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

If we are going to redefine science to basically all knowledge, then this debate becomes a debate over the existence of God not about whether science shows God to be false. I posed the question to begin with because I wanted to discuss whether or not modern science, as it is understood by most people, shows God to be unecessary. Also, Sam Harris may be right to a degree but I think there is in fact a crucial distinction: science uses empircal methods to explain how the natural world works, philosophy does not. At least this is a rough distinction that most people would use when considering the difference between science and philosophy. Maybe in the past it wasn't clear whether or not Kant was a philosopher or scientist, but today, it is quite clear the difference. But it would be pointless to get into a debate over what constitutes science vs philosophy. Let's stick with the common definition of each.Actually, the "beginning" is really unimportant in this debate as I have tried to make clear. There is a focus in debates over God's existence on the beginning in particular. When I say that there are theistic arguments consistent with the universe being eternal, I mean this: whether or not the universe began, had a moment of temporal becoming, always existed, or has finite time but no beginning point, simply is irrelevant as to whether it is caused. There is no nuance I am missing, it simply is irrelevant to the traditional case for God. There is a common misconception in modern discussion about God that when we ask whether or not God created, we are asking whether or not He caused the universe to come into being from non-being...in that order. God starts the universe off. This is not what is meant traditionally. Traditionally, the question for God is what makes the universe a reality and keeps it a reality rather than a mere hypothetical at every point in time. God is much more like an author than an artchitect. This video from a physicist might be helpful: http://www.youtube.com... I did not say that the WFU presupposed a space-time. This is the second time Con has simply misrepresented what I said. I said that it presuposed something physical. This physical thing could be anything, as long as it is a physical reality. It could in theory simply be the laws of physics. It could be a space-time, but need not be. The point is that in order for there to be any mathematical structure, there has to be something which has that structure...unless we go into a sort of Platonism but I explained in my first argument what problems this would bring to the table. The point is this: the reason there is a 95% chance of the universe rather than a 50% chance has to do with the nature of some physical system. Physics talks about systems in various states...look at the end of the video I posted where this is discussed. Pro then says that my standards are too strict and lists examples of scientific theories that presuppose things in order to work. I never said there is anything wrong with this. All this means is that it leaves open certain questions. Whatever a scientific theory presuposes, it cannot be used to explain. Since ANY scientific theory presuposes SOMETHING physical, and therefore, from the standpoint of classical theism, something contingent, it follows that whatever the scientific theory is, it can never in principle falsify the traditional case for God. That is the point here: maybe the WFU is correct as science, but it doesn't show God doesn't exist.Next, Pro misunderstands my response to the WFU. He conflates "universe" with "possible world." http://plato.stanford.edu... Now, a possible world is simply a description of the way things in reality could be. If Pro holds that the WFU contradicts theism, he is saying that God creating our universe and it emerging 95% chance are incompatible. I argue otherwise...but in order to see if there is a contradiction, we have to assume for this part of the argument that God exists and see if His existing contradicts the WFU argument.So, a possible world is a way reality could be. Assuming God's existence, possible worlds (PW) are really just ways in which He could create. Certainly, there are a number of possible worlds which have the same physical and mathematical properties that our world does. As is important for this discussion, there are a number of possible worlds where the probability of a universe emerging is 95%. To argue otherwise is to argue that the reality we live in (where our universe had a 95% chance of existing) couldn't in fact exist which is manifestly false if we accept the cosmology in question. Hence, it is certainly a possible world. Now, if there is a 95% chance of something, certainly there is a possibility that the 5% is what is realized...in other words, some of these possible worlds contian no universe like ours. It is not as though these PW simply don't exist, as they clearly do in some manner since they have mathematical and physical properties, namely, the properties in which there is a 95% chance of yeilding a universe(s). So there, by logical necessity given our world exists, has to be a PW where the 5% chance is realized and no universe comes into being. Hence, there is a disjunction here between PW1 and PW2 where in PW1 our universe does exist and in 2, it does not.Now, fundamentally, both PW have the same initial (if not temporally, ontologically) physical properties. They are in fact identical either early in their history or if not early temporally in the sense of having the same fundamental properties. However, they are different because they have different histories. PW1 and PW2 are both really possible as demonstrated above, both the same in one sense, yet have different histories. Assuming theism it is God who chooses to actualize PW1 or PW2. The one He choses is the one that is real. Clearly it is not PW2, hence it is PW1. Yet there is no contradiction in claiming that His will is always realized and there is a 95% chance of the universe emerging, as we are discussing 2 different things. In the absolute sense, then YES there is a 100% chance of our universe existing, and there is a 100% chance of anything happening because God chose PW1 (including all of its history) to actualize. Yet in the sense of considering the physical reality itself, then there is a 95% chance. There are two different questions: the second only deals with the physical world itself, i.e. secondary causes. I do object to your argument on the grounds that it involves detailed questions on the philosophy of time and the nature of causal series. I provided a link to discuss the latter.2 Basic points: if each spacetime point is equally real and occuring simultaneously, as eternalism posits, then it follows that we have an essentially ordered causal series. Each moment of time, at its VERY MOMENT of existence depends on a previous moment in time. So each momement only acts as a cause in so far as it is caused by a prevous moment. Hence each moment is merely an instrumental cause. As discussed in the link I provided, this could not go on forever, or if it did, would need a principle cause of the series. Much to discuss, the point is however this is a philosophical issue that is not as simple as you make it seem. Second, the question arises even if each moment is casually explained with reference to a previous one: "what causes there to be a physical notion such as time with the causal properties that it has?" This question to the theist is a question about the existence of a contingent reality, one comprised of act and potency, essence and existence, etc. Hence, it requires a sustaining cause. Finally, pro says: "I agree...there are arguments...that science cannot say much about" That is the exact point I am making...that the original and traditional case for God, arguably the strongest, rests on metaphysics and not science. As my arguments show, the traditional cosmological and design argument remain untouched by science, hence the case for God remains