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

Religion is Not ScienceIt should not be shocking that God is not part of science. That's why religion is the domain of faith, and not subject to experimental verification, equations describing physical laws, and requirements for consistency with other laws of nature. I challenged Pro to tell us why a God hypothesis should not be accepted as the explanation for everything that science cannot perfectly explain. Scientists are working on hundreds of thousands of unsolved scientific problems. So why don't they accept a God Hypothesis as the best scientific solution to everyone of them? If someone does not know why it rains or what path a hurricane will take, should a God Hypothesis be taken as the best available scientific explanation? Pro did not answer my challenge. To my knowledge, not a single scientist follows the practice of citing a God hypothesis as the best scientific explanation of every thing not explained. That's because a God Hypothesis is not science. Pro's only linked reference affirms that a God Hypothesis is not part of science.Metaphysical ArgumentsPro argues that God is part of science and as such the God Hypothesis is a scientific explanation. But then Pro claims all sots of exemptions from scientific examination of the God Hypothesis as science. Pro claims that God is a simple explanation. I ask how the ability to know, predict, and control every particle in the universe can be a simple mechanism. Pro claims the metaphysical exemption. Pro claims God exists. I ask if, as Pro says, everything that exists has a cause, then what is the cause of God's existence. Pro claims the metaphysical exemption. My point is that metaphysical exemptions are only valid if God is not part of science. If the exemptions are allowed as part of science, then the exemptions can be used as part of any scientific theory, not just for creation, but for whatever one wishes to explain. That's not science, because science is confined to explaining laws of nature in terms of observables, no metaphysical abstractions.Pro claimed an example of gravity being observed in terms of physical laws, summarized by Newton's laws, while the mechanism of gravity was unknown. The key difference from the God hypothesis is that gravity is a subject to further scientific explanation while God is not. General relativity provided a further explanation of gravity in terms of warping space, and that was subsequently proved. Physicists hypothesize the graviton as the particle that communicates the force, and they search for it experimentally. Now M-theory hypothesizes the relationships between gravity and other three observed forces. The God hypothesis is by contrast a guaranteed dead end. Testable questions are not allowed.TestabilityPro claims that the God hypothesis can be disproved by proving an alternate scientific theory. That's true of any theory, including theories of voodoo spells, magical demigods, and mystical incantations. disproof in that sense does not make every theory a scientific theory. Scientific theories can only rely on testable laws of nature. Experiments can disprove M-theory. Experiments cannot disprove the God hypothesis. Pro also argues that the God hypothesis is confirmed by observing the fine tuning of the universe. However, since the universe exists as it is, any theory of the universe, including M-theory, has to agree with that observation. Pro's claim is akin to noting that the fact of sunset confirms the theory that a god carries the sun across the sky in a chariot. Being consistent with a theory does not prove the theory, it is the starting point for any number of theories.InfinitiesPro answer to Zeno's Paradox, in which an infinite series clearly exists and converges, is that he didn't understand it. I gave a short explanation in the debate and referenced a full explanation. the reason that Zeno's Paradox appears as a paradox is that it seems incredible that an infinity of elements in a set could be traversed. Every time the speedy approaching player reaches the point where the slower player was, the slower player has advanced beyond that point. It seems impossible that the faster one could make the infinite number of advances required. The resolution is that intuition cannot be trusted when it comes to dealing with infinities. You have to trust the math to get n answer that describes how the world really works.Pro makes arguments from incredulity throughout, and they are all wrong for the same reason. An inability to imagine an infinity or that something can never arise from nothing is not a scientific reason to believe those things impossible. The only reliable scientific method is testing whether the mathematics is consistent with real world observation. M-theory is built upon that foundation.Pro repeats the argument that some scientists believe that an infinity of universes is impossible. I presented evidence that M-theory works if the number is very large rather than infinite. Therefore Pro's argument is moot.ConductPro forfeited the forth round. That is a conduct violation.SourcesThe Wikipedia biography of Penrose gives the only connection to Hawking as a co-authored paper in 1965 and later sharing a prize for apparently unconnected work contributing to cosmology. I said that Penrose and others are skeptical of M-theory, which is perfectly appropriate, but none claim that M-theory is disproved. I cited Einstein's skepticism of quantum physics. Quantum physics is now proved. Penrose claimed that no tests of -theory exist, but I cited specific tests for the validity of M-theory in designed for the LHD in CERN. Denying that tests can exist does not show familiarity with the status of M-theory.Penrose is among a very few who claim M-theory is not a theory. His complaint is that it ties diverse theories of quantum mechanics, gravity, and cosmology at a high level, and to him that makes it not a theory unto itself. That's semantics not physics. But how does the God hypothesis tie together all the theories together? How does the God Hypothesis relate, say, gravity to quantum physics? The answer is that the God Hypothesis says nothing about how the laws of nature are related. That's because the God Hypothesis does not deal in scientific theories or equations; it does not because it is not a scientific theory.I asked Pro to provide references for all his quotations and all his claims about science. I explained that the quotation reference are important so I can see what else the person said. In Pro's one linked reference, Pro's source said that a God hypothesis is not science. Pro never provided references for his quotations from Ellis or Hibert. He provided no source for his claims of the implication o general relativity nor of his notions of the necessity of a quantum field. Pro continued to claim that M-theory requires the existence of an infinite number of universes after I gave a source saying that it does not require an infinite number, but rather only a very large number. Pro consistently interpreted science to suit his desires without sources for his interpretations.The best scientific explanationM-theory is not proved, and it may not be the final answer, but it is the best scientific explanation available. It is scientific because in relates unexplained observable properties of the universe to known physical laws. It is testable through proposed experiments at CERN and elsewhere. The God Hypothesis is not a scientific explanation because it does not explain in the terms of science, and unlike all other physical it is not subject to experimental verification. I have not claimed that God does not exist. My argument is solely that if the God Hypothesis is true, it is outside of science. The resolution is negated.