Science has shown/is about to show God to be implausible/unecessary as an explanation

First, I’d like to explain that my opponent has contradicted himself. He argues that there is a temporal beginning to the universe, and that god is the best explanation of this temporal beginning. However, at the end of his round, he states that eternalism is best supported by physics and philosophy. Eternalism is the position that temporal becoming is an illusion, and that all points in time are equally real (http://plato.stanford.edu...) . Therefore, my opponent affirms that temporal becoming is real in one argument, while denying that temporal becoming is real while criticizing my arguments. Furthermore, I can turn this into an argument in favor of the revolution. Since Con admits that science supports the idea of eternalism, then it follows that science supports the idea that temporal becoming is an illusion. Since science entails that temporal becoming is an illusion, then it would follow that any argument about god causing the beginning of the universe is false. Therefore, from Con’s own admissions, science helps to establish the implausibility of god as an explanation of the universe.I would also like to remind the audience of how weak my burden of proof is in this debate. In order to win the debate, I simply have to show that science offers logically possible explanations of the physical universe as opposed to god. It doesn’t even matter if the explanations I offer are implausible; The only thing I have to do is to show that they are least possible. Unless Con can show that the alternatives I have mentioned are impossible, which he has failed to do as of this point, then a Pro vote is justified, as the resolution is upheld.I believe that Con has misunderstood my argument from the wavelength function of the universe. Con responds to this argument in several ways and tries to explain how it is flawed to use the WFU to explain the origins of the universe. This is where the misunderstanding begins. I did not mention the WFU in regards to the origins of the universe, but I mentioned the WFU in regards to the probability of the universe existing. As far as I have read, this argument has gone unanswered. Con doesn’t dispute that there is a 95% probability of the universe coming into being, and Con doesn’t dispute that if god existed, the universe would have a 100% probability of coming into being. Con doesn’t dispute the conclusion that this shows that physics contradicts god. Therefore, he drops the entire argument. Any talk about the explanation of the origins of the universe in regards to the WFU is simply a red herring.In response to my third argument, Con proposes that god is not a cause of the first instant of space-time, but a continuing cause of the universe. In other words, god is the reason that each instant of space-time is able to exist, but is not the cause of the first instant of-space time. However, this is also contradicted by the argument I gave in my first round. God cannot be a continuing cause of the universe because the reason that each instant of space-time is able to exist is that it is brought into being by another instant of space-time. The efficient cause of any given instant of space-time is another instant of space-time, and the only necessary conditions of an instant of space-time coming into being is another temporally prior instant of space-time, not god.In response to Con’s argument, I’d like to first clarify that we’re talking about the plausibility of god as an explanation of the physical universe in light of science, not philosophy, so his argument is irrelevant to the resolution from the beginning. However, I would like to note that his entire argument is predicated on an unjustified assumption. In modal logic, there are logical systems, such as Triv modal logic, where “modal collapse” is achieved. Modal collapse means that all possibilities collapse, entailing that everything which is exists does so necessarily. (Einstein, Relativity, and Absolute Simulaneity. "A radical re-thinking of quantum gravity".) This entails that there are no contingent objects. In order for Con’s argument to work, he has to assume that a system of modal logic is true where modal collapse does not occur, otherwise his argument is clearly false, as there would be no contingent things. Con, instead of proving a system of modal logic where modal collapse does not occur, has instead assumed that modal collapse does not occur without any proof. Therefore, his entire argument depends on an unjustified assumption. Con must explicate his system of modal logic where modal collapse does not occur and demonstrate this system of modal logic to be true in order for his argument to be sound.