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

1. A1. Nothing is infinite in reality I understand what CON's main objection is now. Let me make clear as to what I was doing in round 2 to the audience. I was using inductive method of reasoning regarding evidence for the God Hypothesis. It is the form of logic that is most characteristic of the scientific method itself, because it moves from the particulars of individual observation to the elucidation of general physical patterns. In other words, it moves from the effects to causes which can yield the most likely conclusion for a certain body of data. This inductive method is important for physicist when observing the unobservable nature of subatomic particles, which can only be detected through indirect manners in order to learn about its nature. However, the example that I would like to use to compare the God hypothesis is our understanding of Gravity. Even though gravity itself is hard to define, we can't fully determine its mechanism or have any direct evidence of it, we still know it exists because this force called gravity manifests itself in reality (planetary orbits, masses falling to ground, etc) there by providing indirect evidence of its existence. As I said before, If the cause is there, then the effect would have to be there once the initial conditions of the effect are given. Therefore, Direct empirical evidence for the cause is not required in science as CON wants you to believe because Gravity as well as many other examples, do not provide direct evidence of its existence and are still taken as brute facts . 2. F. "Eternally existing" makes no sense without time. On the contrary, I am afraid its the other way around. Eternity does not make sense WITH time. Time is by definition a series of "moments" . The nature of a moment is "a beginning of the future and an end of the past." The assumption of an absolutely first moment would consequently carry with it the implication of a period of which is terminated by, and prior to, that first moment, and the prior time would itself contain moments. This is why if time was infinite we would have never of gotten here at this point and I gave an example of this in response 2. Therefore, there would be no such thing as Time in the first place if it was eternal. Instead, there would only be one moment of time, which is referred to as the "NOW" . This is called the B-theory of time. it implies that time is just a concept or an illusion of human conscious. CON is essentially arguing this when he says time is infinite. There is a fundamental problem with this notion of time. Time is not just a concept as CON implies, but an actual concrete thing. According to science, We know that time is a function of space; this has been demonstrated. The GPS unit in your car has been programmed to take into account the fact that time is passing more quickly for satellites in Earth orbit than it is for your car here on Earth. Moreoever, My claim that time cannot be infinite is not just a philosophical assertion or a valid argument. It has been demonstrated with extreme accuracy to be true. The Space-Time Theorem of General Relativity clearly stating that space, time, and matter/energy all had a concrete beginning along with the BGV theroem . Even if CON wants to invoke the "multiverse", the BGV theorem would apply to this as well. Thus, what CON is arguing is moot in the face of evidence, especially when my approach is scientific in nature not philosophical. Now, that being said, CON is challenging a related but separate claim I made about inferring an eternal cause that is not the universe based on this, in the following argument.... 3. A2. Therefore time must have been "begun" If CON is arguing that the causal principle only operates "temporally" between "temporally" related entities, then he is assuming a big burden of proof. There's no reason why we can't have a cause exist simultaneously with the effect. For example, Immanuel Kant gave an example of a heavy ball laying on a pillow causing a depression of the pillow. Now, the ball and the pillow could have existed from eternity past so that the ball was always on the pillow, but clearly the depression of the pillow was caused by the ball. It would not be the roundness of the ball that would cause the depression. Thus, there's simply basis to claim that the cause has to exist prior to the effect. The cause and effect could simply be simultaneous in this situation. Now, that being said, the very act of creation does imply a direct causal relationship between the cause and the effect in which this cause did not stand before and therefore would be a change that brings God into time. What I would say is that the moment or time in which God caused the universe to come into being is the moment the universe came into being making the cause and effect simultaneous . 4. B1. Since it created a time dimension, it cannot exist in time dimension Again, We know that time is more than just a concept but a concrete thing that is a function of space; this has been demonstrated. We also have evidence in terms of the space-time and BGV theorem that marks the beginning of time which encompasses the universe since it cannot exist without Time. This means if there were other universes or places, they could not have been operating under the same principles of nature. Therefore, CON is just making another metaphysical claim only his is done to an infinite degree. By invoking an infinite number of universes with different laws of nature just to explain our universe, it would not only be unfalsifiable but violate Occam's razor to the highest degree. This is not the case with God Hypothesis making it the best explanation. 5. B4. It cannot be an abstraction of our reality because they never cause anything CON is equating the substance or behavior that is displayed when observing brains to mental processes or states that happen in your mind like when he equates a disembodied hair with a mind. Just because you can trigger memories and thought processes within your brain does not mean other people can actually see thoughts within your mind in real time. CON cannot just make a wild assertion like this and make me prove it. The onus is on him to demonstrate this category mistake on his part not me. 6. B5. If it's not an abstraction it must be a disembodied mind CON is attempting to make it seem like that only evidence apart from reason is valid in science when he ask me whether I have proof of minds being metaphysical. Let me make something clear to the audience. The claims that I make about metaphysical things are obviously based on reason because they can only be philosophically confirmed through reason by virtue of its definition of being metaphysical and not physical. Moreover, It is true that you cannot be purely or primarily philosophical when making any kind of argument in the scientific field, but it goes both ways. Evidence can trump reason based facts. However, there is and has to be some type of reasonable standard of logic. Science would become blind and ,in the process, unscientific if this was not the case. Also, I NEVER said the debate was about me proving brainless minds exist but to provide evidence of them. The God hypothesis is the name I chose for the reason I explained in round 2, so its about me providing proof of a cause called God according to reason and evidence. 7. B6. Since the universe is pretty good for human survival, it must be omniscient Again, I was claiming that the finely tuned laws were reference of intelligence ,which is not the same thing as knowledge. I made an additional argument for omniscient in round 2 that CON did not address. I am not going to respond to CON's other objections he raised because I either addressed them already, were not consistent with the debate topic, and I just ran out of space. By virtue of CON failing to falsify the God hypothesis from the outline I gave earlier, I urge a PRO vote