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

The resolution of this debate is whether or not science has made it implausible or unnecessary that god is an explanation of the physical universe. While the resolution does not explicitly state that we are talking about god as an explanation of the physical universe, it is clear by Con’s statements in the first round that this is the type of explanation we are talking about (“I want to debate whether or not science has shown or is on the verge of showing that God isn't needed to explain the universe”). Therefore, I will devote this round to arguing that science has made it implausible and unnecessary that god is an explanation of the physical universe.The Wavelength Function of the Universe shows us that atheism explains the universe better than theism. The WFU has been developed by scientists such as Stephen Hawking and Alexander Vilenkin. Quentin Smith, professor of the philosophy of physics at West Michigan University, explains the theory: "Hawking's theory is based on assigning numbers to all possible universes. All of the numbers cancel out except for a universe with features our universe possesses.’’. Quentin Smith also explains the evidence for this theory: ‘’Hawking’s theory is confirmed by observational evidence. This theory predicts our universe has evenly-distributed matter on a large scale, which would be on scales of super-clusters of galaxies. It predicts that the expansion rate of our universe -- our universe has been expanding ever since -- would be almost exactly between the rate of the universe expanding forever and the rate where it expands and then collapses. It also predicts the very early area of rapid expansion near the beginning of the universe called inflation. Hawking's theory exactly predicted what the COBE satellite discovered about the irregularities of the background radiation in the universe.’’ The problems that the WFU of the universe presents for an omnipotent cause of the universe are also elucidated by Smith: ‘’For the wave function of the universe implies there is a 95% probability that the universe came into existence uncaused. If God created the universe, he would contradict this scientific law in two ways. First, the scientific law says that the universe would come into existence because of its natural, mathematical properties, not because of any supernatural forces. Second, the scientific law says the probability is only 95% that the universe would come into existence. But if God created the universe, the probability would be 100% that it would come into existence because God is all-powerful. If God wills the universe to come into existence, his will is guaranteed to be 100% effective.’ Therefore, science, in particular quantum gravity, shows that god is an unlikely explanation of the physical universe. (http://infidels.org...)Science proceeds by creating models to explain physical phenomena, and then falsifying or supporting these models based on empirical evidence, choosing the least ad hoc and best empirically supported model. From current scientific thinking, there exist many models explaining the origins of the universe through purely naturalistic means. For example, the Hartle-Hawking model, the Carroll-Chen model, and Vilenkin's quantum tunneling model. In all cases, we have models explaining the universe which are naturalistic. Since these models are all consistent with the laws of physics, then it follows that they are all logically possible. This being the case, science shows that god is not necessary to explain the universe, as there are alternative models which are at least possibly true.Einstein’s general theory of relativity also shows that there is no external cause to the universe. By external, I mean anything that is outside of our connected space-time continuum. Physicists derive equations from relativity called metric tensors (or metrics for short), which describe the geometric and causal structure of space-time (http://en.wikipedia.org...). Ever since Einstein created general relativity in 1915, four physicists have derived metrics from his theory that describe the universe we live in, which are now called Friedmann-Lemaitre-Robertson-Walker (FLRW) metrics. The FLRW metric describes a universe that is isotropic, homogenous, and expanding (http://en.wikipedia.org...). According to the FLRW metrics, there is no first instant of the universe’s existence (http://plato.stanford.edu...). There cannot be a first instant of the universe’s existence because the singularity which is supposed to exist at the first instant of the universe has no physical meaning. For example, the singularity supposed to have infinite temperature, but it’s a zero dimensional point. Temperature relates to molecules moving around, like spreading out when heated, or getting closer together when cooled. How can temperature make any sense at a zero-dimensional point, which by definition, has no movement? (http://www.reasonablefaith.org...) Dr. Craig also points out that a physical object with no duration and no physical extension hardly qualifies as a physical thing at all. (Craig, William L., and Quentin P. Smith. Theism, Atheism, and Big Bang Cosmology. N.p.: Clarendon Paperback, 1994. Print) If there is no first instant of the universe’s existence, then this creates problems for the idea of god as a cause of the universe. Consider all of the instants of space-time starting at the first instant to the present moment. Once the first instant has been “deleted”, then it becomes clear that each instant of space-time is caused by another instant of space-time. For example, the instantaneous moment T=1 (I am using general relativity’s “cosmic time”) is caused by the instantaneous moment T=.9, which in turn is caused by T-.8, ad infinitum. Because each instant of space-time is caused by another instant of space-time, god cannot cause space-time to begin existing.In conclusion, science has shown that god is an improbable explanation of the physical universe by way of Hawking’s wavefunction of the universe. Quantum gravity models which explain the existence of the universe further show that god is not necessary to explain the universe. Finally, Einstein’s general theory of relativity shows that god could not have caused the universe. For these reasons, the resolution is affirmed.