The God Hypothesis qualifies as the best scientific explanation for the origins of existence

Beginning of the Universe 1. "In the past rounds I demonstrated that our best physics suggests there is no (temporally) first cause of the universe, and there is only a beginning in the sense of our spacetime block having a finite boundary in the earlier than direction. So this knocks out Kalam-esque claims for the 'cause of the universe'." IF the B-theory of time was true, then it would damage the Kalam or First cause argument. However, CON has the burden of proof and has his work cut out for him to demonstrate that the B-theory of time is true because all of our experiences tell us that the A-theory of time is true. Just because physicists and philosophers of time believe in the B-theory in survey is NOT evidence or proof that its true. CON is going to have to do better than that to justify his assertion and is sorely lacking substance. We would would have to a entirely different debate on this subject, So I cannot go any further with this. 2. "Deny the PSR. Certain bits of physics (like Bellï¿½€™s inequality)[1], seem to violate PSR in that there are no explanations for particular events rather than particular other events. Even if we had no empirical refutation, our evidential support for the PSR is in a narrow set of circumstances ï¿½€" extrapolating from these to the universe itself is unwarranted." Well first off, "Absence of evidence is not evidence of its absence", just because scientists cannot find a cause for some quantum events does not mean its evidence that some things don't have to have a cause. As physicist David Bohm, has pointed out, there are many "hidden variables" at the quantum level of reality, of which anyone could contain the sufficient reason for a certain quantum event. Second, Quantum fluctuations or events do not take place in "absolute" nothingness. It actually takes place out of a larger quantum field ,which is a part of physical reality, that enables particles to come in and out of existence. Without this field there would be no quantum events. This is another reason why its not accurate to say that a particular quantum outcome is "uncaused". Therefore, the Principle of Sufficient reason still stands strong and the burden of proof is still on CON to convince the rest of us why everyone should belief that this is the ONLY exception in terms of sufficient reason. Now, If CON is going to say that nothing is not nothing anymore and refer to the quantum field as the "nothingness"ï¿½, then CON would not only be highly illogical but arbritrary in doing so. It is true that you cannot be purely philosophical when making any kind of argument in the scientific field, but it goes both ways. Without some type of reasonable standard of logic, Science becomes blind and ,in the process, unscientific. 3." even granting that there is no reason why with respect to this datum God is better falsifiable over metaphysical objects like universe generators. The available data simply underdetermines whether it is God or some non-naturalistic whatever. Anyway, to make it falsifiable, just suppose it is some Dharmic conception of the divine which would be falsified by the lack of the right sort of transcendental experience." Again, abstract objects, which would include the universe generator since its an abstract object, do not stand in causal relationships since they are timelesss and immaterial. We are not aware of any abstract objects standing in casual relations nor does it make sense. Therefore, Only an unembodied mind would stand in causality since minds are metaphysical and have free will. Otherwise, it would be impossible to explain how you can get a temporal effect with a beginning from an eternal cause. If the cause is there, then the effect would have to be there once the initial conditions of the effect are given. Now, CON may argue that we don't have evidence of minds operating without a brain since minds are dependent on them. Well this whole debate is about me providing evidence of a disembodied mind. If CON wants to demonstrate that abstracts objects like his universe generator can stand in casual relations and explain the logic behind, then he can go ahead, but CON cannot just assert this as he has been doing with many other claims. He must prove that this is a real scientific explanation as well. I have already explained why it cannot be because its unfalsifiable and CON was not able to articulate CLEARLY how the Universe generator is falsifiable under scientific standards or how this is even rational. 4."PRO repeats his assertion that the ï¿½€˜spacetime continuumï¿½€™ somehow shows naturalistic causes to be impossible. Heï¿½€™s never argued for this, and Iï¿½€™ve refuted my own charitable reconstructions. He also repeats his claim that infinite regresses are impossible (not answering the hypertask possibility I raised back in R1)." In 2003, Borde, Guth,Valenken in their theorem were able to prove that ANY universe which is on average in a state of cosmic expansion greater than 0 throughout its history cannot be infinite in the past, but must have a past space time boundary. This theorem holds even when we don't have a quantum theory of gravity of the early universe. In addition, even if we are just a tiny part of a so-called "multi-verse", their theorem would STILL require an absolute beginning from this multi-verse as well. Since there has to be an absolute beginning when its all said and done anyways, CON can deposit as many universes or versions of the multi-verse as you want. It still would not weed out the God hypothesis as the actual explanation for these universes AND for the fine-tuning of the universes. If CON tries to put it out of context by mentioning Victore Stenger's letter, here is a youtube response: http://www.youtube.com... "It is said that an argument is what convinces reasonable men and a proof is what it takes to convince even an unreasonable man. With the proof now in place, cosmologists can no longer hide behind the possibility of a past-eternal universe.... There is no escape, they have to face the problem of a cosmic beginning." - Alexander Vilenkin. Its very simple: If u have an expansion greater than 0, the universe began. Period. Fine tuning[3] 5."PRO wants to rule out multiverses because it is not explanation: but surely it is. Seeing ourselves in life permitting universe is unsurprising if there are vast numbers of universes and the weak anthropic principle, in the same way itï¿½€™d be unsurprising to see me keep drawing royal flushes if a mad alien race meant annihilated the universe if I didnï¿½€™t draw one. " Well again, CON has not made the effort to explain how there could possibly be another universe in the first place in-spite of the Space-time theorem. Anyhow, it does not matter because It still would not weed out the God hypothesis as the actual explanation for the fine-tuning of the universes since there has to be an absolute beginning regardless. CON would just be advocating a certain way God can design the universe. 6."If we use physical or metaphysical possibility, we have no access to say the universe is finely tuned (as we know of no such possibilities that are not life permitting), if we use epistemic possibility, we have to consider the epistemic space of all possible laws of physics, which is impossible" Well again, these supposed metaphysical universes CON asserts are not falsifiable and he is even admitting it in this quote. The God Hypothesis on the other hand is indeed falsifiable making it a scientific explanation as well as the best one. 7. "PRO answered the wrong bit of my ï¿½€˜no grounds for omniscienceï¿½€™ claim" CON does not realize that I was not responding to his objection about omniciensce but providing other instances of omniciense Origin of life 8."No further remarks, as PRO has declined to advance it." I did not advance it any further because CON did not make any additional objections or arguments for me to respond.