The God Hypothesis is the best scientific explanation for the origins of existence

Well, so much for no philosophy. However, philosophy is a kind of science, so whatever.Firstly, you appear to understand that space and time are intrinsically linked to eachother. The start of the universe was the beginning therefore of not only space but also time. The law of cause and effect only applies to our current universe because of time, which although not properly understood or defined, is roughly a series of consecutive events. Now if the beginning of the universe was also the beginning of time, then there was probably no time before the universe, and since the law of cause and effect only applies when time exists, the law of cause and effect wouldn't have applied before the universe. Therefore, the beginning of the universe did not neccesarily have to have a cause.Now, I'd just like to clarify something here, no-one has found whether the universe will continue expanding forever. Another theory that may explain the start of the universe is the cyclic universe theory, in which the universe goes through endless big bangs and big crunches that continue eternally (http://en.wikipedia.org...).An obvious point to make, but you can't evoke the law of cause and effect without adressing what caused god. In fact, the words of Carl Sagan are very appropriate here: "In many cultures it is customary to answer that God created the universe out of nothing. But this is mere temporizing. If we wish courageously to pursue the question, we must, of course ask next where God comes from. And if we decide this to be unanswerable, why not save a step and decide that the origin of the universe is an unanswerable question? Or, if we say that God has always existed, why not save a step and conclude that the universe has always existed?" Oh no, you've gone and said it: "[the universe is] perfectly fine tuned to support life". No. No it is not. Of the vast, immesurably large observable universe, there is but one tiny dot on which terrestrial life can survive. And even on Earth, our home planet that we evolved on, only a tiny percentage of it is habitable to us (http://www.youtube.com...). The universe is not finely tuned to us, we are tuned (not so finely) to the universe. I think it is very arrogant to assume that if there is an almighty creator, he would have designed the universe specifically for us, or indeed even care about us at all. Do you know how insignificant we would be to an omniscient being? I mean, we aren't that much smarter than monkeys, and to an omniscient being, there would be an insignificant difference between our intelligence and the intelligence of a plankton. I am willing to accept the possibility that the universe may have been created by a god/gods, but saying they designed the universe just for us is like saying the creators of the internet designed it just so i could write the word "sentence" at the end of this sentence.Finally, Occam's Razor. The simplest explanation is usually the correct one. Now, you think that god is a simple explanation, because to your mind, the explanation consists of "god did it". But you really have to get into all the implications of that to discover how complicated that explanation actually is. Firstly, it makes the assumption that the universe had a beginning. It also makes the assumption that it is possible to be concious and think without a physical mechanism for doing so, or that it is possible to be "omnipresent". How can one be omnipresent if the space is being taken up by something? You could only be omnipresent if you were the only entity in a perfect vacuum. And saying that god is "immaterial" is basically saying he isn't there. I'm not saying it's impossible, just unlikely, and assumtion-making. You would also have to assume that it is possible to be omniscient, and that any "life" can exist without a universe to "be" in. Instead, I think we should go along with the current general consensus amongst scientists at the moment: "We don't know". We currently have no method of finding out what happened before the big bang, or if indeed anything happened before the big bang. It is not customary in science to propose hypothesis that are not testable in any way, and your "god hypothesis" is not testable by any scientific measures. Therefore, I believe this constitutes a null hypothesis and is merely speculation, rather than admitting we have no idea.