The God Hypothesis is the best scientific explanation for existence

THE GOD HYPOTHESIS CON claims that my theory is not scientific. 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 fluctuation. 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. In other words, it would no longer qualify as a scientific explanation. 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. THE LAW OF CAUSE AND EFFECT Again, CON is simply appealing to ignorance here. For it assumes if we do not know "how" A caused B, that it is not reasonable to believe that B has a cause at all. Just because Scientists are presently unable to accurately and simultanouesly measure both the position and mometum of a subatomical particle does not mean there is no cause. David Bohm has an interpretation of quantum mechanics which is fully deterministic. Bohm theories are mathematically consistent and are entirely consistent with the evidence. Now, even though the Copenhagen interpretation is the most wildly held, there is no way to empirically distinguish between the Copenhagen and Bohm interpretation: http://en.wikipedia.org... It does not matter anyways because the quantum field ,which is a part of physical reality governed by physical laws, that enable particles to come in and out of existence is not "nothing". Con MUST address this and explain where this quantum field came from that caused these particles to fluctuate in the first place when this clearly contradicts the evidence of the universe emerging out of nothing. CON cannot address it simply by saying that the quantum field is "nothing" Nor can he just redefine the word "nothing" in order to maintain his argument.The term "nothing" is not a thing a within itself; it just means absence of something. Unless CON addresses this in the next round since he did not do so in the last round, my argument stands. THE CAUSE OF THE UNIVERSE It is important to differentiate between initial causation and continuing causation. For example, Immanuel Kant gave an example of a heavy ball laying on a pillow causing a depression of the pillow. Now, The ball itself was not always on the pillow, but the ball being on the pillow and would be the initial causation that is able to create the depression as a result. Every cause and effect relation obviously has this initial causation or we would not get an effect in the first place. In other words, there would not be a before in a temporal sense here, but there would be a during and after. The "during" moment would be the initial causation I am referring to here and what I explained above. Now, in terms of the nature of this cause, it is also important to differentiate between impersonal causation and personal causation. We do have examples of causes or even things that exist without space and time, as I explained before in round 2. One part involved explaining the one difference between abstract objects like numbers and a disembodied mind regarding causality. The Second part involved explaining the one difference between the mind that would be responsible for the cosmic beginning and a human mind. God who is supposed to be an immaterial mind would have the power to cause material effects in time at will by manifesting itself in reality in the first place; the same way human beings immaterial minds can cause material effects in time at will through the brain. However, Since the universe was created out of nothing, this mind would have to be considered a disembodied one because it cannot be within the universe or the universe itself. This would be the only difference. THE FINE-TUNING OF THE UNIVERSE CON apparently does accept the fine-tuning of the universe for life at least on its own merits. However, He claims that his deductive argument shows that it cannot be from design but from physical necessity. Well first off, the fine-tuning constants and values are not determined by the laws of nature. Nature's laws could hold and the constants could take any of a wide range of values. There is nothing about the laws of nature that require the constants to have the values they do. As far as the arbritrary quantities, those are completely independent of the laws of nature. They are just put in as initial conditions on which the laws of nature then operate, So nothing seems to make these quantities necessary in the values they have. Unless CON can provide evidence that the laws and constants are based on physical necessity, my argument stands. SUBSTANCE DUALISM Let me first explain some mind-body views in order to clarify some things. Epiphenomenalism: This view claims that mental and physical properties are separate entities but claims that the mind has no causal power and all mental events are ultimately caused by physical events. This is essentially what CON is advocating for. Substance dualism: my view is essentially the same as Epiphenomenalism except that the mind has causal power over the brain and vice versa. Now, Dualism does claim that when the brain dies, the mind/soul will live on. However, it does not assert that the mind is completely independent from the brain while the mind is attached to the living brain as CON suggested. That is a separate claim neither CON or I can prove or disprove. CON would have to provide an additional argument to prove that the mind cannot be independent even without the brain. 1) 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. 2)Technically, our thoughts are abstract objects but I was not referring to them. I was referring to abstract objects like numbers or the logical absolutes. We can create physical manifestations of them in reality, but these kind of abstract objects themselves cannot be found under rocks or grown out of trees nor are they contingent on a human minds. Our minds simply recognize these necessary truths not create them. I ran out of space so I will address the rest later