The God Hypothesis should be a Scientific theory

THE BEGINNING OF THE UNIVERSE "who creates the creator? And who creates the creator of the creator? The list can literally go on forever." 1. God would not require a cause himself because the law of cause and effect does not apply outside the Universe. Besides, even if it did apply outside, The Law of Cause and Effect does not require that every cause must have an explanation or cause for it. Instead, it states that for every "effect" there must be a cause for it. "Given the fact that time is also a man-made concept" 2.Time is not just another man-made concept we use to measure reality as CON implies, but its an actual concrete thing in science. We know that time is a forth dimension and is a function of space woven together called space time; this has been demonstrated. The GPS unit in your car has been programmed to take into account the fact that time is passing more quickly for satellites in Earth orbit than it is for your car here on Earth. Thus, My claim that time cannot be infinite is not just a valid philosophical argument as I showed in round 2. It has been demonstrated with extreme accuracy to be true by the Space-Time Theorem of General Relativity which clearly states that space, time, and matter and energy all had a concrete beginning. THE FINELY-TUNED UNIVERSE "Mulitverse" 1. Again, Even if we were just a tiny part of a so-called "multi-verse" with another version of space-time that follow different laws of nature, the BGV 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. However, The fundamental problem with this argument has been basically revealed by my opponent himself. Answer this question for me, Can accidents happen when there's nothing there? Let me explain what I mean by this. If there is not evidence for one other overlapping universe, how can CON base his argument on something that is not even there in the first place? The fact is , NO, we don't know whether the fine-tuning constants could come from a random see of colliding universes. In addition, whether there could be other universes that came before us (or are paralleled) would not be relevant to the argument in explaining how we got a finely tuned universe anyways; Most importantly, its unfalsifiable. Therefore, in a philosophical debate, I would be required to provide an argument against this explanation. However, in a scientific debate, an unfalsifiable hypothesis not based on empirical observation or experience has no place in science, which automatically disqualifies this as an explanation. "There is no fine-tuned universe" 2. Contrary to what CON may believe, I have explained and answered both his contentions in round one already. I will have to briefly summarized and highlight the portions I said before so he won't forget to adequately respond to them . How do we know the values are fine-tuned? The phrase "finely tuned" universe is a scientific term scientist used to describe the measurement of the laws and constants. We know through that present day particle physics have a whole lot of adjusted parameters like the mass of certain particles along with the strength of certain forces, and Most of the values in the parameters will not allow life to exist if these values were "smaller" or "larger". This means we don't need to know what values don't produce life, just the relevant values of the constants that DO produce a life permitting universe. "The Equilibrium State - Life exists in a state of balance" 3. I don't think CON's description of how the fine-tuning constants work is completely accurate. first off, There are indeed 25 freely adjusted parameters plus the cosmological constant that are independent of each other. "If, for example, the strong nuclear force were 2% stronger than it is (i.e., if the coupling constant representing its strength were 2% larger), while the other constants were left UNCHANGED, diprotons would be stable and hydrogen would fuse into them instead of deuterium and helium. This would drastically alter the physics of stars, and presumably preclude the existence of life similar to what we observe on Earth" [1]. Thus, 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. Besides, I have already showed and explained to CON that his opinion that about all the constants bearing some sort of relation can be shown to be true once we have a successful Grand Unified theory or theory of everything. However, This would only make the God hypothesis more qualified to be a theory than just a hypothesis because it means that the fine-tuning constants are falsifiable. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org...