The Physico-theological View in the Shadow of the Creation of Time

First, why is it strange that a physicist ignores a philosophical point?
Secondly, I did not ignore it. The principle of causality and the second law of thermodynamics are the result of common sense and a priori logic, not of observation. Even in our world, observation does not yield the principle of causality (as David Hume has already shown). Therefore, there is no reason to assume that this does not apply to the creation of the world itself. It may not, but the burden of proof is on those who claim otherwise. To the same extent, a person can claim that the laws of physics were measured on the Earth and do not apply to the moon or in deep space. This may be true, but our assumption is that they do apply there, and the burden of proof is on those who claim otherwise. The same is true regarding the validity of the laws of physics for the future. We have only seen them in the past, so who said it was right to assume that they will remain valid in the future? All of these assumptions are common sense assumptions, and whoever disagrees with them has the burden of proof on them. Whoever accepts all of them and only disagrees with them in relation to creation is simply biased. And regarding the Davidson Institute, to be honest, their name comes up here from time to time in connection with these kinds of silly arguments, and you shouldn’t be impressed by the scientific trappings they adorn themselves with. They understand this about as well as you do.
In addition, one must distinguish between the principle of causality and the second law. Regarding the principle of causality, it is perhaps appropriate to say that it is the result of observation (not as a common claim), and then to claim that it did not apply to the creation of the world (even then, this is speculation, because why assume that observation does not yield a logic that also prevailed then?). But the second law (that a complex thing is distilled into its component parts) is actually probabilistic logic, and as such it is very strange to say that it does not apply to creation. Why would something complex be created just by chance?
Ultimately, this is a really weak argument. Just meaningless bias. Anyone who wants to remain an atheist and realizes that his situation is quite difficult, fights for it with all his might, and in the process, he gives up all the principles of common sense. Thus, in the name of science (!) he raises stupid hypotheses that very emphatically contradict scientific thinking. And in the end, believers are accused of unscientific thinking. I wonder!