The God Hypothesis is the best scientific explanation for the origins of existence

Throughout my opponent's response, we can see a pattern emerge. Perhaps this is done on purpose by his part or it is based on miscommunication. I will assume the latter. This pattern is that for each point I make, we see Pro respond to it as though my criticism were directed at something other than what I clearly stated it was. Take the first point he attempts to rebut in his previous argument: I argued that the God Hypothesis (GH) is not falsifiable because no evidence could be presented that would disprove the proposition that an intelligence was responsible for creating the universe. He switches my criticism to be about whether every effect requires or has a cause. If we falsified that proposition, it would not disprove or falsify the idea that an intelligence created the universe. You can see the switch up close & personal when he says falsifying this premise would eliminate the need for GH, but eliminating the need does not falsify the hypothesis. Think of it like a murder trial: disproving that the defendant was only person that could have committed the murder does falsify that he was the murderer. In short, he only attempts to show that one of the premises of his argument is falsifiable, one that isn't necessary for his overall hypothesis to be true. GH is not scientific. I'd like to point out that my opponent admits to the possibility of other universes within our own universe, so proving that our universe had a cause certainly doesn't mean the cause for our particular universe wasn't physical. Again, not testable, not repeatable, not scientific. On top of that, again he switches from falsifying GH to falsifying one unnecessary premise of GH. Pro completely misses the concept of control & independent variables in his next paragraph. A classic example of these would be to take two groups of people sick with a particular disease. You feed one group a sugar pill, & the other the medicine. You observe whether there is a change in the progression of the disease. If the sugar pill group gets no benefit, & the medicine group does, then the evidence for the medicine being effective against the disease would be strengthened. Saying that human minds are the control group & a disembodied mind is the independent variable shows a gross misunderstanding of science in general on my opponent's part. Next comes another shift. I asked how we could tell the difference between something that is uncaused & something with a cause we cannot currently perceive. Pro responds as though I asked a "how" question, as though I implied that an explanation only counts if we understand its intricacies. I am instead pointing out that eliminating all known causes does not lead us to the conclusion that something is uncaused. Many things have APPEARED to be uncaused, for we did not understand the forces behind them. Later, we did understand the existence of these forces, even if we didn't understand how. In reality, it is my opponent that is appealing to ignorance, saying that since we don't know of any forces that could cause X, then X must be uncaused. This is fallacious reasoning. The next shift my opponent makes is in regards to fine tuning. He argued that the variables for life were so slim as to make the existence of life proof of fine tuning by an intelligence. Now, if other variables were to produce life different from our own, this would mean that life-producing variables are not as rare as my opponent claims, dulling the evidence for an intelligence being responsible for these particular variables being the way they are. My opponent switches & says that it doesn't disprove that the universe or multi-verse had a cause. Of course it doesn't; my point had nothing to do with that particular aspect of Pro's argument, but whether or not the existence of life is proof of intelligence behind the universe. My opponent then seems to say that even if a computer created our universe, it would have to have been created somehow, appealing to infinite regressions to bring him again back to the idea that the universe must have been created. This is a switch away from my actual point that a universe need not a disembodied mind to be created, & back to a point which it did not intend to address: whether the universe had a beginning. He does not respond to my actual point, & even ineffectively argues for what he switched my argument to be about. My opponent believes this disembodied mind operates under a "B-theory of time", meaning he believes that a plane of existence could be eternal. He also believes this mind of his can act & take actions in this plane of existence, which means a physical & unconscious computer could also do things inside such a plane of existence, such as produce the entire multiverse. Nowhere do we require a disembodied mind, certainly nowhere do we require consciousness. I should point out that I do not rob life of all its attributes in my argument. I cited a source which says the attributes of life are difficult to define, to which he gave no rebuttal or contradicting sources. Beyond that though, if other variables produced universes that produced sentient beings, that would contradict the fine-tuning argument, & sentience is well defined enough that sentience is something considered "alive". Pro cannot show that other kinds of universes wouldn't produce sentient beings, therefore his fine-tuning argument fails. Pro asserts that BGV theory only provides & implies evidence of universes already contained in our universe. Again, no source for this baseless assertion. More than that, I cited a source from one of the originators of the theory (Vilenkin, the "V" in BGV Theory) that completely contradicts my opponent's assertion, as well as others he makes. The quote Pro provides only says there are multiple regions within our universe, it does not say "only within our universe". Cherry picking. I also cited Vilenkin unequivocally saying that his theory claims there are an infinite number of universes, that any universe that could exist, does exist (and therefore chance does not play a part in whether our universe exists), & specifically says that it explains why there is an appearance of fine-tuning within our universe. My opponent's response is to say there are finite universes, that chance does play a role, & that it doesn't explain design. All asserted without a single source other than a wikipage on chance which in no way addresses my citations of Vilenkin, who says that his theory not only means we had to exist, but there exists an infinite number of universes identical to ours. When we get to Substance Dualism (SD), my opponent has chosen to drop any argument against the split-brain patient experiment & instead focuses on the unconscious determinates experiment. The split-brain patient example alone is enough to disprove SD; in not responding to it my opponent has conceded the point. To quickly refute his response to the other study, I will say that SD implies that conscious decisions are the realm of the mental stuff; if the physical brain is able to determine conscious decisions, free will goes out the window. The study shows this, so Pro's point fails. In summary, what my opponent has done is list a six points, to which I respond & refute. He claims that my responses to points 2-6 don't refute point 1, & apparently my response to point 1 can't be right because of points 2-6. I would say, even if you disagree with all my points, you must vote that I had more reliable sources, as Pro did not cite any sources other than wikipedia for background information, and not to prove a point, whereas I cited research and directly quoted the scientists in question. Pro had the burden of proof here, and he fell vastly short on every point he made.