odd since supposedly all they were talking about was the truth of their argument. Why would they say "there is no need for a God" in what was supposed to be a purely scientific discussion? I think it is obvious that the evidence for God which is suggested by the fine-tuning was what was really on their minds.

I think you need to validate your claim that this 'clearly' indicates an intelligence. Order does not 'clearly' imply Intelligence. The half -life of fissionable isotopes is constant enough to serve as timers for dating, but there is no reason at all to suppose that God is picking off atomic particles to make it happen. I see a fallacy too (double standards) in dismissing multiverses because they are merely theoretical while a god -claim is considered valid until disproven. But that is what a priori godfaith does. God is not a 'given' that needs to be disproved, bit a Claimed hypothesis that needs to be verified.

We are not just talking about "order" here. We are talking about the exactitude of settings which could have been 1 in trillions upon trillions, upon trillions, and if it were off by the slightest either no universe or no life. And this was from the very beginnings of the universe.

Thirdly, while I don't recall that 'multiverse' debunks the ID aspect of the nuclear constant, it is, as I recall, a hypothesis based on mathematics. This isn't to be dismissed too lightly, as many a hypothesis from the diameter of the earth to the Higgs -boson particle was based on mathematics, though it required science to verify ihe hypothesist.

I didn't say that the multiverse debunks anything about the nuclear constant. I mentioned the multiverse as one of hypotheses proposed to contradict the exact fine tuning argument and the nuclear constant as one of the constants whose setting were so exact as to cause a question. Nor did I dismiss the concept of the multiverse outright. In fact if there are indeed as scientists have said "other universe" and "other dimensions" with universe of their own that could support life completely different than our own the are in fact giving more evidence for God is as they are acknowledging the existence of the supernatural.

Finally, while pointing up what appear to be objections to your airy claim that the universal constant 'clearly' indicated an intelligence, this says nothing about what this intelligence might be. In other words, .which god?'

cue: 'It is all the same god'.
Response to cue: 'Which one is that?'

Well, there is only one, but you are right, it says nothing about what this intelligence might be like. But it does point to His existence. Other arguments make clear the various traits of God.

I must confess that I haven't paid special attention to the fine tuning argument nor multiverses, because, apparently like you, I don't see that they conflict with each other or the argument for a god. If I were a theist I could easily accommodate multiverses into my theology. Even one with a different earth and intelligent species. As I recall, Multiverses came out of string theory, which itself is still not proven. So it's all debatable until validated, the point being that, as an unexplained question, it is not yet to be put down to a god, so is not even a tiny bit of evidence either way, though the material default and lack of any such good evidence for a god does make a natural physics answer to why we have this constant a bit more likely to be a natural explanation, because all the others have been.

When I look up discussions about the Woo -end of science I don't think of a god myself. I imagine that Hawking and Krauss were well aware of cosmic origins arguments and can't help touching on that point. As in the old story (only tangentally based on fact) Napoleon looking at Leverrier's (I think it was Leverrier) model of the solar system "I see you haven't put God in there." "I had no need for it, sire."

The point of the tale being that the maker wouldn't think of God (unless he was believer, who have God in mind all the time he was screwing it together) while he was making it, but others would raise the matter, or had in the past. Despite that, I think there is still a gap for god or two. never said there wasn't. But they are not Yet any argument FOR a god.

Incidentally, I don't see other universes (if there are) as 'supernatural' any more than other planetary systems around other stars. Or black holes or even Quantum, wooish though they may sound. Nor indeed the Holographic universe. If you can explain it without magic or miracles, it isn't supernatural, wierd and whacky, maybe, but not supernatural.

Even a god, ghost or dowsing, if researched, proven and explained, would become natural, because the supernatural, like Magic, is merely science we don't yet understand. That's if they are shown to be true, and that rather the unexplained aspects are the point: is the phenomena (or just the claims) true on evidence? So far these unexplaineds do not say there is a god. Just an unexplained phenomenon. Fitting a god's 'traits' into whatever the universe is, big, ordered, beyond our understanding or even sight, in large part, does not mean evidence for a god. No more than a god of volcanoes or of the sea is evidenced by fitting it to what a volcano or the sea does. It is no evidence at all for anything other than human tendency to anthropomorphise.

And of course, bottom line, I don't mind an intelligent cosmos. The only thing that would concern me is an intervening god. But even that is pretty much immaterial as no such has been plausibly demonstrated. Just pattern -making and imagination, or at least nothing to show it isn't. It is the organised religions and their gods and influence on our society that is the only reason I'm even bothering to post here.

[DaveD49]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #4]

Transponder: "I must confess that I haven't paid special attention to the fine tuning argument nor multiverses, because, apparently like you, I don't see that they conflict with each other or the argument for a god. If I were a theist I could easily accommodate multiverses into my theology. Even one with a different earth and intelligent species. As I recall, Multiverses came out of string theory, which itself is still not proven. So it's all debatable until validated, the point being that, as an unexplained question, it is not yet to be put down to a god, so is not even a tiny bit of evidence either way, though the material default and lack of any such good evidence for a god does make a natural physics answer to why we have this constant a bit more likely to be a natural explanation, because all the others have been."

I see it as an extremely strong argument for God. And you are right about the multiverse, but not only can it not be proven, it would be impossible to prove unless we discover some way. I think it makes more sense when it is discussed as a different dimension. Theoretically you could have a 6-dimensional being occupying the same space as you, perhaps looking over your shoulder as you type. We would never be able to see him because we can only see in our four dimensions. But I guess if he did have all four of our dimensions he might be able to see us. Speculation, of course.

T: "When I look up discussions about the Woo -end of science I don't think of a god myself. I imagine that Hawking and Krauss were well aware of cosmic origins arguments and can't help touching on that point. As in the old story (only tangentally based on fact) Napoleon looking at Leverrier's (I think it was Leverrier) model of the solar system "I see you haven't put God in there." "I had no need for it, sire."

The point of the tale being that the maker wouldn't think of God (unless he was believer, who have God in mind all the time he was screwing it together) while he was making it, but others would raise the matter, or had in the past. Despite that, I think there is still a gap for god or two. never said there wasn't. But they are not Yet any argument FOR a god."

Well, I am glad that you have a space for God in your thinking. Most are completely closed minded on it. In the tale I can understand Le Verrier's comment even if he were a theist. In my mind when talking about science only, God should not be brought into it. Which is why I was so surprised by Hawking's and Krauss' comments. And why I was also surprised by the comments in the "Disturbing Implications..." paper

T: "Incidentally, I don't see other universes (if there are) as 'supernatural' any more than other planetary systems around other stars. Or black holes or even Quantum, wooish though they may sound. Nor indeed the Holographic universe. If you can explain it without magic or miracles, it isn't supernatural, wierd and whacky, maybe, but not supernatural.

Even a god, ghost or dowsing, if researched, proven and explained, would become natural, because the supernatural, like Magic, is merely science we don't yet understand. That's if they are shown to be true, and that rather the unexplained aspects are the point: is the phenomena (or just the claims) true on evidence? So far these unexplaineds do not say there is a god. Just an unexplained phenomenon. Fitting a god's 'traits' into whatever the universe is, big, ordered, beyond our understanding or even sight, in large part, does not mean evidence for a god. No more than a god of volcanoes or of the sea is evidenced by fitting it to what a volcano or the sea does. It is no evidence at all for anything other than human tendency to anthropomorphise."

I agree. IF they could be explained it would be generally accepted by all and we would no longer be talking about the "supernatural". And this includes not only God but the multiverse, different dimensions, etc. etc.. But that is well beyond our capabilities at this point and so they remain in the "supernatural" (meaning "beyond the natural") category.

T: "And of course, bottom line, I don't mind an intelligent cosmos. The only thing that would concern me is an intervening god. But even that is pretty much immaterial as no such has been plausibly demonstrated. Just pattern -making and imagination, or at least nothing to show it isn't. It is the organised religions and their gods and influence on our society that is the only reason I'm even bothering to post here."

Once again, thank you for acknowledging at least the possibility of God's existence. I agree with the concept of a non-intervening God (except for perhaps a little miracle here or there just to say "Here I am." I believe that we are given the absolute complete freedom to do any and all evil because it is only then that we have the freedom to reject that evil and do good. I just had this discussion with William privately.... I think I will post it because in my mind it answers a lot of question asked by atheists concerning the existence of evil and pain, sufferings and death.

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to DaveD49 in post #5]

There seem to be two bottom lines here:

1, whether multiverse are true or not and whether or not we can prove or disprove them, it is of no relevance that I can see to the god -claim, either to disprove a god or prove it. What relevance, if any, does it have to that point? If it has no relevance it does not belong here.

Atheism, being based on agnosticism, of course accepts the unknown an unexplained as possible gaps for a god. The known has no need of a god. We may agree on the idea of the 'supernatural' as the natural that hasn't been validated as data, let alone explained. But don't get the idea that what is unknown as yet is therefore 'supernatural'. There may be undiscovered animal species, but that doesn't make them supernatural. There is the idea of a different kind of thing or existence that science doesn't yet know of, not just an unknown example of what it does know. "Spirit" is hovering in the wings,waiting to pop out. That is a type of existence that is unexplained by science (or anyone else) and not validated as data, though claimed as valid by those who may just have imagined it. The operative point in the argument it seems to me is what has been validated or not, rather than what type of thing, being or existence it is. After all, the question of whether Jesus in heaven, is spirit, solid or something in between is angels dancing on the head of a pint. Whether it is real and true is more relevant to the discussion.

[JoeyKnothead]

If buffalo biscuits where the fundamental constant, would we all be worshipping buffaloes?

Is it divine that we can run out of toilet paper at the most inopportune times?


What we observe is that things act according to their properties, with no need to ascribe any of those properties to the divine.

In using the language of math, we're simply using tools or symbols to describe those properties.

[DaveD49]

[Replying to DaveD49 in post #5]

There seem to be two bottom lines here:

1, whether multiverse are true or not and whether or not we can prove or disprove them, it is of no relevance that I can see to the god -claim, either to disprove a god or prove it. What relevance, if any, does it have to that point? If it has no relevance it does not belong here.

Atheism, being based on agnosticism, of course accepts the unknown an unexplained as possible gaps for a god. The known has no need of a god. We may agree on the idea of the 'supernatural' as the natural that hasn't been validated as data, let alone explained. But don't get the idea that what is unknown as yet is therefore 'supernatural'. There may be undiscovered animal species, but that doesn't make them supernatural. There is the idea of a different kind of thing or existence that science doesn't yet know of, not just an unknown example of what it does know. "Spirit" is hovering in the wings,waiting to pop out. That is a type of existence that is unexplained by science (or anyone else) and not validated as data, though claimed as valid by those who may just have imagined it. The operative point in the argument it seems to me is what has been validated or not, rather than what type of thing, being or existence it is. After all, the question of whether Jesus in heaven, is spirit, solid or something in between is angels dancing on the head of a pint. Whether it is real and true is more relevant to the discussion.

Where it has relevance is in the fact that such proposals were made apparently as a way of explaining the obvious fine-tuning of the universe. After all if there are billions upon billions of universes then, according to their thinking, ours just happens to be the one which got all the values right. According to Occam's Razor usually it is the simplest solution which is the correct one. Which would you say is "simpler"? The existence of billions of universes, none of which a credible cause of their own, or the existence of one mega-intelligence capable of creating in our four dimensions? Scientists have said that each of the "extra" dimensions they talk about could have universes of their own with life forms completely different than our own about which we can know nothing unless the extra-dimensional lifeform chose to leave clues of His existence.

Of course new species of animals would not make them "supernatural'", not would life on other planets. Those are all within our universe and so all are natural. But a lifeform that could have 11 or more dimensions? This most certainly is "beyond the natural" or supernatural. And science itself has acknowledged that such a being is possible. You want validation of something which cannot be validated because it is outside of our universe. As I said, the only validation which can be given if if the being Himself chose to leave us clues to His existence. That is exactly what He has done. I am sorry that you have not yet been able to experience Him, but many, many people have. Do you acknowledge that another person may have had an experience that you have not? And science which acknowledges that each of the extra dimensions could have universes and life forms of their own is acknowledging the possibility.

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to DaveD49 in post #5]

There seem to be two bottom lines here:

1, whether multiverse are true or not and whether or not we can prove or disprove them, it is of no relevance that I can see to the god -claim, either to disprove a god or prove it. What relevance, if any, does it have to that point? If it has no relevance it does not belong here.

Atheism, being based on agnosticism, of course accepts the unknown an unexplained as possible gaps for a god. The known has no need of a god. We may agree on the idea of the 'supernatural' as the natural that hasn't been validated as data, let alone explained. But don't get the idea that what is unknown as yet is therefore 'supernatural'. There may be undiscovered animal species, but that doesn't make them supernatural. There is the idea of a different kind of thing or existence that science doesn't yet know of, not just an unknown example of what it does know. "Spirit" is hovering in the wings,waiting to pop out. That is a type of existence that is unexplained by science (or anyone else) and not validated as data, though claimed as valid by those who may just have imagined it. The operative point in the argument it seems to me is what has been validated or not, rather than what type of thing, being or existence it is. After all, the question of whether Jesus in heaven, is spirit, solid or something in between is angels dancing on the head of a pint. Whether it is real and true is more relevant to the discussion.

Where it has relevance is in the fact that such proposals were made apparently as a way of explaining the obvious fine-tuning of the universe. After all if there are billions upon billions of universes then, according to their thinking, ours just happens to be the one which got all the values right. According to Occam's Razor usually it is the simplest solution which is the correct one. Which would you say is "simpler"? The existence of billions of universes, none of which a credible cause of their own, or the existence of one mega-intelligence capable of creating in our four dimensions? Scientists have said that each of the "extra" dimensions they talk about could have universes of their own with life forms completely different than our own about which we can know nothing unless the extra-dimensional lifeform chose to leave clues of His existence.

Of course new species of animals would not make them "supernatural'", not would life on other planets. Those are all within our universe and so all are natural. But a lifeform that could have 11 or more dimensions? This most certainly is "beyond the natural" or supernatural. And science itself has acknowledged that such a being is possible. You want validation of something which cannot be validated because it is outside of our universe. As I said, the only validation which can be given if if the being Himself chose to leave us clues to His existence. That is exactly what He has done. I am sorry that you have not yet been able to experience Him, but many, many people have. Do you acknowledge that another person may have had an experience that you have not? And science which acknowledges that each of the extra dimensions could have universes and life forms of their own is acknowledging the possibility.

No. Where your argument falls down is that 'getting it exactly right' is Not the simplest explanation. It is the only one we can think of right now 1). The reason you can't apply Occam's razor to Unexplained is that we don't know why or how the universe is fine tuned to a certain value. The alternative that pops into my head is that it is that constant because it happened to be. If it had been different, the universe might have been different, or not at all.

This avoids the fallacy of 'odds against'. It is like that because it just happened to be. Or evolutionary. All the others went extinct; this one that fitted the conditions.

So fine tuning is an unknown, a gap for God, sure, but it is not evidence for an intelligent creator, just yet, much though some may want it to be. It is far from the best hypothesis ir even the simplest, let alone a reliable fact to start basing faith on.

And the same with a lifeform in many dimensions. Aside whether that is a god or an alien playing computer games, just because it is possible doesn't make it the go - to hypothesis, let alone the hypothesis that we should all believe as much as evolution -theory because they evidence is there, or even abiogenesis because the evidence does point to it more than to a god, though there still is a gap.

Sure, Cosmic origins and some elements of fine tuning are an undisproven hypothesis. Never denied it, but the open - ended nature of gaps for God is that we can't claim which is the best explanation that 'explains all the Facts', because we do not know all the parameters or facts.

(1) and it isn't actually an explanation like 'this is why..' it is a goddunnit stop gap. 'It is like that because God said so'. That explains nothing.

[DaveD49]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #9]

Transponder: "No. Where your argument falls down is that 'getting it exactly right' is Not the simplest explanation. It is the only one we can think of right now 1). The reason you can't apply Occam's razor to Unexplained is that we don't know why or how the universe is fine tuned to a certain value. The alternative that pops into my head is that it is that constant because it happened to be. If it had been different, the universe might have been different, or not at all."

I can't see the "just happened to be" point at all. We are not talking about something with 1 chance in 2 of happening. We are talking about staggering odd far beyond winning the lottery in all 50 states on the same day. The various laws and constants could have had a force setting anywhere from 1 to infinity. The fact that they are exactly right, not just once but perhaps up to 167 times surely says "intelligence" to you!
If you were playing poker and a guy got the exact same royal straight flush five hands in a row are you telling me that you would think that it "just happened" or would you think he was cheating?

This avoids the fallacy of 'odds against'. It is like that because it just happened to be. Or evolutionary. All the others went extinct; this one that fitted the conditions.

So fine tuning is an unknown, a gap for God, sure, but it is not evidence for an intelligent creator, just yet, much though some may want it to be. It is far from the best hypothesis ir even the simplest, let alone a reliable fact to start basing faith on.

And the same with a lifeform in many dimensions. Aside whether that is a god or an alien playing computer games, just because it is possible doesn't make it the go - to hypothesis, let alone the hypothesis that we should all believe as much as evolution -theory because they evidence is there, or even abiogenesis because the evidence does point to it more than to a god, though there still is a gap.

Sure, Cosmic origins and some elements of fine tuning are an undisproven hypothesis. Never denied it, but the open - ended nature of gaps for God is that we can't claim which is the best explanation that 'explains all the Facts', because we do not know all the parameters or facts.

(1) and it isn't actually an explanation like 'this is why..' it is a goddunnit stop gap. 'It is like that because God said so'. That explains nothing."

I have never heard of an "against the odds" fallacy. Odds are a mathematical equation. Throwing a single die your odds are 1 in 6 that your number will come up. The three scientists who wrote "Disturbing Implications of a Cosmological Constant" said that the odds of it happening were a "statistical miracle" and acknowledged that a possibility for it happening could be "an unknown agent intervened in the evolution, and for reasons of its own restarted the universe in the state of low entropy characterizing inflation." And note that it says "for reasons of its own" which means intelligence. How many gaps need to be filled before you acknowledge that God could exist?