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

I don't think this debate needs another round, we are pretty much just going around in circles here.If there is any unified theory of time, I would love to see it, however human beings in all their primitive cognitive abilities cannot comprehend what time is because we lack function to do so. "My claim that time cannot be infinite is not just a valid philosophical argument. It has been demonstrated with extreme accuracy to be true."But you said that the universe is expanding infinitely, meaning time must be infinite, and you also must assume that god is infinite if causal relationships are valid beyond the constraints of our universe, (which, as I demonstrated, is probably false, but that's not the point).The theory of general relativity, like the BGV theorem, states only that the universe must have at one point been a singularity. After that point, it breaks down. This is University of Chicago physicist Robert M. Wald talking about the theory of general relativity in 1977 (I am aware that progress has been made since then, but the point still stands true.):"Do we expect the theory of general relativity to break down in the extreme conditions near a space time singularity? The answer is yes. We know that on a microscopic scale, nature is governed by the laws of quantum theory. However, the principles of quantum mechanics are not incorporated into general relativity. Hence, we do not believe that general relativity can be a true, final theory of nature. Classical mechanics (that is, Newton's laws of motion) provides us with an accurate description of the motion of macroscopic bodies, but it breaks down when we attempt to apply it on atomic distance scales. In a similar manner, we believe that general relativity provides an accurate description of our universe under all but the most extreme circumstances. However, near the big bang singularity when the scale factor a goes to zero and the density and curvature become infinite, we expect general relativity to break down. What is the new, fundamental theory of nature which incorporates the principles of both general relativity and quantum theory? What does this theory say about spacetime singularities? Even the most optimistic theorist can only hope for the beginning of an answer to these questions within the foreseeable future."So, you cannot use BVG theorem or general relativity to prove that the universe had a beginning. And even if you could, that does not mean there is no other natural explanation." CON forgot to address the other part of the argument in round 2 about the nature of this cause that was related and connected to the claim that cause and effect could be simultaneous."Yes I did, and I pointed out that the example is invalid in respect to your postulation that the universe had a beginning, as it implies the ball and pillow have always existed, but you say the universe had a beginning. Which is it?"God who is supposed to be an immaterial mind"How can a mind be immaterial? We know that the mind is a product of biological processes involving chemical reactions and electrical activity. If a mind was "immaterial" it would not be a mind. It seems to me you are just trying to make out that your god is completely undetectable by science so he can't be disproven. If it was possible to have any sort of consciousness without some form of brain, It would be completely beyond comprehension to us humans who occupy the material world."Furthermore, CON asks for explanatory power. Its simple. Human minds manifest and interact with the brain by stimulating parts of the brain through the force and virtue of its agency or causal power. I argue that the same can be said with the disembodied mind and the universe."Well, I'm open to the idea that I am a neuron in an immensely complicated brain of a superior being, but I prefer to assume that this reality is the true reality, whatever that means.I already addressed the whole BVG thing earlier."Last but not least, there no evidence of other universes."What, you mean like there is no evidence for god?" the BGV theorem applies to the so-called multiverse"Why? They are different universes and so probably wont have the same physical laws."Again, The Law of Cause and Effect does not require that every cause must have an explanation or cause. Instead, it states that for every effect there must be a cause for it. So What I meant by about CON's requirement being arbitrary was that his requirement for an explanation of GOD was not what the law of cause and effect required and states. In fact, its not a scientific law or rule at all. CON asking me to explain where the cause came from is a purely philosophical question."God is an effect, and therefore must have a cause, if, as you insist, the law of cause and effect applies outside the universe as we know it.THE FINELY TUNED UNIVERSEReally, this one has been debunked so many times I'm sad to see such an articulate person using such a weak and outdated argument. http://www.youtube.com..."I am providing a scientific explanation"No, no you are not, you are twisting scientific and philosophical principles to support a conclusion you have already made. You haven't provided a proper hypothesis, or a test to verify it. There is a reason that there is no scientific theory involving god. There is no point making untestable hypothesis about things we don't yet understand, in the context of physical laws we can't even begin to comprehend."All CON has to do to falsify it is prove that things can come out of nothing without a cause or show that human minds don't exist."No, no I don't. And anyway, it is you who believes something can come out of nothing, lets not get mixed up here. And I have no proof your mind exists, I only know that mine does in some way, be it only in a computer program of the dream of an alien being.Yes, as I have already mentioned, I go with the current scientific answer of "I don't know". I am not sure what exactly you believe, but you only argue for a deistic god, not a theistic one. I remain in my scientific, philosophical naturalism approach to everything. All I expect from this debate is to show that making guesses about things we can't know or understand is pointless.