Post 3
After attempting to prove god created the universe, Tzortzis believes he can deduce some attributes of the divine. He believes these qualities matches that of Allah and, thus, give credence to Islam. The arguments are: 1) to be the creator of the universe, he must be eternal, or rather, outside of time; 2) he must be transcendent, meaning independent of creation; 3) he must have a will, so he could will the world into existance, and thus he is a person and may have personal relationships with humans; 4) he is powerful; 5) he is all knowing; and 6) he is one.
Professor Krauss did not address most of this issues because they are theological in nature. They are rubbish if you don't believe in god beforehand. I'll attempt to answer them anyway, and 'thank god' professor Krauss uses his time for more useful enterprises.
1) A god out of time is unchangeable. Any change would cause him to have a pre-change state and a post-change state, putting him in a timeline and contradicting the premises. Because he doesn't change, he cannot change his mind and thus cannot will the creation of the universe.
2) If god is outside of spacetime, he is therefore unable to affect things in spacetime. Any effect he has would place him inside the universe by definition. To be omnipresent and to be at all potent, he has to be inside spacetime. To be everywhere he needs to be in space, to be eternal he needs to be inside time.
3) To be able to maintain a relationship with humans, god would have to be capable of change. A one way veneration by the human part is not a relationship because it lacks reciprocity. Also, any mental abilities god had would be alien to us, because our faculties – reason, love, fear, intelligence, compassion – are the result of evolutionary processes, to which god would not have been subject.
4) He would be powerful as a force of nature indeed, but he would lack a will. In a way, he's powerless, because he cannot do what he wants, because he wants nothing.
5) That he is all knowing is a non sequitur – the world could be the product of a force without intellect. Even if god were a person, the universe could still have been created unwillingly – god might not even be aware of the universe.
6) The final point is well answered by professor Krauss. Tzortzis says that Occam's razor, the principle by which the simplest sufficient explanation is probably the right one, means there is only one god. Krauss answers that zero gods are simpler than one. Perfect. But as to 'explanatory scope', there is none offered for having one or more gods, as far as science can tell.
Again, the use of deductive arguments for these issues leads to absurdity because our brains have not evolved to instinctively know true from false in subjects far removed from our survival needs, which is the case with the origins of the universe. Through science, inductive reasoning fares much better, and it is through science, not intuition, than we can hope to understand the cosmos.