Science has shown or is about to show that we don't need God as an explanation

I will first make my main argument for science being unable to explain certain things, then I will answer your argument specifically. In order to do this we have to rembmer that this is not a question about specific religions or revelations, e.g. Christianity or the Bible. It is just a debate over theism and science.I. My Principle Argument 1) There are certain questions that are not answerable with science but have to be answered using other tools and disciplines2) The questions which provide starting points for the traditional case for God are among these questions 3) These questions (the ones mentioned in the point above) are generally regarded as part of the discipline of philosophyIt seems evident then that if the traditional theistic case for God rests on philosophical questions unanswerable by science, then the conclusion that science can't show GOd is unecessary follows. The main work of this argument then is showing that the traditional theist case rests on these questions. Leaving aside the ontological arguments for God's existence and ones based on specific religious experiences or miracles, there are three main a posterori arguments for the existence of God: The transcendent argument, cosmological argument, and design argument. The first has to do with why there are things like objective morals or goodness in the world. Obviously science has nothing to do with this argument. This leaves the two main arguments for God as possbily related to science because they do relate to our physical world. As for the cosmological argument, the main question is: Why is there any contingent thing in existence? Of course, contingent things are the types of things which in principlecould fail to exist as there is nothing about WHAT they are that entails THAT they exist. Hence, it is a reasonable question to ask why they do in fact exist. The theist has as his main argument that this ultimately requires a necessary being, and unpacking what a necessary being is, so the theist argues, involves certain Divine attributes. Taking a look at the bulk of the first part of Thomas Aquinas's Summa Contra Gentiles provides an example of unpacking what a necessary being would be (considered under a specific Aristotilean description of "unmoved mover"). That is just an example. Here is the point: The question of why there are contingent things in general cannot be answered by science. Science appeals to various objects, mechanisms, and regularities known as laws in order to explain our universe. However, these at least appear to be contingent. There is no way to explain why contingent things exist with appeal to other contingent things. Hence, one must get outside the circle which science is trapped in. Some might argue that these things which science works with are in fact necessary, yet this is ultimately not something science can in principle determine, hence, it is a philosophical assertion with a philosophical answer. Similarly, a traditional design argument will ask why there is order or intelligibility in the universe. However, science cannot answer these questions, whatever their answer may be. The reason is simple: Any scientific explanation of anything presuposses an orderly mechanism and an intelligble universe (one that in principle can be understood, at laest by some mind). Science cannot explain what it presuposes as an axiom and therefore has no force against a traditonal design argument. It is true that some arguments have been made in these categories and others which can be shown to be false by science. But simply because a weak argument is made doesn't mean the actual belief itself and the robust philosophical tradition behind the belief is somehow undermined by science. Someone could make a bad argument for muder being immoral, an argument that is falsified by science, but that doesn't mean science is making the case that murder is moral. Of course, that would ignore the real reason why ethicists have considered murder to be wrong. The analogy holds with theism. II. Your ArgumentsYour arguments seem to be hinging on a few false assumptions. First of all, simply because science has more predictive power than religion does not mean that it is more true. Religion is not trying to explain what science is trying to explain. Moreover, even if every religion was false, it would not show that God does not exist, or really even undermine the case as the question of GOd's existence is independent from whether or not a specific revelation is true (e.g. Christianity). Second, the big bang is a theory about how the universe began, not about why physical reality exists. No matter what mechanism caused the big bang, it is necesarily just another contingent fact. Ultimately, it does not explain reality in the way that the theist is trying to. Perhaps there is no explanation, but this itself is just a philosophical claim, one that science can't in prinicple support. Also, understanding how the universe began doesn't tell us whether or not it is created. A story is written by an author no matter how it begins and any information we get from the beginning does not tell us if there is an author or really much about the author that couldn't be discovered via any other part of the story. The beginning isn't special. Traditionally, theists regard God's creation as a continuos act including but not limted to the beginning. Third, evolution doesn't tell us that life isn't designed, it only tells us how different species came to be. Fourth, a GUT doesn't undermine God. Why there is a GUT and why it exists in the way it does is just one more expample of a contingent physical fact which ultimately needs a philosophical explanation.