The God Hypothesis is the best scientific explanation for existence

Refuting My OpponentThe God HypothesisIt seems my opponent is flip flopping positions: "Understand that my approach is suppose to be of a scientist using the scientific method not a philosopher like William Lane Craig and other debaters attempt to do" (round 1)"Philosophically, there cannot be an infinite amount of time because Time is by definition a series of "moments". The nature of a moment is "a beginning of the future and an end of the past." The assumption of an absolutely first moment would consequently carry with it the implication of a period of which is terminated by, and prior to, that first moment, and the prior time would itself contain moments." (round 2)The contradiction is as clear as day. In his first round he claims that he will not be appealing to philosophy like William Lane Craig, and then starts his argument off with a philosophical argument which is commonly put forward by William Lane Craig. It's clear this is going to be a somewhat of a philosophical debate if we are going to avoid special pleading.Lets say I grant my opponent that an infinite time in the past is absurd, there is no reason to assume the beginning of the universe had a cause (and reasons to believe it didn't). Also, it's possible that the universe itself is the uncaused cause (The Big Bang was uncaused, but also the cause of everything else which occurred after). FalsificationMy opponent claims that if the God hypothesis was true, the evidence would show that the universe began to exist from nothing with a cause. However, there is no evidence the universe came from absolutely nothing. Also, my opponent is making two baseless assumptions:(i) Causation stretches past the limits of space-time(ii) Causation necessarily applies at the sub-atomic levelScientific principles of causation above the sub-atomic level only apply within space-time. Also many physicists agree that virtual particle fluctuations occur in vacuum (which without these fluctuations, would be otherwise empty space) without any initial cause, which is allowed by the Uncertainty Principle which rules out local hidden variables. So to think that causation must stretch past the limits of space-time and that is necessarily applies at the sub-atomic level is false.The Beginning Of The UniverseMy opponent mentions Borde, Guth, and Vilenkin’s Past-Finite paper to show that the universe had a for sure beginning. However even if I granted this, Alexander Vilenkin has created a model which explains how this could happen, due to something coming from that which resembles nothing, completely uncaused (which would falsify your God hypothesis). Alexander Vilenkin’s model of cosmic origins is mathematically and scientifically plausible (a model which infers the universe arising from a timeless empty geometry), and is consistent with the paper my opponent has mentioned. This model describes the universe emerging from a quantum tunneling event (without a cause) with a finite size (a = H-1) and with a zero rate of expansion or contraction (da/dt = 0). It's plausible that the universe emerged in a symmetric vacuum state without an initial cause, which then decayed with the inflationary era beginning; and after this era ended, the universe evolved according to the standard Big Bang model.The Inductive Method My opponent states that for every effect there must be a cause for it, but there is no law of a kind that need apply to everything in reality. This principle is only applied within space-time, and is not even necessarily true at the sub-atomic level, so my whole opponent's case is flimsy at best. This is the equivalent to "whatever begins to exist must have a cause", but this is not a backed up proposition nor is it self-evident to relating to anything past the boundaries of the universe. My opponent is also trying to claim that cause and effect is important to physicists which is true, that doesn't mean it applies to everything. Many physicists (and philosophers of physics) don't adhere to the idea that everything that begins, or that every effect has a cause. "Quantum events have a way of just happening, without any cause, as when a radioactive atom decays at a random time. Even the quantum vacuum is not an inert void, but is boiling with quantum fluctuations. In our macroscopic world, we are used to energy conservation, but in the quantum realm this holds only on average." - Taner Edis. Department of Physics Truman State University Kirksville"Uncaused, random quantum fluctuations in a flat, empty, featureless spacetime can produce local regions with positive or negative curvature" - Victor Stenger. American Particle Physicist"Once our minds accept the mutability of matter and the new idea of the vacuum, we can speculate on the origin of the biggest thing we know—the universe. Maybe the universe itself sprang into existence out of nothingness—a gigantic vacuum fluctuation which we know today as the big bang. Remarkably, the laws of modern physics allow for this possibility" - Heinz Pagals. American Physicist, an adjunct Professor of Physics at Rockefeller UniversityMany physicists (even the ones you quoted) know that the laws of physics allow for the universe to spontaneously come into existence from that which is indistinguishable from nothing. This is true, there is no contradictions in Alexander Veiling model of cosmic origins for example. So the inductive method is important, causality holds only on average at the sub-atomic level.Omnipresent, Eternal, Immaterial.My opponent says that whatever caused the universe (without even demonstrating a cause) must be timeless, changeless and immaterial. However, if the cause was changeless, then no change could have occurred to cause the universe, and thus no cause could have occurred. So I think there is some problems with the reasoning here that need to be addressed. He also states that the cause created time, but time is necessary for creation in the first place. Thus, the idea of the caused creation of time may be incoherent. He also says that his unsupported hypothetical cause would be space less and timeless, well, why couldn't it exist in another version of spacetime which follows different laws than the one we are familiar with? Regardless, my opponent did a poor job of even demonstrating a cause of the universe in the first place.All KnowingMy opponent presents the fine-tuning argument, which has a first primes of: P1: The combination of physical constants that we observe in our universe is the only one capable of sustaining life as we know it"However, this could be turned into an argument for Atheism. P1: The combination of physical constants which is capable of sustaining life is necessary to sustain life, because other conceivable combinations of physical constants could not sustain life. P2: If theism is true, then the combination of physical constants which is capable of sustaining life, is completely contingent to God’s design. P3: The combination of physical constants which is capable of sustaining life it is necessary to sustain life, and thus could not be completely contingent to God's design. C: Theism is not true.So my opponent's argument plants the seeds of it's own refutation. All Powerful Power rates that expand that universe to not equate a God that can answer prayers (my opponent is equivocating between two types of power). Even if I granted my opponent's initial premises for the sake of argument, this in no way defends an omnipotent God. Disembodied mind The problem for my opponent here is that "minds" are physical, and any causation that comes from a mind is reduced to causation that takes place in the brain and is ultimately biological. Natural Selection is what gave rise to intelligent biological organisms like us, so to say a "mind" could cause the physical world's existence, when a mind requires the physical to exist in the first place is a contradiction like a cause of time.Conclusion My opponent failed to meet his burden, and I met mine.