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

A1. Nothing is infinite in realityMy opponent accused me of taking a philosophical approach to this question. This is false. My rebuttal, if you refer back to last round, was that the claim was unscientific because he'd never tested whether something was infinite in reality. If you look back to round one, I showed that science must be testable. I then went on to show that the reason he'd never tested it is that it can't be tested, thanks to the proof given by Godel's Theorem, so really any claim about whether infinity is possible or not is nothing but assertion. I then went even further, showing that philosophers have proven that scientific observations about the world, such as the fact movement happens, are inconsistent with the hypothesis that nothing is infinite in reality. That's not a philosophical assertion, that's a scientific fact that just happens to have been first stated by a philosopher. None of this analysis has been rebutted. I'm sorry that I have to repeat myself.He then goes on to say that "every attempt to translate an infinite number of causes into the real world have produced contradictory results". The reason he hasn't cited any such attempts thus far is because there are none. My opponent needs to actually show us the scientific evidence behind his assertions, not just assert.Next he claims "Either the universe is eternal and infinite or the God Hypothesis." There are three problems with this statement. First, there's no reason why a finite universe in space must have been created at a finite point in time. Second, that would be assuming all of your other points hold true also, because the God hypothesis only works if you can prove the creator of the universe must be your conception of God, with science. Even then, you'd still have to grapple with the existance of something eternal, which your own science otherwise "proves" to be impossible - God himself.A2. Therefore time must have been "begun"My opponent says "What I am saying is that the cause would not necessarily be a part of reality but becomes a part of reality by freely choosing to manifest itself in reality at the moment of creation." Let me get this straight - God is not real, but at the moment of creation this thing that is not real decided to become real for an instant for the purposes of creating a universe? Firstly, that's absurd. Secondly, now you're clearly violating Occam's Razor. Thirdly, most importantly, if God can create a universe in that way, why can't the number nine? Why can God randomly manifest itself and no other non-real abstract concept can? Finally, do you have any scientific proof that a non-real thing can become real? If so, I'd like to hear it. If not, stop making bizarre assertions.B1. Since it created a time dimension, it cannot exist in time dimensionMy opponent raises a fair point that the multiverse must have come into existence too (assuming the multiverse is expanding, which is a very wild assumption since we have no idea whether a multiverse even exists). The problem is that a universe is not the only place a time dimension can exist. Our ideas evolve and in that sense have a constructed dimensionality, for example. Universes are not defined by having dimensions - indeed, since we only really know one, they're hard to define at all. If you knew nothing but red balloons, how could you test whether red is only part of balloons or whether there are other items that are also red? My contention is that time, like the color red, is not limited to universes, like balloons. Since you can't disprove this or any other alternative scientifically, your claim is unscientific.B3. Since it has no dimensionality, it must be changelessI agree that 2+2=4. I disagree about two things. First, I disagree that it is the lack of dimensionality that makes this equation hold constant over time. Indeed the equation would make no sense if there was no matter or time, for "two" is a descriptor of quantity, nothing more. Second, while I agree that science uses such mathematics as an axiom, I disagree that it can be scientifically validated. That would be using science to validate science, which is arguing in a circle. I also disagree that minds are dimensionless. If you look at a CAT scan of a brain, you'll see that it appears. If you apply electric charges to various areas of the brain, you trigger memories and thought processes. That's not abstract, that's what science tells us. My opponent has to show his scientific evidence that minds are dimensionless. If he does not, he's making stuff up.B4. It cannot be an abstraction of our reality because they never cause anythingFirst, my opponent is making up definitions. A disembodied mind is a type of abstract object because you blatently made up the concept for the purposes of this debate. There is no scientific evidence that such a thing exists. Second, I proved that nine does cause something without meeting my opponent's definition of a disembodied mind - it doesn't need to directly "cause" anything to have an impact on the world. My opponent did not rebut this point. Third, what about my point about disembodied mammoth hairs? I thought that deserved a response.B5. If it's not an abstraction it must be a disembodied mindMy opponent begins with this wild statement: "I NEVER said that abstract objects and a disembodied mind were the only two possible explanation." In other words, he's going to be even more vague with his reasoning for the purposes of proving probably the most specific thing that does (not) exist. He goes on to repeat that "Only an unembodied mind by definition would stand in causality since minds are metaphysical and have free will", both of which I ignored because he never scientifically justified them. Does he have any proof that minds are metaphysical? Does he have any proof that minds have actual free will, beyond the illusion thereof? There are no scientific answers to these questions, mostly because metaphysics is not a science. Distracting from the resolution like that doesn't win you the point.He finally says that the aim of the debate is to prove that disembodied minds can exist. No, it's to prove that God is likely to have created the universe. Even if God did exist, that still doesn't mean he created the universe. Moreover, I accuse him of creating a tautology. He is arguing that a disembodied mind exists, by claiming that since the universe was a product of free will (a silly assumption he makes), it must have been made by a disembodied mind. In other words, to prove a disembodied mind exists, he starts from the assumption that a disembodied mind existed to create the universe. That's arguing in a circle.B6. Since the universe is pretty good for human survival, it must be omniscientMy opponent does not engage with my point - Steven Hawking knows just as much as God according to my opponent.B7. Since all this defies the laws of physics and biology, it must be omnipotent"there is no example of an actual "nothing" in reality and it would be something that is outside of human experience and knowledge" - what do you call outer space?"It would be like creating a round square" - If you thought heavier than air flight was impossible (which a lot of experts did for a very long time), and you saw a 747 fly by, would you call the pilots omniscient Gods just because they did one thing you thought was impossible?A. The problem of evilMy opponent raises a very good point - evil is subjective. What I consider evil is probably not what you consider evil. It follows, then, that good is also subjective, as the opposite of evil. It follows therefore that God cannot be objectively "good" as my opponent claims. Therefore he is not benevolent.B. The problem of loving too muchThis is a logical paradox because my opponent never addresses how God can have free will under the condition of omnibenevolence. If there's only one objectively "good" choice, then your will is not "free".