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

I appreciate my opponent continuing the debate and bringing up such interesting issues for discussion. While much of what he says is interesting, I feel I should point out that at no point does my opponent actually put forward any reason to consider the 'God Hypothesis' (GH) as a 'scientific explanation'. Certainly, my opponent names a number of scientific theories, and then draws conclusions based off of those theories, but even if I were to grant him every last one of his conclusions, that would not make GH a scientific explanation. In order for something to be considered a scientific explanation, it must be testable, and you must be able to make predictions which the test results would show. I will concede my opponent has made an attempt at a philosophical argument for God, but without being able to test or make predictions, it is not a scientific explanation. I would also point out my opponent's own standard for GH being a scientific explanation is that it is falsifiable. He has not accurately set the standards by which GH should be falsified. Even if I were to come up with a completely naturalistic explanation for the entire universe, that would not falsify GH. My opponent appears to misunderstand how falsification works, it is not merely dismissing all current evidence for a thing, or proving an alternate explanation. There must be an observation or test that we could perform, and a possible result of the test that would render the hypothesis false. For example, if we were to put forward that a specific coin always lands on heads, we could observe whether the coin has a tails side, and we can flip it, and if it lands on tails it would be falsified. Landing on heads would not prove the hypothesis, but we're not speaking of proof here, rather falsifiability. If Pro wishes to lay claim to his hypothesis being falsifiable, he must devise a test of which a possible result would negate the possibility of God causing origins of the universe [1]. My opponent claims I am confusing two theories of General Relativity, and that the Hawking-Penrose theory states matter and energy was created during the big-bang. However since he has yet to include any sources to his arguments I can only take this as a baseless assertion. The same goes for Pro's assertion that matter and energy cannot exist without time. My challenge to Pro's inferences on the "Omni" attributes was based off the fact that he needed whatever is responsible for the universe to have these attributes, and in his mind the only thing that could possibly fill those attributes would be God. However I clearly showed how this could not be the case, how the universe could have been created by entities no less fallible than us, not that it would even require an intelligence. In my first rebuttal, per the variables that would produce life, the best we can say is that changing the variables a bit would destroy the possibility of life "as we know it". My opponent responds by saying he was speaking of "the generic definition of life that scientists define", which is another way of saying "life as we know it". My opponent completely discounts the possibility of there being life that functions in a way that is utterly alien to our universe, life that would look at how our universe works and marvel at how life as they know it would be impossible here, never thinking that an entity could exist which takes in energy, metabolizes, and then reproduces based off that chemical energy. As far as the cosmological constant being so finely tuned, what my opponent has done is take a single slider representing one fundamental lawsof nature, and move it a bit. Then he showed how our universe would not exist under this scenario, then assumes that any other permutation beyond that would also not work. I would ask my opponent this: How many possible combinations of physical laws are there, and how many combinations have been shown to not produce any possible form of life? The answer, if I may be so bold, is that we simply don't know. That answer is not within our ontological grasp. My opponent argues that my point about multiple universes is moot as there is no evidence for or against them. Pro seems to have missed the part where I showed that the same evidence that supports his use of BGV is also evidence for multiple universes. Pro cannot cherry pick a theory for what he finds useful and discard the rest, so my point is not moot. In addition, Pro has the burden of proof. I do not have to prove multiple universes, not when he relies on his theory being the only tenable theory. Winning the lottery 10 times in a row is not evidence of foul play if it is possible the person bought every lottery ticket available each time. In such a way, if the theory put out by Borde, Guth, and Vilenkin is correct, that indeed it is the case that any possible universe will exists. Not only does that mean our universe, but also a universe incredibly similar to this one where only a single future event will be different. To make my analogy even more clear, if my opponent asks "how could that person win a lottery when there was a 1 in 78 trillion to the 59 trillionth power chance of them winning, the answer is: because they bought that many tickets. Now my opponent is welcome to discount this possibility, if he's willing to discount BGV as well. Otherwise, his fine-tuning argument falls flatter than a quantum pancake. This would also cause his claim of all-knowing being based off of the fine-tuning of the universe to fall flat as well, as there is no evidence of fine-tuning. Even if there was, his assertion that eternal inflation represents infinite intelligence is still incorrect. It ignores the possibility that God merely started the universe and left it running. Imagine I design a mathematical model that creates a 3-d blob in a computer that moves in a simulated physical space. The number of possible formations and relationships is astronomical, but it does not mean my intelligence is astronomical. Pro's conclusion in no way follows from his premises. Moving on to Substance Dualism (SD), I believe I made it quite clear that I was specifically debunking the concept of SD, not putting forward my own theory of mind. The burden of proof, as my opponent admits, is on him, so I am under no compulsion to prove physicalism or epiphenominalism. My opponent attempts to refine his definition of SD by claiming it is similar to epiphenominalism only the mind and brain have a two-way instead of one-way causal relationship. I fail to see how this helps him, as the experiment I cited above still disproves his assertion. As the brain has causal power over the mind, the information received by the one hemisphere should cause the mind to be aware of that information as well. Then, if he is correct and the mind has causal power over the brain, the mind should be able to cause the left hemisphere to express what the mind saw, but it can't. If the right brain saw a pan, it isn't that the left brain was unaware of what a pan is, it is entirely cut off from any experience the right hemisphere alone had. This shows Substance Dualism is not possible. Going further, the right and left hemispheres can be asked questions separately, such as "Do you believe in God". The great thing about that, is that in some people, one side believes in god, and the other does not [2]. Pro attempts to side-step the need to show SD as a possibility by claiming that he's not advocating for a human, but absolute mind. He ignores the fact that there is no evidence that there could be such a thing as "mental material" or whatever he'd like to refer to it as, and there is less reason to consider it without SD. He is attempting to prove a scientific viewpoint with a philosophical proposition that has nothing to back it up, especially given that my opponent ignores my point about consciousness requiring time. [1] http://www.experiment-resources.com...;[2] http://tinyurl.com...