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

What is scientific explanation?The "God Hypothesis" is "There exists a personal God who is the creator of the universe, who is interested in human affairs, and who should be worshipped." [1. http://en.wikipedia.org... ]An "explanation" is "1: a statement that makes something comprehensible by describing the relevant structure or operation or circumstances etc.; ... 2: thought that makes something comprehensible" [2. http://definitions.dictionary.net...] "Scientific" means "conforming with the principles or methods used in science" [3. http://dictionary.reference.com...] A "scientific explanation" therefore makes an unknown phenomenon comprehensible by relating it to known scientific facts and established theories. Consider two explanations for why Hurricane Katrina struck New Orleans: (a) meteorological conditions in the Caribbean, as described in a computer model, dictated the specific path, and (b) God willed it. Explanation (a) is the scientific explanation because it explains the phenomenon in terms of temperatures, winds, landforms, and other elements known to science and it shows how the path was related to them. Explanation (b) is not a scientific explanation because it does not relate the path to scientifically described elements. (b) might still be true, because God might have used (a) as part of a grand plan unknown to science. If the grand plan were known, it still wouldn't be a scientific explanation, because science only operates at the mundane level of scientific knowledge.If the God Hypothesis is true, it is still not a scientific explanation because the explanation is not in scientific terms. Consequently, the resolution is negated at the outset. I will consider the hypothesis in more detail regardless.Multiverse TheoryIt might be the case that no scientific explanation of existence is possible, but now, it seems that science will provide an explanation. The best theory, called M-theory, is given in "The Grand Design" by Hawking and Mlodinow. A review [4. http://articles.latimes.com...] summaries:We now live in a world in which many physicists have come to believe there are not merely three dimensions (plus time) but 10 or possibly 11. ... it seems we need a number of overlapping theories with factors in common to describe what we are beginning to call the multiverse. In an environment that includes black holes, super black holes, dark matter, dark energy , string theory, M-theory, alternate pasts and alternate futures, we can no longer assume there is one universe or even a set of universes, with a single group of natural laws applicable to everything from the domain of atoms to that of astronomy.Hawking concludes, "Spontaneous creation is the reason why there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist,... It is not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper [fuse] and set the universe going," [4]The First Cause ArgumentI'm not sure why it's relevant, but infinite sets do exist in reality. Suppose a car is being overtaken by a faster one. They start a distance D apart. While the overtaking car travels D, the other car moves ahead by D1. When D1 is traversed by the overtaking car, and so forth. This is Zeno's Paradox, c. 450 B.C. [6. http://www.mathacademy.com...] The resolution is that infinite series really do exist, The idea that "infinity" cannot exist in reality is thoroughly rejected by science. Science accepts as possible any concept that can be mathematically described that is consistent with physical observation. That time is part of the universe does imply that time is linear and absolute for all of existence. In M-theory time indeed starts in our observable universe, but that is incidental to the existence of the multiverse in which there are an infinity of universes in which time starts. The multiverse always exists in dimensions higher than time.The metaphysical argumentThe claim is that something must exist outside of existence in order to explain existence. That is a logical contradiction, because if God exists, then God is part of existence by definition. The claim therefore asserts that there is one part of existence exempt from being caused as an event in time. It is simpler to use the exemption for the physical universe than for an agent creating the universe. Pro gives no scientific reference for his claims for the implications of General Relativity. In any case, M-theory subsumes General Relativity.Fine TuningOur universe is fine-tuned for our existence. M-theory explains that by there being an infinite number of universes with an infinite number of tunings. We do not know how many of them are tuned to be sustainable. Of necessity we are in one that is sustainable.Occam's RazorIf God is all-knowing and all-powerful, then God must know the position and velocity of every particle in the universe, know the outcome of all future interactions of the particles, and be able to control each outcome. Therefore God must be far more complex than the universe itself. The simplicity is only that a single word, "God", is used to describe the complexity. One of the important goals of multiverse theory is to explain how quantum theory is related to General Relativity. the God Hypothesis does not explain that, or any other of relationships among the observed physical properties of the universe. A simple theory that explains virtually nothing is not challenged by complexity, so it has no claim to elegant simplicity.Other Pro "Evidence"A magical explanation is not a scientific one. Scientific theories of abiogenesis are sought to meet the criteria of science.The God Hypothesis is not falsifiableA theory is falsifiable in the scientific sense only if there is an experiment that can be performed or an observation made that will prove the theory true or false. Physicist Brian Greene explains one test for the multiverse theory:"If we are living on one of these giant membranes, then the following can happen: When you slam particles together — which is what happens at the LHC — some debris from those collisions can be ejected off of our membrane and be ejected into the greater cosmos in which our membrane floats," he says. "If that happens, that debris will take away some energy. So if we measure the amount of energy just before the protons collide and compare it with the amount of energy just after they collide, if there's a little less after — and it's less in just the right way — it would indicate that some had flown off, indicating that this membrane picture is correct." [7. http://www.npr.org...]The God Hypothesis is not falsifiable as a scientific theory because there is no experiment or observation that can prove the theory false. Pro says that it could be proved false by proving an alternative theory true, but that's the case with every hypothesis, scientific or not. All observations are consistent with God having made the universe in a way consistent with whatever is observed.Modern physics has proved beyond doubt that things occur in nature which are beyond ordinary experience. For example, "Quantum fluctuation is the temporary appearance of energetic particles out of nothing, ..." [8. http://universe-review.ca...] We understand such facts of nature only through the mathematics that describes them. If the math accurately describes the phenomenon is terms relative to other established scientific theories, we have a scientific explanation. Pro cases is made without an attempt to relate the God Hypothesis to science, save one shaky reference to General Relativity. He completely ignores modern cosmology.Because the God Hypothesis is neither scientific nor an explanation, the resolution is negated. This does not disprove religion, It only means religion is not science.