Quote Originally Posted by Kadagar_AV View Post
I think my main gripe with Bibleboys are these on this topic:

* If the church throughout the ages had supported science and urged it on, then the church would be more believable. As it is, the church has fought hard to push science down. It is hard for me to understand why that would be the case, if the church are in fact sure they are right. If they were, they if ANY would urge science to go further, fund it, so that we can find God when science reaches it's highest peak. But that is not how the church work, now is it?

* True, M-theory doesn't explain where branes come from or anything. I'm not even sure I believe in it myself, all those dimensions are messing with my mind. However, the smartest minds of today put their vote there, or on theories much similar. I trust the sharpest minds of today more than a dusty old book. I am not saying they are RIGHT, I am saying they are, from my perspective, more likely to be right. Same goes with a lot of stuff, the sun might orbit the sun for all I know, I haven't done any testing on my own. However, enough intelligent people say it is so for me to believe it.

TL;DR - I prefer to go with the sharpest minds of today, basing their observations standing on the shoulders of the sharpest minds throughout the ages, to adhering to an old book written by a people lost in the desert for 40 years. The desert ain't even that big.
I think we need to take a step back here and look at what the razor is, and what it isn't:

The razor is not proof, merely an indication of likelyhood.

The razor does not prefer the simplest explanation, but the simplest explanation when all explanations are equally plausible.

What this means is that in order to apply the razor to a Divinely ordained universe you first have to have some measure of how plausible that is compared to a universe that ordered itself, "just because".

M-theory may explain the mechanics of how the universe came to be, but that isn't a "why" explanation, so it isn't in competition with any God hypothesis. The biggest problem with M-theory is like many theories of the last 10-15 years is that it tries to use multiple universes to get around the problem of unlikleyness.

There's really no reason to posit more than one universe in the beginning even if you believe that multiple possibilities create new universes, and the model is actually less likely than a single-universe one because it requires more​ happenstance, not less.