The God Hypothesis should be considered a Scientific theory

What CON is babbling about (regarding gods and godesses from different religions) is nonsense and completely off topic. He is in a sense just attacking a strawmen. I acknowledge that the reason why someone is fundamentally an atheist or christian is based on the religious component. However, the topic of this debate for now is mainly about whether there is a God at all in the first place. I am building a foundation right now. You see the Scientific method is not a "mindless set of standards and procedures to follow, but is rather an ongoing cycle, constantly developing more useful, accurate and comprehensive models and methods.... Once a hypothesis is strongly supported by evidence, a new question can be asked to provide further insight on the same topic." [1] In summary, CON is so wrong when he says 'none of the "science" matters with regard to this topic" until the theology is consistent. The "god" in the God Hypothesis must come first'. I am afraid not. Once this question is answered and I win the debate , then we can ask the question as to which religion is true and I would tried to answer it in another debate. Otherwise, the theology debate becomes meaningless when its never been established that there is a god in the first let alone a particular GOD. However, CON can concede this debate right now if he finds it easier to falsify a God revealed in religion than a God in general and wants me to create another debate. I would be more than happy to grant his request if he feels he has a better shot :) "The Universe is finely tuned for life." Again, I made it very clear to CON in round 2 that when I say fine-tuned for life, I am talking about fine-tuned for the building blocks and environments that life of ANY kind requires. This means, You would not get chemistry or matter much less planets and stars that can serve as places where life might evolve so it does not necessarily have to be human life or life as we know it, but life that we don't know or have not discovered yet. CON's response is whats called "carbon based chauvism" [2] where CON just automatically assumes that humans or carbon based life forms are the only kind of life that can and actually exist throughout the universe. Thus, there could be other types of life forms besides us we don't know . Even if we assume for the sake of argument that complex life came from non-life through random mutations and natural selection, these finely-tune parameters would be required for ANY kind of life to exist. Unless CON has evidence or can soundly argue that carbon based life forms are the only kind of life forms, the fine-tuning argument stands because there could be other types of life asides our own we might call "life" now or in the future. (I doubt he can do this since there are already experiments that show amino acids and RNA viruses ,which are two of the three essential components of life, can come from non-life. ) "There are no laboratory tests that any god or goddess has ever participated in" Direct empirical evidence for a cause is not required in science/scientific method nor is the mechanism for it. Again, there are all kinds of things that we can't see or identify but yet we see there effects which led us to potential hypothesises about what they potentially were and how those things manifest using the inductive method of reasoning. For example, We know that gravitational forces accounts for planetary orbits, why masses fall to the ground on earth, etc... But, we cannot clearly define, directly observe, nor determine the mechanism for which gravity uses to move objects. We just take it as a brute fact. "Humans have yet to learn conclusively what went on during that period when the universe was formed." Well first off, my hypothesis is not based on observations of a universe being created but what happens afterwards and continues to happen regarding the fine-tuning constants phenomena. Secondly, this is not about me scientifically proving the existence of God. This is because Science is not about proof or certainty as CON constantly mentions but its about evidence and falsifying (disproving) a claim. I provided CON the ways in which he can falsify my hypothesis. However, instead of waiting for CON to try to falsify my hypothesis, I am just going to attempt a premptive strike and address possible objections and arguments that have been frequently been thrown out in the past. "who creates the creator? And who creates the creator of the creator? " The Law of Cause and Effect, which is a scientific law I referenced, does not entail or require that every cause must have an explanation for it. Instead, it states that for every "effect" there must be a cause for it. Most importantly, even if the scientific law did require this, the law of cause and effect does not apply outside the Universe. So the question as to what created God is purely a philosophical question. Thus, since there is no scientific reason that would compell us to go another step further in asking what created God, we apply occams Razor in this situation. Occam's Razor is a principle urging one to select among competing hypotheses that which makes the fewest assumptions and thereby offers the simplest explanation of the effect. In other words, one should not multiply causes beyond necessity. There is no need to deposit another cause that are equally or greater than this cause in this situation. The casual chain apparently stops here. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org... [2] http://en.wikipedia.org...