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

THE GOD HYPOTHESIS CON claims I did not provide a way to falsify my theory. I beg to differ. Here is the definition of falsifiablity: "Falsifiability or refutability of an assertion, hypothesis or theory is the logical possibility that it can be contradicted by an observation or the outcome of a physical experiment...... if it is false, then some observation or experiment will produce a reproducible result that is in conflict with it." For example, the assertion that "all swans are white" is falsifiable, because it is logically possible that a swan can be found which is not white. Not all statements that are falsifiable in principle are falsifiable in practice.[1] For example, "it will be raining here in one million years" is theoretically falsifiable, but not practically so.http://en.wikipedia.org... My claim that every effect requires or has a cause is falsifiable, because it is at least logically possible (if its not practically possible) that we can find an effect that does not have a cause through quantum fluctuations. How would this prove that God did not create the universe? well, this is not about proving God did not create the universe or proving anything because its about falsifiability. Nevertheless, by proving that not every effect requires a cause, it would eliminate scientific evidence for the need of any kind of cause at all under the rules of science. What about testability through repetition? The law of cause and effect is a law that has been tested countless times. The universe had a beginning, therefore, the universe has a cause. The difference is that instead of the cause being physical, the cause would not have any dimensions to it. CON may say , Well where is the control group for these kind of cause and effect relations? The control group and variables would obviously be human minds and this particular absolute mind that manifests itself within the universe would be the independent variable. How can we tell the difference between something that is truly uncaused, and something that was caused by a force we cannot perceive? I think CON is simply appealing to ignorance here. For it assumes if we do not know "how" A causes B, especially if the two consist of different properties, that it is not reasonable to believe the two can interact. For example, Gravitational forces that account for planetary orbits, why masses fall to the ground on earth, etc appear to have very different properties to the solid and spatially located entities they affect. But, we cannot explain clearly what and why gravity "is" or where it "comes from" along with determine its mechanism. We just take it as a brute fact. THE BEGINNING OF THE UNIVERSE CON claims: "why couldn't it exist in another version of spacetime which follows different laws" It does not matter. Again, Even if we are just a tiny part of a so-called "multi-verse" with different laws of nature, their theorem would STILL require an absolute beginning from this multi-verse as well. This is because the BGV theorem carries only one assumption: If the expansion rate of any universe is greater than 0, the universe began. Unless CON can think up a way to avoid the theorems conclusion, my argument stands. Moreover, this would eliminate his computer analogy as well since computers are material and unconscious as he alluded to. Unless, CON is going to do the same thing he did last round and rob it of all the attributes to the point where he is merely calling this absolute mind called GOD, a computer. The same goes with the issue of a life-permitting universe. Whether its life as we know it or other kinds of life we don't know that fit the generic definition of life, life could not exist in our universe . Again, If CON robs all the attributes of the term "life", then it cannot be called life or the life that CON is referring to is actually GOD as being the life. Now, this leads me to what he said about muliple universes doing the actual fine-tuning. THE FINE-TUNING 1) Again, The BGV theorem only provides and implies evidence of multiple universes that are already contained in our universe. It does not provide evidence of universes that have existed outside (or prior) of our own or is overlapping our own universe. Even the source that CON gave about the BGV theorem reiterates my point here: "He has had critical insights about the origins of the universe: the inflationaryï¿½ process that enlarged the universe in an explosive burst, filling it with matter and energy; the existence of multiple regions WITHIN our universe......" 2) However, what this does mean is that CON has the opportunity to explain exactly how you can get a fine-tuned universe from a finite number of universes from observing the multiple universes contained within ours through pure chance. It has to be a very intricate detailed explanation and it cannot be a mere assertion that the life-permitting values can emerge from pure chance. This is because we are not aware of any chance events resulting in this kind of complexity. For example, the fine-tuning of cosmological constant is so fine-tuned there is no known force in the cosmos that can produce this complexity according to scientists.This was my point I made about CON's lottery example. I was not necessarily trying to show that CON's example was another form design but show that his example was not a Chance event at all. Chance events are not suppose to have causal conditions like the person buying the tickets to get a result: http://en.wikipedia.org... Remember, we are talking about non-living matter here. Can a watch that has cogs and wheels put itself together? well if it can, no one in there right mind could reasonably believe so. Not even in a trillion years with a trillion watches contained in a category 5 tornado. It would be literally incomprehensible. Any claim that says this is reasonably possible would be an extraordinary claim that requires extraordinary evidence. Therefore, CON has his work cut out for him. If he does not explain the exact way and mechanism from this multiverse that is suppose to produce this finely-tuned universe in his final response, My argument will stand. 3) I also want to point out that CON would not be able to use evolution as a way to refute this either with his computer analogy. Not just because these finely-tuned life-supporting values came into being right after the big bang from the very beginning and are still the same and have to continue to be in place. The other reason is that the laws of nature do not determine the fine-tuning constants and values in the first place SUBSTANCE DUALISM CON is confusing the concept of the correlation of two events with the concept of the identity of two events. It simply does not follow from the fact that two events are correlated that they are identical. Correlation does not prove causation. There is the fact that movements of bodily limbs like arms and legs are correlated with events in the motor cortex of the brain. No one believes, however, that movements of arms and legs are identical with their causal antecedents in the brain. Upon reflection, it is just as obvious that there is no good reason to believe that psychological events are identical with brain events simply because the two are correlated. Again, CON must provide evidence that there is a region in the brain that causes these mental events when it comes to intention states and decisions or will power that are not determined by basic biological functions but by outside influences. Otherwise, my argument stands here as well. In conclusion, for the audience, if CON prove one or both of my conditions I laid out for CON, You can go ahead and vote CON. However, if he fails to provide evidence for the brain having these causal powers or does not explain the fine-tuning precisely, I deserve a PRO vote.