The God Hypothesis is a supported Scientific explanation

Thanks for the debate ken. {{{ Concession??? }}} In the previous round, ken said, "in a scientific debate, an unfalsifiable hypothesis not based on empirical observation or experience has no place in science, which automatically disqualifies this as an explanation." He was trying to apply this to multi-verse theory, but let's apply this to God. God is unfalsifiable; my opponent has not provided a single observation that would disprove God. God is unobservable, which as my opponent says, unobservable predicts have "no place in science." Other theories of physics make predictions about the universe that can be verified. The God "hypothesis" makes no other predictions that can be verified. Thus, God is unscientific. My opponent loses the debate right here. There's no point in continuing to read... {{{ What caused the Big Bang? }}} I argued, as physicists like Stephen Hawking and Lawrence Krauss (author of Something From Nothing), that if space-time did not exist prior to the Universe, then causation is impossible because cause must precede effect. Time didn't exist so no cause can exist. {{{ Issue 1: Cause and effect can occur simultaneously? }}} My opponent's response to this is that God thought the Universe into existence simultaneously as the Universe sprung into existence. However, this doesn't bypass the problem that cause must precede effect. If "cause" and effect happened simultaneously, then it's not a cause at all. If I am tickled and laugh at the exact same moment in time, the tickling could not have caused my laughter; it's impossible. Not enough time has elapsed to create an "effect." Thus, my opponent, by making this argument, agrees that God did not cause the Universe because simultaneous events cannot cause each other. My opponent responds that because Conservation of Energy is wrong in regards to the singularity, thus Cause and Effect must be wrong too. This is the argument I already made: that the singularity does not have a cause. If cause and effect is wrong, that can only mean there is no cause, not that cause can inexplicably occur simultaneously as effect. Lastly, you'll prefer the explanation of "no cause" to "simultaneous cause," both because it's proven by the foundation of how causes and effects function, but also because my opponent keeps referring to terms that are incoherent without space time: "simultaneous", "God existed prior to causality." Things cannot happen "at the same time" or "BEFORE time (causality) existed" if time is not yet a coherent concept. My opponent also doesn't have a response for the argument that quantum fluctuations prove that something can come from nothing. My opponent's only response is to repeat that because quantum fields exist (even though they are theoretical and made from nothing), then something is not coming from nothing. But his argument is illogical. Humans can't make "nothing" into "something" merely through the semantics of naming. {{{ Issue 2: What caused God? }}} My opponent's only response to this objection is that all of science would be an infinite regress, where we would always be asking what the prior cause was, and this would supposedly invalidate science. This is silly. All roads lead back to the Big Bang and stop there. Only by acknowledging that one event does not require a cause can we escape the infinite regress. If we conclude that all events require causes, then we're stuck in the regress and cannot explain God. Whereas, if we acknowledge that the singularity requires no cause, then the evolution of humans was caused by a common ancestor, who evolved from the first bacterium, which evolved from self-catalyzing RNA from the environment, which came from the amino acids in the early ocean, which came from the makeup of the early Earth, which came from materials created by . . . the Big Bang. If my opponent throws out causality, then I win: the singularity requires no cause. If he continues to require causality, I still win because the question of "what caused God to exist" is unanswerable. {{{ Verbal diarrhea }}} My opponent is all over the place, talking about BGV theorem, quantum gravity, and the Hawking-Hartle Theory. BGV theorem just predicts that the universe must have a beginning, since inflation causes relative velocities to decrease - moving back through time, relative velocities increase. But they cannot increase past the speed of light; thus, the universe has a beginning. Loop quantum gravity and HH theory predict that the universe was created when a previous universe collapsed. These theories are not accepted by most physicists today, including Hawking himself. HH Theory predicts that the Universe will, at some point, stop expanding and collapse in on itself again. So nothing my opponent says here disproves the singularity. And even if he did, then he's disproving God because if God created the universe, he must have created it out of nothing, not something. {{{ Issue 3: Even losing is winning }}} Even if I lose my arguments explaining the Big Bang, I still win. In science, if one explanation is inadequate, we search for a new one. We don't give up and impute God. It's quite possible that a Grand Unified Theory will explain every objection my opponent has without requiring us to resort to God. Physics is still in its infancy; there are many things it has yet to explain. It is not as established a science as biology. There are still major revolutions in thought in physics every few decades, as we make new discoveries. So I don't even have to win 100% what caused the Big Bang to prove that imputing God is unscientific. {{{ The Argument from Fine-Tuning }}} My opponent doesn't respond to any of my objections. Since we exist, we shouldn't be surprised that we don't see features of the Universe that are inconsistent with our existence. Highly improbable events occur. Given the number of sperm and ovum, our births are all highly improbably events. You can't "work backwards" from a highly improbable event because the event has already occurred, so your chance calculations are irrelevant. And given we don't have a Grand Unified Theory, we don't really know whether things like the Cosmological constant are "highly improbable" or inevitable, given other laws of physics. We still don't really understand what causes the Cosmological constant. Other "constants" from fine tuning, like the distance of the Earth from the sun, are inevitable given the number of solar systems in an infinite universe. Without fine-tuning, my opponent has no "evidence" for God. Everything else is an appeal to ignorance, arguing that since there are holes in other theories, God must be the explanation. {{{ Disembodied mind }}} My opponent keeps using double talk. He asserts science is really about philosophy and explanatory power. Then he says, "I don't have to explain how a non-material mind can interact with the material world." And he keeps claiming we don't understand where gravity comes from. **Gravity comes from matter bending space-time.** He also never answers the objections that an all powerful mind would need to be infinitely big (an infinite number of neurons for an infinite number of neurons) and infinitely small (so different parts of the mind could take zero time to interact with each other). {{{ All powerful }}} My opponent keeps confusing the infinite potential of human knowledge with an all knowing God. {{{ Life from non-life }}} My opponent clearly doesn't understand evolution if he says "you need to program the cell on how to evolve." Mutations and variation happen naturally, then natural selection takes hold in determining which traits survive. This does not require design. Conclusion Nothing my opponent does is scientific. He claims that all of neurology is wrong because "correlation isn't causation." He demands to *see* life evolve from non-life before his eyes. He claims that Wikipedia proves that God is in line with the scientific method. Hogwash.