The God Hypothesis is a supported Scientific explanation

Thanks Ken. ==Rebuttal== R1) Omni-present, eternal, immaterial My opponent cites the Law of Cause and Effect as if it's canon. However, I have already explained that things that are normally true to our everyday experience are often wrong when applied to physics & quantum mechanics. For example, the Uncertainty Principle also doesn't make sense to our everyday experience: that we cannot know both the position and velocity of a particle. The reason Schroedinger's Cat is so perplexing is because the idea of the cat being both alive and dead until we open the box is counter to our everyday experience of life. Many prominent physicists believe that the singularity has no cause. In addition, my opponent doesn't answer why it's okay for God to have no cause without violating the Law of Cause and Effect. My opponent cites Pasteur's theory that biological life cannot come from non-biological material. However, Pasteur wrote in the 1800's, and modern biologists disagree. It is likely that RNA evolved first, on its own. [1] The discovery of catalytic RNA (such as ribozyme), which is capable of catalyzing its own synthesis, lends credence to this view. [1] The discovery of viruses, which are non-living entities containing RNA, lends further credence to this view. Eventually, the RNA was surrounded by cell membranes, forming the first living bacteria. As to God being immaterial, my opponent must explain how an immaterial being can be observed or how an immaterial being can cause things to happen in a material universe. Otherwise, there can be no support for the God hypothesis because it does not conform to the scientific method. R2) Disembodied Mind My opponent's theory is that God is a disembodied mind. He claims that minds become all powerful when they become disembodied because we are removing physical constraints. However, it seems absurd to suggest that if my mind were taken out of my body and rendered immaterial, that I would suddenly be all powerful. My mind would still be constrained by the functions for which it was created and its size. An all powerful mind would need to be both infinitely large and infinitely small: infinitely large to encompass every possible action that one could take and infinitely small to prevent long time delays as action potentials travel along neurons. However, it is impossible to be both infinitely large and infinitely small. The singularity is a preferable explanation because it is only infinitely small. In addition, a mind can only interact with the material world because it is material. My brain can only move objects because it can control my hands. If you place my brain in a jar, by itself, it cannot interact with the world. My opponent must explain how something immaterial can interact with the material world. Lastly, if a disembodied mind still exists, then supposedly ghosts should exist and interact with the world. When we die, supposedly we become a disembodied brain. There's no reason why we couldn't form a brain from non-material, using the memory of our actual brains. In addition, my opponent would have to renounce a belief in the afterlife to disprove that people become disembodied brains when they die, and thus all dead people should be all powerful and should be able to interact with the world. R3) Personal absolute mind My opponent claims that because the universe is expanding, there are an infinite number of mathematical relations, and thus, an infinite amount of "cosmic knowledge." However, these mathematical relations, such as the interaction of large bodies (gravity) are all described by the same equations. They are not "new knowledge." There are an infinite number of iterations of the same equation, when you plug in different numbers, but this doesn't represent an infinite amount of knowledge. Y = X + 1 When X=0, Y=1 When X=1, Y=2 When X=2, Y=3 Etc The above equation does not prove an all knowing God, merely because it provides for infinite possibilities. As to the universe's expansion, the cosmological constant is not an infinite amount of energy. It is a set amount of dark energy that never decreases. But it doesn't prove an all powerful being. We don't fully understand dark energy, or even know for a fact that dark energy is the proper explanation for inflation, but the lack of knowledge also does not prove God. There are alternate theories to explain inflation, such as Horava gravity. But again, a lack of knowledge doesn't prove God because new theories arise over time. If a lack of knowledge proved God, then the Mayan's proved God because they didn't know what caused solar eclipses. And that would be the end of it. Arguing from ignorance is the exact opposite of the scientific method. R4) Experiments Experiment #1: Life from non-life Recent re-analysis of the Miller-Urey experiment, in 2007, showed that their samples actually contained all 20 amino acids used in biological life, proving that these biological building blocks could form under the conditions that existed in the early atmosphere. [2] Another study entitled "Origins of Prebiological Systems and of Their Molecular Matrices" showed that RNA and DNA bases can be obtained through simulated prebiotic chemistry in a reduced atmosphere. [2] Other researchers such as Jeffrey Bada and Jim Cleaves at Scripps Institution of Oceanography tested the hypothesis that the early Earth contained iron and carbonate, and amino acids formed even more easily under these conditions. And a recent study by Brooks et al found that "old genes" (genes that were shared among common ancestors) produced protein molecules that were enriched in those amino acids that were most readily produced in the Miller–Urey experiment, meaning that older gene sequences used a smaller number of amino acids – only those available in prebiotic nature. [2] This experiment was most definitely a success in proving that life evolved from non-life. Experiment #2: Mind-body dualism My opponent first claims that because he can avoid his biological impulse for sex, this proves a soul that can make decisions outside the mind and body. This is wrong. It proves that his frontal cortex (responsible for rational thought) can overwhelm his lizard brain (the part of the brain responsible for instincts). As to the Penfield "study," I can't locate anything my opponent cites in his source. Penfield was a famous brain surgeon who wrote in the 1920's. Supposedly, he is saying that there must be a soul because he failed to find the part of the brain where decisions are made. However, neuro-biology has advanced a great deal since the 1920's. In 2002, researches in London imaged the parts of people's brains that made decisions when they made their final selections in a supermarket. [3] With the invention of fMRI's, there is no brain function that we cannot map to a specific region. Given the advances over the last 90 years, we no longer need to believe that there is something external to our bodies controlling us. Lastly, it is of note that none of these experiments provide unique proof of God. They merely show things that science, at one time, had difficulty explaining and then, my opponent uses an appeal from ignorance to conclude that God must exist. A true test of God's existence would be: ken tells God, "God I, like Abraham, am going to kill my son, unless you intervene." If God is omni-benevolent, he will intervene. If not, he doesn't exist. This is a true scientific test because the null hypothesis DISPROVES God. In a valid experiment, your hypothesis can be disproven. My opponent hasn't devised an experiment that could disprove God. [1] http://tinyurl.com... [2] http://tinyurl.com... [3] http://tinyurl.com...