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

I should note that my opponent has dropped points B2, B3, B7, A and B. He has also refused to engage with points C, D and E. That's five great arguments I made that my opponent either dropped or didn't respond to, and several of his own points he dropped (remember, all of my opponent's points need to stand for the motion to hold). I answered all of my opponent's contentions - it would have been nice of my opponent to afford my contentions the same respect - I had to work around space limitations too. Asserting they're not consistant with the topic isn't exactly fair unless you can show how they aren't, and saying you addressed them already does not mean you addressed my rebuttal, which by the way was very good. In this round I will provide short reasons why I have won each point. A1. Nothing is infinite in realityThe induction my opponent uses to arrive at this absurd conclusion is twice wrong. First it's wrong because the conclusion is inconsistant with scientific observations, which violates the inductive method. Second it's wrong because it implies a commonality among any given subset of reality - for instance, that a pile of apples is evidence that time is finite. That leads to the paradox of all horses being the same color (. http://en.wikipedia.org...), which is a logical fallacy. A2. Time must have been "begun"Pro still argues that God created himself, but that nothing else can create itself, and still hasn't told us why, or provided any scientific backing to his claim. Even if it's possible for a cause and effect to be simultaneous, it still doesn't answer my argument. B1. Since it created a time dimension, it cannot exist in time dimensionI agree that time is a concrete thing, but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist conceptually. Reading back over this debate is proof of that fact. He continuously claims to have counter-evidence but doesn't show it to us. He claims that his explaination violates Occam's Razor less - the only problem is that his explaination isn't even a logically possible hypothesis, for all of the unresponded-to reasons I gave in round 2. B4. It cannot be an abstraction of our reality because they never cause anythingPro and I have a disagreement about how the brain works, I ask pro to prove it, and pro asserts I have the burden of proof. That's wrong. B2 was pro's point, not mine, and therefore he has the burden of proof. In addition, he brought the claim that a brain works in a given way, not me. B5. If it's not an abstraction it must be a disembodied mindI agree that science relies on metaphysics. I disagree that science is metaphysics, or that science can confirm metaphysics. If my opponent's claim is that science is premised on metaphysics, then using science to confirm metaphysics is really metaphysics confirming metaphysics, which is arguing in a circle. My opponent doesn't respond to that. B6. Since the universe is pretty good for human survival, it must be omniscientMy opponent has downgraded from omniscient to intelligent. Of course the universe will look intelligent if we class ourselves as intelligent and we are a part of the universe, just as a fish will class a fishbowl as dry if he thinks he is dry. That does not mean that the universe is actually intelligently designed or that the fish is actually dry - the fact that my opponent went looking for the conclusion is confirmation bias in science, and a highly subjective idea of what "intelligent" is. Excuse the postmodernism. F. "Eternally existing" makes no sense without time. Pro makes this whole case (completely unrelated to my point, by the way) that time cannot be around for eternity, but eternity is a measure of time. If there was no time, there would be no eternity. If there is no eternity, God cannot be described as eternally existing. This is the contradiction I identified in round two, which hasn't been answered. ConclusionThis debate has been a lot of fun. At the end of the day, I'm sure you'll agree (as I do) that there is some scientific evidence for God, but the question in this debate is whether God is the best explaination to fit with the data. I provided six solid reasons why God isn't even an explaination because it isn't internally consistant, and these have gone largely unanswered in the debate. In addition, I answered all nine of my opponent's points of reasoning. If points A1 or A2 don't stand, then his justification fails. If any of the B points don't stand, then God as pro has defined him is not the explaination pro advocates. My belief is that at the end of the debate, my analysis has gone much further than pro's, exposing flaws and possibilities that pro has not excluded which might present a better explaination. If at least one of pro's points fails, pro should lose the debate. If any of my points stand, pro should lose the debate. Pro had a big burden of proof to fill in this debate. Has he succeeded? That's for you to decide.