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

Round one was challenge and acceptance. = In round 2, Pro offered a disorganized series of statements that were mostly either demonstrably wrong or wild leaps of imagination that we had no reason to believe. While I could not identify the overall structure of Pro's argument (Which is not my problem; Pro had the burden of proof, so Pro had the obligation to make himself clear) I did show that most of his claims were wrong, absurd, or unsupported. Pro's argument consists of non sequiturs (infinities do not exist because it's hard to draw a perfect circle), unsupported assertions (the first cause must be limitless by nature), absurd foolishness (we can reasonably conclude that the universe is caused by assuming that it is an effect), contradiction (Pro used the principle of universality to contradict most of the rest of his argument; and he also said life comes only from life, but also said there was no life in the beginning), gibberish ("semi-infinite"), silly extrapolation (if god can do one miracle then he must be omnipotent), and logical inversions (He claims Occam's razor supports belief in brainless minds, uncaused causes, multiverses, eternities there but no eternities here, miracles, etcetera). Since Pro's argument consists of fancies, fallacies, contradictions and other unwarranted leaps, it cannot be called scientific. Since it is not scientific at all, it cannot be the best scientific explanation of anything. But that was Pro's burden. He undertook to show the best scientific explanation of the origin of the universe. He failed dramatically. = In round 3, Pro demonstrated such a penchant for misrepresentation that I used the round to make his unreliability clear. He quoted one person, Ellis, saying, "infinities may not exist," and claimed that as proof that infinities do not exist. Pro conceded that ""There is no conceptual problem with an infinite set ' countable or uncountable '" (sic) of possible or conceivable universes." This concession destroys Pro's case, which is based on the nonexistence of infinities. Pro misrepresented Steven Hawking, who does not believe what Pro claimed he believed, who in fact believes that the universe did not begin.[1] = In round 4, Pro finally says that B, G, and V actually believe their theorem. He offers a quotation (admirably arrogant) in support. However, if BGV are correct, then there are no real infinities, so Pro's infinite god—according to Pro's own expert—must be unreal, nonexistent. Pro clarifies his claim about infinities. He "NEVER said that infinities don't exist." Rather, he said infinite quantities don't exist "in REALITY." They exist, then, just not really. If they aren't real, they must be fantasy. They must be unreal, like Pro's infinite god. I guess Pro straightened me out. Pro has resorted to outright lies: - Pro said, "According to CON, leprechauns exist and pink unicorns exist because we can concieve and draw them on paper." I never said anything like that. - Pro said, "Hawkings (sic) was never my chosen authority figure to cite but was CON'S authority." But Pro introduced Hawking in his second post: Pro wrote, "The Space-Time Theorem of General Relativity , which was co-authored by Hawkings and Penrose clearly states that space, time, and matter and energy all had a concrete beginning." Pro introduced Hawking, and he introduced him as an authority. I didn't introduce Hawking; I just pointed out that Pro misrepresented Him. - Pro said, "CON objected to the begininning of the universe because he is claiming that we don't have a complete theory of quantum gravity regarding the Planck time era." I didn't say that. I don't even know what it means. - Pro wrote, "In Conclusion, The only thing CON can do is create a straw man of my argument by claiming that I said infinities don't exist." In fact, I destroyed his argument, pointing out over twenty logical flaws. He dropped most of these, didn't even try to defend them. He effectively conceded that his argument is rife with error. - Pro wrote, "CON failed to stay true to the debate subject and kept steering away from it during the debate." That's not true. The resolution is, "The God Hypothesis is the best scientific explanation for the origins of existence." I pointed out that Pro's theory is shot thru with incoherencies; mistakes; misrepresentations; self-contradictions; non sequiturs; and, now, lies. That's propaganda, not science. Pro's argument is not a scientific theory at all, so it cannot be the best scientific theory. - Pro challenged my sources. He repeatedly misrepresented what his sources said, so this challenge is amazing; he ought to be directing your attention to anywhere else. I actually went out and talked to experts in the field. Anybody else can verify by doing the same. If you want, you can even talk to the same people I did. I'm sure they'll be happy to tell you what they told me. (Note that Pro calls my quotations "unverifiable" because he didn't try to check them out, but he claims his theory is "falsifiable" because, he says, I can determine how and whether the universe began.) Compare that to Pro's sources, which he twice misrepresented. Pro criticizes me for using wiki to find out who said the universe is queerer than we can imagine, and to check Einstein's "god does not play dice" quotation. He's grasping at straws. - Pro concluded: "Fourth, CON never attempted to falsify the God hypothesis because He felt that he was not obligated to do so, which means the GOD hypothesis is the best explanation since it can't be shown false by default from CON." This is a gross misrepresentation. I showed over twenty grievous errors in Pro's theory, including incoherence and non sequiturs. I showed that his case is based on misrepresentations, untruths. I showed that Pro repeatedly contradicted himself. I proved Pro's "hypothesis" to be worthless. Vote Con for spelling and grammar, since Pro's was inferior. Vote Con for sources, because source points are to be given for reliability. My sources actually say what I claim they do. Pro misrepresented his repeatedly. Vote Con for behavior, because Pro continued his pattern of misrepresentation even after he was caught and exposed. Stubborn dishonesty is well worth a conduct point. Vote Con for persuasion, because I showed Pro's case to be a concatenation of errors, most of which he didn't even try to defend. Footnote: 1. A Brief History of Time.