"as one commentator suggested, it should focus on explanation rather than causation or creation"
Both sides of the atheism/theism argument commit the same logical error. They both assume that something is true and go from there. This is called begging the question. However, there is then a big difference. One, the atheist, assumes that there is either an infinite regress or that something has appeared out of nothing. This leads to absurdities and chaos.
The other side assumes that the regress is finite and begins with a cause that has no cause. (the other begging the question) It is self-existent. This leads to an ordered universe and existence. Everything flows without incident from that assumption.
Both sides use IBE or inference to best explanation to justify their position. One side's best explanation leads to absurdities and incredibly improbable events while the other side best explanation leads to simplicity and an existence of order and likely events.
So we have two explanations with one side leading to the orderly world we see and the other would only lead to this world with incredibly improbable events happening and one filled with absurdities.
The concept of simplicity as Patrick lays it out has two completely different theories with the same name. One is simple because the initial cause must be simple, no parts, nothing changing, nothing contingent. The theist theory is also simple because it has a simple explanation for existence while the atheist explanation leads to incredibly complex and convoluted worlds just to explain the one we live in.
In other words, a creator explains everything simply. An existence without a creator leads to an extremely complex and convoluted existence of absurdities.
"as one commentator suggested, it should focus on explanation rather than causation or creation"
Both sides of the atheism/theism argument commit the same logical error. They both assume that something is true and go from there. This is called begging the question. However, there is then a big difference. One, the atheist, assumes that there is either an infinite regress or that something has appeared out of nothing. This leads to absurdities and chaos.
The other side assumes that the regress is finite and begins with a cause that has no cause. (the other begging the question) It is self-existent. This leads to an ordered universe and existence. Everything flows without incident from that assumption.
Both sides use IBE or inference to best explanation to justify their position. One side's best explanation leads to absurdities and incredibly improbable events while the other side best explanation leads to simplicity and an existence of order and likely events.
So we have two explanations with one side leading to the orderly world we see and the other would only lead to this world with incredibly improbable events happening and one filled with absurdities.
The concept of simplicity as Patrick lays it out has two completely different theories with the same name. One is simple because the initial cause must be simple, no parts, nothing changing, nothing contingent. The theist theory is also simple because it has a simple explanation for existence while the atheist explanation leads to incredibly complex and convoluted worlds just to explain the one we live in.
In other words, a creator explains everything simply. An existence without a creator leads to an extremely complex and convoluted existence of absurdities.