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

Time is not just a concept we don't understand as CON implies, but an actual concrete thing that can articulated scientifically. According to science, We know that time is a forth dimension and is a function of space woven together called space time; 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. We even know what Time is logically or conceptually Thus, My claim that time cannot be infinite is not just a valid philosophical argument. It has been demonstrated with extreme accuracy to be true. The Space-Time Theorem of General Relativity clearly states that space, time, and matter and energy all had a concrete beginning. THE CAUSE OF THE UNIVERSE Well first off, CON overstated my ball/pillow reference. It was not an actual analogy but was supposed to be an example of why causation does not have to occur between separate moments or events in﻿ time. CON forgot to address the other part of the argument in round 2 about the nature of this cause that was related and connected to the claim﻿ that cause and effect could be simultaneous. He made a false analogy between a concrete objects causing effects in time and an immaterial causal agent. I specifically said that God who is supposed to be an immaterial mind would have the power to cause material effects in time at will the same way human beings immaterial minds can cause material effects in time at will through the brain. They call this "substance dualism" where there are two fundamental kinds of substance: mental and material. The mental would not have extension in space but occupy an independent "realm" of existence distinct from that of the physical world, the material cannot think. We know that this independent realm exist with the existence of abstract objects like numbers or the logical absolutes which can be demonstrated to exist by creating physical manifestations of them. These abstract objects cannot be found under rocks or grown out of trees because they are mental properties not physical properties. My argument I made in round 2 had two parts to it. One part involved explaining the one difference between abstract objects and a disembodied mind regarding causality. The Second part involved explaining the one difference between the mind that would be responsible for the cosmic beginning and a human mind. Since the universe was created out of nothing, this mind would have to be considered a disembodied one because it cannot be within the universe or the universe itself. So this cause would not feel physical pain. This would be the only the difference. Furthermore, CON asks for explanatory power. 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. I argue that the same can be said with the disembodied mind and the universe. A perfect example (but not analogy) would be Gravity. "Gravitation, or gravity, is a natural phenomenon by which physical bodies attract with a force proportional to their masses. Gravitation is most familiar as the agent that gives weight to objects with mass and causes them to fall to the ground when dropped. Gravitation causes dispersed matter to coalesce, and coalesced matter to remain intact, thus accounting for the existence of the Earth, the Sun, and most of the macroscopic objects in the universe. Gravitation is responsible for keeping the Earth and the other planets in their orbits around the Sun; for keeping the Moon in its orbit around the Earth; for the formation of tides; for natural convection, by which fluid flow occurs under the influence of a density gradient and gravity; for heating the interiors of forming stars and planets to very high temperatures; and for various other phenomena observed on Earth." http://en.wikipedia.org... THE BEGINNING OF THE UNIVERSE Again, CON is wrong about depositing a past eternal universe just like he was wrong about the universe being future eternal. Let me clarify what I said before. What I mean with the universe having a beginning is that one point in the past, space, time, and matter/energy came into being. At this point, called the initial singularity, gravity, space-time curvature, density etc. becomes infinite The BGV theorem as well as other singularity theorems they authored (like the one I cited the last round) were meant to prove that inflationary models must have a singularity. So technically if you isolate the BGV theorem from all the other theorems before it they made ( which are supposed to be an accumulation and related), then what CON said about the universe not having a beginning may have had some truth. However, this is not case here. I encourage everyone to watch this video that summarizes the BGV theorem in its full context: http://www.youtube.com... There are many other reasons why the steady state theory has been disproven from the big theory like the cosmic microwave background radiation and the space time theroem as well as General relativity. Last but not least, there no evidence of other universes. Most importantly, even if we are just a tiny part of a so-called "multi-verse" as CON mentions, the BGV theorem applies to the so-called multiverse and would STILL require an absolute beginning from this multi-verse as well. Therefore, Since there has to be an absolute beginning in some way shape or form, CON can deposit as many universes or versions of the multi-verse as he wants. It still would not weed out the God hypothesis as the actual explanation for these universes AND for the fine-tuning of our universe. Moreover, The BGV theorem is accepted amongst the world's leading physicists as implying a cosmic beginning. THE LAW OF CAUSE AND EFFECT Again, The Law of Cause and Effect does not require that every cause must have an explanation or cause. Instead, it states that for every effect there must be a cause for it. So What I meant by about CON's requirement being arbitrary was that his requirement for an explanation of GOD was not what the law of cause and effect required and states. In fact, its not a scientific law or rule at all. CON asking me to explain where the cause came from is a purely philosophical question. If the topic was on philosophy, CON would stand corrected since causality is also a metaphysical requirement called the principle of sufficient reason that can be used in science. Under these philosophical rules, God would indeed require an explanation. However, the topic of this debate is science not philosophy. Therefore, I am not required to provide an explanation any more than I would with Gravity. THE FINELY-TUNED UNIVERSE "How do you know the universe is finely tuned?" The term finely tuned is just a scientific term scientist use to describe the measurement of the laws and constants. We know that present day particle physics have a whole lot of adjusted parameters like the mass of certain particles along with the strength of certain forces. We know through math that most of the values in the parameters will not allow life to exist if these values were smaller or larger. Lastly, The size and expansion is a product of fine-tuning called the cosmological constant. OCCAM'S RAZOR "Science doesn't have an explanation either" On the contrary, I am providing a scientific explanation. All CON has to do to falsify it is prove that things can come out of nothing without a cause or show that human minds don't exist. If CON wants to take the agnostic position and say " I don't know", then thats fine. However, he needs to demonstrate how and why I don't know either if he expects to win this debate as well as provide some sort of other explanation.