Hi Kevin,
If you're really interested in the subject, I suggest you look into what the people in the field have to say on the subject.
Spitzer is cherry picking in order to make a point, conflating our intuitive notions of "beginning" with the ways in which cosmologists use it. that he fails to make anyway

Because we're trying to compare mutually exclusive hypotheses to determine which is a better explanation of some set of phenomena

No need to mislabel, then. You could simply state the two hypotheses.
A) Consciousness is more probable (therefore, better explained) by a deity, the attributes of which, will be specifically laid out for the purposes of testing this hypothesis.
and
B)

How about we call the position that a god exists theism and not believing that any gods exist atheism?

Because we're trying to compare mutually exclusive hypotheses to determine which is a better explanation of some set of phenomena. The positions that a god exists and of not believing in any gods are not mutually exclusive: one concerns the existence of gods, the other lack of belief in them.

Only to the extent that it asserts that an incoherent, unevidenced conscious being exists. Not very impressive. I can assert all kinds of things.

You make a lot of question-begging claims such as that there is no evidence for any of these gods, or that God is incoherent.

In any case, you don't seem to understand how we determine whether something counts as evidence for a hypothesis. Check out my citation of Pruss again, there's a reason why it matters that God's existence would require there to be consciousness while God's non-existence would not.

As far as defining consciousness, if you're not sure what consciousness is, perhaps a discussion on whether or not God exists should come later.

Spitzer writes:

There are three pieces of evidence arising out of space-time geometry proofs which indicate a beginning of our universe or any speculative multiverse in which our universe might be situated. It also indicates a beginning of oscillating universes – even oscillating universes in higher dimensional space. These proofs are so widely applicable that they establish a beginning of virtually every hypothetical pre-big bang condition which can be connected to our universe. They, therefore, indicate the probability of an absolute beginning of physical reality which implies the probability of a Creator outside of our universe (or any multiverse in which it might be situated).

An absolute beginning means before which there was no physical reality of any kind.

http://magisgodwiki.org/index.php?title=Cosmology#Evidence_of_a_Beginning_from_Space-Time_Geometry_Proofs

What do you mean by absolute beginning?

I wrote this above and you haven't responded:

In his argument here:

http://magisgodwiki.org/index....

Spitzer provides evidence from contemporary physics that in every inflationary universe, there must be an absolute beginning.

Is that what you mean by not new or good?

Let's stipulatively call the position that God exists 'theism' and the position that God does not exist 'atheism'.

How about we call the position that a god exists theism and the position that the existence of a god is unjustified atheism?

No. It is an inductive argument.

And neither a new one nor a good one.

A B argument will be a philosophical argument. It will use both arguments drawn from physics and deductive arguments to reach a conclusion.

Right now we are considering a B argument

Yes. We are. Which is why I'm confused about you suggesting a valid argument is evidence for anything. "Valid argument" is short for "deductively valid".