The God Hypothesis should be a Scientific theory

Given the fact that my opponent has yet finished his theory constructions, I believe that it would be inappropriate for me to start attacking his contentions. Without getting a complete view of pro"s positions, my responses can easily go astray thereby rendering my arguments utterly useless. Therefore I will not be putting forward my arguments until next round. In this round, I will be presenting my understanding of pro"s theory constructions. Please do correct me if I am wrong so that I could make valid counter-arguments. Definitions of "The God Hypothesis" There are two distinct yet similar definitions offered by Pro in this debate so far. The first one appears in the first round: The "God Hypothesis" is that there exists a personal God who is the creator of the universe and who is interested in having a human affair. The second definition is revealed in this round: If a great order arose from an expansion, then it should be understood that the intervention of an intelligence was involved in every moment of this expansion. I will call this force the God Hypothesis. To my understanding, the first definition concerns about the personal God displaying both human and divine characters whereas the second definition involves only the energy force considered the cause for the fine-tuned universe. Under pro"s "Predictions" section, there is one sentence attempting to bridge the gap between these two definitions (If the God hypothesis is true. .). Based my observations, I am under the impression that pro intends to build his case around the second definition of "The God Hypothesis. " and then tries to transform it into the first one by incorporating the divine characters. The Scope of the Debate Null Hypothesis in this debate concerns about the cause for the fine-tuned universe/life: "There is no cause for this finely-tuned universe and it just quantum fluctuated out of nothing. " Alternative Hypothesis (The God Hypothesis) "There is cause for this finely-tuned universe and it not just quantum fluctuated out of nothing. " According to my understanding, this is a debate about The beginning monument about the universe. In other word, the debates concerns about if there exists the Supreme Being (God) that initiates the "beginning moment" of the universe. The process led to the eventual emergence of life. More clearly, the debate is about whether there is a force (God) that imposes order on the chaos of organic evolution. Pursuant to the rule of debate articulated by Pro in the first round, the Burden of Proof is on Pro. In order to win this debate, I must be able to show "The God Hypothesis" fails to better explain the data compared to Null hypothesis. "The God Hypothesis" could not make falsifiable predictions within the acceptable degree of accuracy And/or "The God Hypothesis" fails to account for many independent strands of evidence. And/or "The God Hypothesis" is incompatible with some pre-existing theories and other experimental results Interpretations Data: The word "data" means "the fine-tuned universe" which necessarily implies that I will be required to accept "the fine-tuned universe"observations while examining "The God Hypothesis". Falsifiable predictions: The predictions will be introduced by Pro in next round. Independent strands of evidence: If pro does not offer any evidence other than fine-tuned universe, I am assuming that I am free to offer more evidence in attempting to advance my arguments. Pre-existing theories: I am assuming that any well articulated and widely accepted scientific theories would be admitted. Thank you.