Science has shown/is about to show God to be implausible/unecessary as an explanation

Thankyou Sargon for the response. I will first offer my argument that science cannot in principle show that God is unecessary and then respond to yours briefly. Since in general the BOP is on Pro in this argument, I will in the interest of space, not go into depth about my positive argument.I. My ArgumentMy argument is that science cannot show God is unecessary given what science itself is. Now, there are a number of arguments for God's existence. Among these, some are more metaphysical than others. These are the ones that date back through the "classical theistic tradition" [1]Now, among these arguments, there are three main types of a posteriori arguments (ones that proceed from the effect to the cause...contra the style of the ontological argument and those simlar ones)The three types I would say are variations on the argument from the existence of the universe (cosmological), order (design) and transcendant features (e.g. grades of perfection, morality, intellectual activity, etc.). Science does not even concern itself with the third, therefore, we are left with cosmological and design arguments.The main thesis of the cosmological argument, formulated by classial theists, is that there are things which are contingent and have a distinct essence (roughly a description of what it is for present purposes) and existence. WHAT something is and the fact THAT it exists are distinct. It is because of this distinction, that the thing itself is contingent, as there is nothing about what it is that entails that it exists [2] [3]This argument proceeds to argue that a contingent thing via the principle of causality or sufficient reason (depending on the version) requires a cause or explanation and this series, given it is a series of instrumental causes (i.e. a series where each member has derived causal power) [4] must terminate in a necessary being. This is what we know as "God" and further divine attributes are dervied from here.Now, science itself, cannot falsify this argument. Since the argument seeks to explain contingent things, it is no good to answer with "the laws of physics explain..." because the theist is regarding the laws of nature, the physical universe (even in its very early simple stages) as contingent. You may argue that this is not the case...but this would require a philosophical examination on the nature of contingent things as it applies to the physical universe. Since science presuposes the existence of at least some physical things (laws, states, etc.) it cannot coherently be called to explain these.Likewise, a classical design argument is used to explain how God is the necessary source of order in the universe. Since science is constantly explaining the universe in terms of precise mathematical laws, it cannot coherently explain these away without invoking more exact, fundamental regularities. Hence, it has no force against a design argument when properly formulated. Some argue that evolution shows that the design argument is false. But this is only the case if the design argument takes biological complexity and fittingness of organisms to an enviornment as the starting point. If the argument starts with either the fundamental orderly character of the universe or the fundamental intelligibility of the universe, it bypasses evolution altogether as evolution presuposes these things in order to even work, as do ALL scientific theories. It may be correct that these arguments fail. But if they do fail, it is not because of science, including any branch of science like cosmology or evolutionary biology. II. Your ArgumentsFor the sake of simplicity, I divide your arguments into 3. 1) WFU argument- In this argument, you provide a lot of quotes from scientists. I am not a physicist, so I am not competent to answer the scientific questions these quotes from the physicists and philosophers of physics raises. However, I can see a philosophical fallacy in your quote:" First, the scientific law says that the universe would come into existence because of its natural, mathematical properties, not because of any supernatural forces" In order to have mathematical properties, something has to exist...at least in some sense.If it exists in the abstract, these mathematical properties, or any other properties are mere potentialities. They have no causal power and therefore cannot coherently be invoked as causes. Assuming moderate reaslism about mathematical entities, these would not even exist except within concerete things or the minds which actually do the abstracting. This is the view that I defend however this would necessitate that either those properties either DO NOT EXIST simply and therefore cannot be invoked as an explanation of the universe since they only exist insofar as the universe does OR they can exist but only within a mind external to the universe. An alternative view on mathematical objects is platonism, but that has its own problems [5]. Even if abstract things did exist in a "third realm" as some mathemeticians believe, the nature of this realm would have a msyterious "participation" relationship with the world. Further, it is clear that a platonic account of universals, mathematical or otherwise, does not involve invoking these universals as causes in the sense necessary here.The fundamental issue then with this argument is this (to quote you): "Therefore...quantum gravity, shows god is an unlikely explanation of the physical universe." But then this only raises the question, what explains quantum gravity? The existence of the law and the state which it governs. You may ask the same question about God, what explains God? I answer that God exists by necessity. You may argue that QG or the system it governs does, but that is a PHILOSOPHICAL assertion hence we have left the realm of science.Finally, theoretical physicist Dr. Stephen Barr explains in his article how there is a wrongheaded notion to try to explain how the universe "came from nothing." This touches on Hawking's propopsal as well as the idea that the laws of QG explain everything [6]2) Your argument that the beginning can be explained naturally- I agree with all of this here. As Dr. Barr explains in his article, perhaps the beginning can be explained naturally. He believes this to be the case yet he is a devout Catholic and a physicist. How does he reconcile the two? The same way anyone should: God is not a necessary explanation for the beginning of the universe per se. God explains why the universe exists at any moment. He is not a quasi-scientific explanation for the mysterious first moments but a necessary metpahysical conclusion based on metaphysical premises. It is for this reason that Aquinas didn't even see the fact THAT the universe began as a necessary fact in order to believe in God. His arguments presupose an eternal universe. Just like the first moments of a book don't explain away an author no matter what they are, the first moments of the universe don't render a creator meaningless. 3) This is basically answered by the above argument. A beginning point isn't the question here. Also, your argument seems to presupose presentism over eternalism which I think in light of modern physics and philosophy considerations is indefensible. 1 http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com...2 http://en.wikipedia.org... (esp. In esse)3 http://en.wikipedia.org...4 http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com...5 http://plato.stanford.edu...6 http://www.firstthings.com...