The God Hypothesis is a valid Scientific theory

Before I begin my arguments for this round, I would like to point out an overall trend that I see in my opponent's arguments. He has made a number of unwarranted jumps in logic. Throughout this round I will point out examples of this. Alternative HypothesisFirst, I do not accept that we have established this personal absolute mind in charge of the universe. Second, I'm not entirely sure what my opponent's point is in this section. He does, however, make a statement with which I must disagree. He says that "This personal absolute mind must have freely created and manifested itself in reality with the intention of having a relationship with its human creation."There is absolutely no evidence presented on my opponent's part to say that humans are a creation of God. I do not think my opponent wishes to debate the theory of evolution, but this is what it looks like he is doing in contending that humans are a direct creation of God, rather than of a natural, evolutionary process. There is so much evidence supporting evolution:http://evolution.berkeley.edu...And none denying it so far presented in this debate.So I encourage my opponent to clarify his point.Null hypothesis"Well first off, Quantum fluctuations would not explain how we as humans came to be or the fine-tuning of the universe since there is no evidence that the fine-tuning laws came into being by chance."Of course Quantum fluctuations would not explain how we as humans came to be: Evolution does this. My opponent has provided no evidence counter to evolution. "Second, Just because scientists cannot presently find a cause for some quantum events does not mean its evidence that some things don't have to have a cause."Once again I fail to understand how this applies to the resolution. I hope that I am not the only one experiencing such confusion. My opponent makes yet another leap in logic: Quantum events don't take place in nothing, therefore we should reject the null hypothesis. What? Omni-present, eternal, and immaterialHere my opponent drops the more important part of my argument and uses the less important part as evidence for God. My argument in full was that causality does not apply outside the universe, so the beginning of the universe does not have to have a cause. He uses the first part to see that God does not have to have a cause. As I said previously, he completely dropped my argument concerning that the beginning of the universe does not need a cause, a fairly important point."Also, the law of Biogensis is well established in science, so I don't know what CON is talking about. If he wants to see the experiments that were done by Louis Pasture that provide support for Biogenesis, then he can go read it himself."While the work of Pasture did overrule the original abiogenesis theory, work after his once again supports the theory of abiogenesis [1]. One important experiment that will be discussed later that relates to abiogenesis is, indeed, the Miller-Urey experiment, though it is by no means the only one. I encourage my opponent to look at my source and familiarize himself with the theory.Personal Absolute Mind So now we are allowed to use philosophy my opponent argues, because science is based on philosophy. This contradicts his original rules. He justifies his use of philosophic arguments, rather than scientific arguments, by saying that he did provide evidence about math. This is not evidence for his overall claim. This is simply evidence on his example of numbers as abstract concepts. I encourage readers to return to R3 so they can see exactly what I mean. This argument is really purely philosophic and conflicts with the rules of the debate. It should not be valid. Regardless, in this argument my opponent again makes a number of logic jumps. The biggest logic jump is in assuming that there is a God in the first place. Because I have disproven his claims in the Omni-present etc. section, I have shown that there is no need for a God in the first place.All-powerful and all-knowingI admit my mistake in wrongly challenging my opponent's claim that the universe was expanding at a forever increasing rate. I was, in fact, challenging the wrong thing. I should not have challenged the science, the problem with the argument is another illogical jump. In his argument, my opponent went from the universe is expanding really fast to God is omnipotent. Illogical jump. Readers: look back and see for yourselves.Life from non lifeThe Miller-Urey experiment did, as my opponent admits, show how the building blocks of life can come from non life. He has retracted his earlier claim that it did not prove this. The problem with the experiment, he claims, is that it did not show how DNA could have formed. The present theory is that these building blocks were put together in a Primordial Soup, and under the right conditions, life formed. http://www.bioedonline.org...What I have provided is a link to an article on recent research that shows how RNA could have formed from the primordial soup. This is just one example of recent discoveries on this front. It is clear that there is a decent chance that life could have originated from non life.Mind body DualismI stand by my contention that this was never connected to God.Summary/Conclusion1. There is no evidence that there must be a God. 2. There is no evidence that God is interested in human affairs, as specified in R1.3. The God hypothesis has not been tied in with the three criteria:A. There is no way to prove that God does not exist.B. The God hypothesis has a single foundation: The universe is finely tuned, therefore it must have a creator.C. There are no experiments that have proved God in the past.Thus, the God hypothesis is not a valid scientific theory.Source:[1]- http://en.wikipedia.org...