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

Multiverse Theory 1. "It might be the case that no scientific explanation of existence is possible, but now, it seems that science will provide an explanation. The best theory, called M-theory, is given in "The Grand Design" by Hawking and Mlodinow" Well first off, M-theory or string theory are definitely not theories at all but just a collection of ideas without any real empirical observation. Second, "Absence of evidence is not evidence of its absence", just because scientists cannot find a cause for some quantum events does not mean its evidence that some things don't have to have a cause. As physicist David Bohm, has pointed out, there are many "hidden variables" at the quantum level of reality, of which anyone could contain the sufficient reason for a certain quantum event. Lastly, Quantum events do not take place in "absolute" nothingness. It actually takes place out of a larger quantum field ,which is a part of physical reality, that enables particles to come in and out of existence. Without this field there would be no quantum events. This is another reason why its not accurate to say that a particular quantum outcome is "uncaused". Therefore, the Principle of Sufficient reason still stands strong and the burden of proof is still on CON to convince the rest of us to think otherwise. Now, If CON is going to say 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. The First Cause Argument 2. "I'm not sure why it's relevant, but infinite sets do exist in reality. Suppose a car is being overtaken by a faster one. They start a distance D apart. While the overtaking car travels D, the other car moves ahead by D1. When D1 is traversed by the overtaking car, and so forth. The idea that "infinity" cannot exist in reality is thoroughly rejected by science. Science accepts as possible any concept that can be mathematically described that is consistent with physical observation. " Well first off, To clarify CON's quote, the idea of infinity is not and cannot be rejected by science.Where is the evidence in science from CON that rejects the non-existence of infinities? What he is actually claiming is that its rejected by scientists. There is a difference. This claim is not necessarily true either. George Ellis , who is considered one of the World's leading theorists in cosmology, was asked if there can be an infinite set of existing universes. He actually reiterates what I have been arguing and saying before: "When speaking of multiverses or ensembles of universes as possible or realised, the issue of infinity inevitably crops up. Researchers often envision an infinite set of universes, in which all possibilities are realised. Can there be an infinite set of really existing universes? We suggest that the answer may very well be , "No"ï¿½. The common perception that this is possible arises from not appreciating the precisions in meaning and the restrictions in application associated with this profoundly difficult concept. Because we can assign a symbol to represent infinity and can manipulate that symbol according to specified rules, we assume corresponding infiniteï¿½ entities can exist in practice. This is questionable. Furthermore, as we have already indicated, such infinities lead to severe calculational problems in the mathematical modelling of ensembles of universes or universe domains, blocking any meaningful application of probability calculus. There is no conceptual problem with an infinite set " countable or uncountable " of possible or conceivable universes. However, as David Hilbert (1964) points out, the presumed existence of the actually infinite directly or indirectly leads to well-recognised unresolvable contradictions in set theory (e. g., the Russell paradox, involving the set of all sets which do not contain themselves, which by definition must both be a member of itself and not a member of itself!), and thus in the definitions and deductive foundations of mathematics itself (Hilbert, pp.141-142). http://arxiv.org... Also, I have explained why this first cause argument is relevant on a scientific level. In science, you start with a hypothesis, then work towards turning it into a theory where there is some sort of empirical observations. The Metaphysical argument 3. "The claim is that something must exist outside of existence in order to explain existence. That is a logical contradiction, because if God exists, then God is part of existence by definition. The claim therefore asserts that there is one part of existence exempt from being caused as an event in time. It is simpler to use the exemption for the physical universe than for an agent creating the universe. " In order to recognize that an explanation (x) is the best, you don't need an explanation of explanation (x). For example, We know that gravity accounts for planetary orbits, why masses fall to the ground on earth, etc... But, we cannot explain why gravity "is" or where it "comes from". We just have to take it as a brute fact. If the best explanation always required an explanation in science, we would be left with an infinite regress. In other words, if this was a real scientific requirement, We would not get the explanation of anything. Therefore, the God hypothesis would be a brute fact and the explanation for the universe to come out of nothing. Occam's Razor 4. "One of the important goals of multiverse theory is to explain how quantum theory is related to General Relativity. the God Hypothesis does not explain that, or any other of relationships among the observed physical properties of the universe. A simple theory that explains virtually nothing is not challenged by complexity, so it has no claim to elegant simplicity." How can CON constantly mention the multi-verse as if its trueï¿½ when there is not even evidence for ONE other universe let alone an infinite number of them. The space time theorem clearly implies that nature and the natural laws and constants did not always exist. As I explained before, nothing cannot create something and Nothing cannot be considered something. This means if there were other universes, they could not have been operating under the same principles of nature. Therefore, this multi-verse cannot be considered a natural cause. If CON is arguing that these universes had different laws of nature and constants, then he would end up just making another metaphysical claim only his would be 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. The God Hypothesis is falsifiable 5. "A theory is falsifiable in the scientific sense only if there is an experiment that can be performed or an observation made that will prove the theory true or false." The God hypothesis is experimental because we see the effects of this first cause. The universe coming into existence out of nothing would be the effect, while God would be the cause just like I explained with Gravity. Also, I never said CON has to prove another theory to be true. What I actually said was if CON can show that this cause could still be made up of the physical universe at least IN PRINCIPLE (like the multi-verse), then he would successfully falsify the God hypothesis. 6. OTHER "PRO" evidence CON never demonstrates how life can come from non-life or provided evidence that shows simple life forms can produce complex ones. All he does is call my explanation "Magical" without explaining how and why. 7. Fine Tuning See item 1 and 4