There are some very powerful and simple arguments to indicate that this universe is far more likely NOT to be the result of [the Christian] God.

This should be done in terms of explanatory scope: the hypothesis explains many facts, not just one or two, and why this universe exists and not some other, why these properties and not others. 

And explanatory power: the hypothesis explains the facts with high probability. Ie, given that explanation as a fact we would very likely, or even expect, the universe to exist and be the way it is. 

To start, there is the issue of whether there was a God around before the creation of the universe. Of course, all theists claim so, that he is eternal. However, before time, there would be no thought, no thinking, no action. There would be no location where God could exist. This assumption that God could exist before time therefore becomes AD HOC. 

So far, with our reliable recording devices, everything we have seen and recorded is as a result of humans or other physical agencies: natural elements and forces. It seems consistent with evidence that natural forces are behind it all. Since we CAN explain all things through natural agencies and suchlike, then this automatically becomes the most plausible explanation (ockham's razor). 

The God hypothesis does not have the explanatory power that theist might hope does not follow from 'there is a God' 'that God will create the universe just as we see it'. The explanatory scope is also poor, since almost none of the features of the universe are (more probably) explained by 'God did it'. 

For starters, if heaven is the best possible place to exist, and God already knows everything he needs to know, then why does the universe exist at all, much less take the form it does? 

The brute fact of God is no more probable, and actually less probable, than the brute fact of the existence of the universe.


All the following questions and points show that the God hypothesis is weaker than the atheistic one on scope and power, since none of the points need explaining atheistically. To answer for the God hypothesis, everything becomes ad hoc: 

1) What does God need a big bang for? 

2) Why the long, complex process of condensation of energy to matter to stars to galaxies? Why the vast expanse as an end result? The whole universe could be created at once to suit us. 'God did it' predicts none of these things. Reliance on natural forces does. 

3) Can we deduce from 'God did it' the how many types of quark there are? Neutrinos? Etc... Or how long it would take from creation for humans to arise, or that there would be galaxies? No, but atheism predicts this entirely. 'God did it' has no predictive value, and the explanations are ad hoc.

4) The God hypothesis makes no testable predictions 

5) Until it is scientifically reasonable to reject ALL naturalistic theories, they are more plausible in explanatory scope and power.


6) Multiverse theories, such as Smolin's selection theory, and the Chaotic Inflation theory are much more predictive, physically evidenced and less as hoc theories for the existence of the universe than the God hypothesis. 

7) Black holes. These remarkable things are deal clinchers for me. They are far more predictive of an atheistic universe than the God hypothesis. By a long way. We understand black holes in relation to a natural universe - they are predictable and well-explained. For the God hypothesis, especially given his characteristics, there is absolutely no reason as to why they should exist. All reasons are utterly ad hoc. There is strong connection between black holes and the big bang. The big bang looks like a black hole. We crash big atoms together they behave in the same ratios of particles as the big bang. Every time in the laboratory this is the same when we crush atoms under enough pressure. And this is exactly what black holes are - material crushed under pressure. And our universe is full of them - trillions and trillions of them. It seems like the very purpose of the universe is to produce black holes (not life). There are more black holes than life bearing planets (a lot more). A lot more material in the universe is devoted to creating black holes (a lot more). The universe is almost entirely a vacuum, in which black holes, not life, thrive. We barely struggle along, having a very difficult time surviving, in brutal competition for resources on a microscopic island of life that will be melted by the sun in some time. If we're not wiped out by meteors or interstellar radiation before then. Life has a hard time starting and is very easy to get rid of. Black holes, on the other hand, are inevitable consequences of this universe. And then it's almost impossible to get rid of them. Black holes are right at home in this universe. 'God did it' in no way explains this, especially in context of everything else the God hypothesis claims. God could have made: 

a) a geocentric universe 

b) four or five fundamental particles 

c) universe filled with breathable air 

d) universe hospitable to life, with far less 'unnecessary baggage' 

Even if God had some strange reason for making a universe almost entirely deadly to life, makes the arrival of life very rare and difficult, makes its survival even harder, in a universe far larger then it needs to be, providing only a narrow window of time in which life has a chance and so on - even if this is likely under God - there is no reason God would make a universe tailor-made for black holes. Smolin's idea, on the other hand, makes perfect sense of this. Even predicts it. The God hypothesis is smashed upon the rocks of explanatory scope and power. To smitherines. 

There is also some good reason and evidence to support the view that every time there is a black hole, a new universe begins (outside our one). Both Chaotic Inflation and Smolin's Selection idea predict this - that black holes spawn new events. Smolin predicts that a universe like ours is inherently probable. Although, as with any early theory, there are critics, these are still far more explanatorily probable than the God hypothesis. For a more scientific wiki-style overview of CNS (cosmological natural selection) see here:

Chaotic inflation is very much a viable and current theory (as according to Guth): 

Whether you accept either theory is essentially irrelevant, because it shows that so much of this universe is not predicted by, or explained by, God. Therefore, the God hypothesis is the weaker hypothesis. 

God, as an ultimate being, does not predicts this universe. 

A multiverse (for example) as an ultimate being, DOES predict this universe.