**Hi,**

**So I’m debating with an atheist on which is a simpler Ockham’s Razon theory.**

Atheist Ockham’s:

- The universe exists, and follows these mathematical laws"

** “The universe exists, and follows these mathematical laws. Oh, and God set it up like that.”

Therefore * is a simpler theory.

**My argument is that the mathematical laws cannot precede the creator, so here is my reply.**

`No, this is not good logic, 1) you are assuming the mathematical laws precedes the creator (whatever that is) , 2) you are ignoring that the multiverse also had to have beginning`

*God created the universe =>How it was created

*Beginning <Multiverse created the universe => how it was created`*

**Therefore * is simpler, sinsce the multiverse can’t be beginningless or eternal in the past is that the Borde-Guth-Vilenkin theorem applies to it as well as to our mini universe within it, any universe that is in a state of cosmic expansion on average over its history cannot be past eternal and that is true of the multiverse as well, it is true that it is in a state of expansion on average over its past history so that can’t be extrapolated to past infinity and that’s why this theorem shows that even trying to resort to the multiverse to escape the beginning of the universe will not work. So it doesn’t matter what atheists try to do they still need to deal with a beginning, so I think it’s naturalism that’s really in trouble through the multiverse hypothesis rather than theism…**

**And here is his reply, does it make sense?**

I am comparing two theories:

- certain mathematical laws exist, and explain all the physical phenomena we observe.
- God exists, and created certain mathematical laws, which now exist, and explain all the physical phenomena we observe.

To claim that the latter is a simpler *explanation* , you must demonstrate how the mathematical laws can be deduced from God. Not just state that “oh, God made them”, but show why some concept of God implies the necessary existence of the particular laws that we have.

Suppose you want to explain why the absorption spectrum of Hydrogen has a particular pattern.

You could say “Schroedinger’s equation”, work out the maths, and you’d find that it perfectly predicts the pattern.

You could say “God made Schroedinger’s equation”, work out the maths, and you’d find it’s *exactly the same maths* as if you left God out, and perfectly predicts the pattern. God’s creation of the equation is superfluous to the explanation of the pattern in the spectrum, it’s an extra, needless detail tacked on. Ockham’s razor suggests we cut off that detail.

What you can’t do (and this is the point you need to address to persuade me) is say “God”, and work out the maths. No traditional religion contains enough detail about God to deduce the lines of the Hydrogen atom absorbtion spectrum. “God” fails as an *explanation* of this physical phenomenon - a valid “explanation” should be a thing that exists (or might exist), from which the existence of the thing to be explained could be deduced.

“God” isn’t an explanation for how things are. He’s a psychological hook to make us *think* things have been explained when they haven’t. He’s a “just so story” a la Rudyard Kipling.

If you think I’m wrong about this, show how someone could start with statements about God, and deduce physics. Including the mathematical detail. Be careful not to just tack the mathematics on to “rescue” God as an explanatory power, when it’s actually the maths doing all the explaining. Deduce the maths from God if you want to use it.