OK
Let's stay with explanatory power.
What I meant by 'done to death' was...sticking with the subject ad nauseam until everyone agrees it's been fully exhausted. I wasn't implying that anyone had landed a knockout blow.
In fact I thought it was YOU seemingly quick to sweep it under the carpet.
You dismissed Occams Razor in 4 words - "Occam is not authoritative" - yet Occam has been used as a blunt weapon against theists since Pierre Laplace..."je n'ai pas eu besoin de cette hypothèse." And so when I turn the tables on you and apply that very principle, I found you a bit on the back foot. (But, hey, I would say that wouldn't I )
Let's explore another principle I found you a little weak on over at your blog on this subject. You conspicuously didn't mention it and conveniently, therefore, DIDNT have to defend it. Namely this;
Even if you quibble with explanatory power and Occam, I still don't see how you can get around the claim/accusation that many atheists of your ilk simply try to dismiss WLC's repetoir of argument premisses with counter-points which, from my perspective, seem highly 'imaginary'. Those scare quotes are there on purpose to denote the euphemism.
You (guys) go to extraordinary lengths to deny plausible premisses by presenting less plausible ones.
Premiss - Things have a cause.
Counter premiss - No they don't.
Premiss - Things are designed
Counter premiss - No they aren't.
Premiss - Boeing 747
Counter premiss - whirlwind/junkyard
Premiss - Shakespearean Sonnet
Counter premiss - a thousand monkeys typing random letters for a thousand years.
Premiss - The universe came into existence.
Counter premiss - No it didn't.
Premiss - Objective moral values have a transcendent quality.
Counter premiss - OMV don't exist.
Premiss - I experienced a supernatural event. (Just like billions of other humans)
Counter premiss - No you didn't. (Neither did anyone else)
Premiss - Jesus appeared to have been Resurrected / Disciples were persecuted for their belief
Counter premiss - Jesus never existed / Disciples were lying
So my complaint/question is this. Will you concede that in terms of "explanatory power" a premise succeeds - even if only partially - when it is more plausible than its negation?
Is it really more plausible that we live in a past-eternal, perpetual motion, Groundhog Day universe where everything that has happened has already happened an infinite number of times over and over and over again in an infinite regress of unbroken cause/effect? (Still waiting for Marty McFly and Emmett Brown to show up any day now)
Because you'll go for ANY counter-premis rather than the God Conclusion.
Is it really more plausible that this universe is just one of an infinite number of multiverses - all different, all potentially full of alternate realities and possible worlds - yet none containing any supernatural divine beings?