The God Hypothesis is a supported Scientific explanation

Con's Possibility B: I did not respond to this claim before because I have already talked about it in round 2. I will elaborate on it now. First off, CON is confusing the the theory of GR (Einstein created) which does NOT include quantum gravity with the Space-Time Theorem of GR (Hawking and Penrose) which does include quantum gravity. Even though quantum gravity does reject singularities, According to the Hartle-Hawking's model, still shows a concrete beginning of space-time, matter, energy from a single point. This point just would not be a singularity of "infinite" density. In addition, BGV theorem does not assume Einsteins equations and holds even when we don't have a complete quantum theory of gravity of the early universe. In both models, it was shown that they could work with or without the singularity and in both situations the universe still had a beginning. Con's Possibility A: Since matter and energy cannot exist without time, the singularity had to have come into being as well because the law of conservation of energy does not hold and exist at this initial singularity either. So CON cannot say that the law of cause and effect (time) did not apply, but then say that the law of conservation of energy (universe) still applied. Its false and he is just "special pleading" here. Besides, as I said above, there does not need to be a beginning point for there to be a beginning at all according to the BGV and Hartle-Hawking model. The God (alternative) Hypothesis From CON: "cause must precede effect otherwise it is not a cause...." Well first off, CON does not explain how its also incoherent to say that the cause and effect happen simultaneously. Second, CON objection has no basis since he has yet to show that mental events like intention states and decisions occurring in the mind are reducible to brain action "alone" in the first place. I have provided every reason to believe that the moment this mind ,which has no Spacial/Temporal constraints like human minds, chose (an undetermined event) to create a temporal effect was the same moment "Time" came into being. Remember, I am not saying GOD is chronically prior to the universe but Causality prior. Now, my opponent says I did not empirically show that this being actually wants a relationship with its children. I would have argued that God has manifested himself in the person of Jesus Christ and his resurrection would prove this. However, Since this kind of event cannot be scientifically repeated or tested, I left it out of the debate. Its one of the limitation of the scientific method. Null Hypothesis CON claims that I did not address the fine-tuning objection but I did actually. I have already explained in round 2 that there is no evidence that the fine-tuning came into being by accident. This is because the fine-tuning parameter stayed the same from the beginning and there is no evidence of one other universe to even entertain the possibility that the fine-tuning laws were accidental in nature. Lastly, I never said that the quantum field is made out of matter but that it was "something" that was part of physical reality instead of "nothing", which is absence of something. Now, If CON is trying to argue that "nothing" is not nothing anymore and refer to the quantum field as nothingï¿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. OMNI-PRESENT, ETERNAL, AND IMMATERIAL Again, The Law of Cause and Effect does not require that every cause must have an explanation or cause. In fact, its not a scientific law at all, so CON asking me to explain where the cause came from is a purely philosophical question. Nevertheless, let's accept for the sake of argument that this law actually did say this and that the explanation of the effect also required an explanation and would resort to an infinite regress. If this was a real scientific requirement, We would not get the explanation of anything and it would essentially destroy science in the process. DISEMBODIED MIND CON's argument that we do not understand how a mind interacts with a object, appears to be based on an appeal to our ignorance (argumentum ad ignorantiam). For it assumes if we do not know "how" A causes B, especially if the two consist of different properties, that it is not reasonable to believe the two can interact. He asks for explanatory power but I have already provided it. 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; just like the way this absolute mind would with the universe and human beings. For example, Gravity can be explained through its effects, but CON himself does not explain where Gravity itself came from nor can we see Gravity. However, we know that gravity still exists because we see the effects. By explaining the effects of gravity, we end up explaining gravity itself without being required to ask where Gravity came from. In addition, Gravitational forces may appear to have very different properties to the solid and spatially located entities they affect, and although we may not understand "how" such interaction takes place, it nonetheless does—just as we are alert to causation between the mind and the material thing. All Knowing I never said new knowledge is being created for one thing and CON did not explain why its unlikely we'll discover new mathematical relationships from fine-tuning constants or elsewhere. Other than that, He does not explicitly object to this argument, so I am assuming he is conceding. All Powerful/ World Ensemble hypothesis CON concedes here as well. FALSIFICATION Life from Non-life Apparently, my opponent is confusing Abiogenesis with the Theory of Evolution here. Its very simple CON. You obviously need to program the information into the cell for it to start evolving in the first place. I am not going to even waste any more space on something my opponent should have known going into this debate. Mind-Body Dualism Just because chemical reactions influence choices does not mean they also produce choices. There is a difference. Yes, It has been observed that when a part of one's brain is touched with an electrode, it may cause a mental experience such as a memory to occur. Some might classify this as evidence that mental states are reducible to physical states, yet this only demonstrates that the mind is causally connected to the brain and not that they are identical. CON was suppose to show that the brain acts "alone" in causation. The UK study only shows more correlation. In conclusion, What voters are here to decide on is three things that were established in round 1: 1. Did CON successfully falsify my hypothesis? No, he did not provide evidence but essentially conceded here. 2. Did CON arguments successfully prevented my hypothesis from rejecting the Null hypothesis? No, He failed to show how quantum fluctuations better explains the data compared to my own. 3. Did CON successfully show that my hypothesis was unscientific, specifically if it was falsifiable in the first place? If you look into this website, you will notice that my hypothesis is perfectly aligned with the scientific method.[1] Now, What voters are NOT here to decide on is whether or not I actually scientifically proved the existence of God. Science is not about proof or certainty as CON constantly mentions but its about evidence and falsifying a claim. Lastly, Con claimed that I created an impossible standard of proof, but this can't be the case. Since the topic is "science" and I have the BOP, there were many more ways for me to lose this debate compared to CON. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org...