Agreed. But the claim that "a god is not required" is a metaphysical claim, not a scientific statement.
{snipped quote}
Whether or not these statements are true depends on one's metaphysical view of the universe.
There's a big difference between the following two statements: ...
Agreed. There is. My statement was probably errant, now that you point out the distinction in clear terms.
Now I'd like to pick on this:
I claimed that the laws of physics are metaphysically simpler in a biblical perspective than in an atheistic perspective. In the biblical worldview, the universe and its laws are creations of an eternal, infinite, uncaused, complex God. In an atheistic worldview, God does not exist and His attributes must be ascribed to the universe and its laws. The universe and its laws become self-created, uncaused, and complex. The universe effectively becomes deified.
If the atheist position is that the universe and its laws are all that exist, and the theist position is that the universe and its laws exist in addition to God -- these are generalised positions because it's simpler to discuss that way -- then the atheist position is necessarily simpler: it uses fewer entities in its explanation of the universe.
To say that the inclusion of God in an explanation of the universe is simpler, when you already have the laws and properties known, seems quite contrary to the idea of "simpler" in all senses of the word.
For example, which of the sets {Newton's laws of motion} and {Newton's laws of motion, God} is simpler? Does one explain more about the functioning of the universe than the other?
As it happens, let us revise the original statement:
"The only thing it implies is exactly what it says: if a god does exist, it is not necessary to
our explanation of the universe functioning as
we normally do. If the god does not exist, then we wouldn't notice the difference
in our explanations."
Which is more accurate and more in line with both our reasoning, I think.