@Conifold The general idea may be the same. But which feature one chooses, determines how convincing the argument is, does it not? I think "biology can best be explained with God" is not nearly as convincing as "physical orderliness can best be explained with God" (to me, atleast).

@Conifold Intelligent design is "God is required to explain life", is it not? That is not what I am proposing. I am proposing "God is required to explain the existence of physical laws"

@Conifold I didn't mean for it to be a deductive argument for God. I meant it to be an inductive or abductive argument. If G, then M. M. Therefore, probably G, if there is some reason to think that G is the best or simplest explanation for M.

Why vote to close? Can somebody explain what's wrong and how to correct it before closing this question? Please.

@PeterJ I couldn't understand. Sorry. Can you plz elaborate in an answer/comment?

@MichaelK "The God Particle" was largely jokingly named. The creator of the term jokes about how he actually wanted to name it "Goddamn" Particle or something. But I think "Theory of Everything" is more seriously meant. Maybe it's a misnomer, but not on the same level as "God Particle".