The God Hypothesis should be considered a Scientific theory

Many thanks to my partner for his completed presentation. Now that I’ve been afforded an opportunity to view the entire treatise, I am a bit disappointed to learn that it is mostly unchanged from the many other times that it has been raised on this site. Therefore, the criticisms and challenges to the argument also remain just as effective. Despite the sonorous and impressive sounding language used, the God Hypothesis essentially follows this line of reasoning. 1. All events must have been preceded by some prerequisite event that triggered it. 2. If we go far enough back in time, we seem to “run out of” preceding events to serve as prerequisites for subsequent events. 3. Humans have yet to learn conclusively what went on during that period when the universe was formed. 4. Therefore, Thor is not real, Poseidon is not real, Marduk is not real, Pazuzu is not real, Zeus, Neptune, Jupiter and Cupid are all likewise fakes, the Muslims and Jews are wrong about the divinity of Jesus, who is the same person as his father - and together, the two of them created the universe in a way that does not at all resemble the narrative given in the Bible – because the bible simply cannot be trusted. ….re-reading….I am almost at a loss for words with which to begin to detail all that is wrong with this illogic. To just focus on the final propositions, because humans do not know exactly what occurred during the period when the universe was first formed does not automatically require one to admit that any portion of the conclusion is beyond dispute… which is required of us if we are to grant the argument the status of “theory.” But let us not be hasty. We all agree on the definition of theory; that high level of understanding that allows for ever more complex foundations of learning to be built. Music theory, mathematics, Relativity… all of these disciplines requires that the thing being described exist… because there is “music theory” are we to think that the existence of music is in any doubt? My partner gives the criterion for ‘winning’ this discussion, going so far as to call these three conditions, “Essential criteria.” These are: 1. It makes falsifiable predictions with consistent accuracy across a broad area of scientific inquiry (such as mechanics). 2. It is well-supported by many independent strands of evidence, rather than a single foundation. This ensures that it is probably a good approximation, if not completely correct. 3. It is consistent with pre-existing theories and other experimental results. (Its predictions may differ slightly from pre-existing theories in cases where they are more accurate than before.) And the definition, once more, as presented by my partner: The "God Hypothesis" is there exists a personal God who is the creator of the universe and who is interested in having a human affair. (sic. I left the grammatical errors intact for a variety of nefarious reasons.) Although he has written for quite some time – nowhere does my partner even begin to meet these criteria. I will go through them: Falsifiable: The existence of the god or goddess allegedly responsible for the creation of the universe is not a falsifiable prospect. “Falsifiable” requires that a proposition is observable, and measurable… which these gods and goddesses are not. Single Foundation: The only source of information that we have with which to confirm the existence of these gods and goddesses are found in literature. In the case of the Abrahamic god, there is only one source of information. Experimentation: There are no laboratory tests that any god or goddess has ever participated in. This, despite the almost excessive scientific sounding verbiage. We should take care that we not allow ourselves to become distracted; attempting to “drown the discussion in technobabble” is a well-known rhetorical ploy, and one that often works. Which is why I must take great pains to point out that none of the “science” matters with regard to this topic – until the theology is consistent. The “god” in the God Hypothesis must come first. Is the God Hypothesis Compatible with Abrahamic Religion? I feel fairly safe in assuming that, among all of the possible gods and goddesses from which we may choose to apply the God Hypothesis, the one that my partner has most in mind is most likely the ancient Mesopotamian tribal deity Yahweh. I will therefore restate my charge that the God Hypothesis cannot be used to demonstrate Abrahamic religion (those faiths that derive from the biblical character Abraham – which includes all Jewish, Muslim, and Christian followings.) The reason why is simple: all of these faiths must follow a strict “Bible First” policy with regards to their religion. Yahweh is a self-confessed “jealous god,” who does not brook having his sacred texts second guessed. The following arguments were not rebutted by my partner, and so I should repeat them for emphasis. 1. If rejected by the religion that it hopes to “prove,” the God Hypothesis cannot be connected to that religion. 2. By arguing for the God Hypothesis as he does, Pro places himself into the position of “prophet” of what should be seen as a heretical new form of Christianity. 3. By arguing that the actions, tactics and nature of Yahweh can be understood by the God Hypothesis – Pro effectively argues that the bible is less trustworthy as a means of describing this god. He posits that what we cannot learn from the bible can be learned by way of studying the God Hypothesis. I continue to argue, so far never rebutted, that the God Hypothesis may be a heresy, and therefore cannot be supported by any follower of Christianity, Judaism or Islam. Can a Hypothesis be a Theory? A hypothesis is, by definition, a “guess.” A theory is an attempt to describe the specific way that an observable phenomenon interacts with other phenomenon or with itself. An example of this might include Music Theory classes for college students. Or the Theory of Relativity, which attempts to describe gravity, among other things. Under no circumstances is any subject of a scientific theory unprovable. Do we argue that music is “just a theory,” and therefore, may not exist? As a hypothesis and a theory cannot be made to be identical, no hypothesis can ever be a theory. In order for the God Hypothesis to rise to the rank of scientific theory, it will absolutely be necessary for us to have at least one god or goddess to observe, measure, describe, quantify, and experiment with. Until we have a god or goddess in a laboratory or habitat of some kind – we simply have no way to theorize about how he or she might interact with the world around them. To recap my argument as of this round:1. The God Hypothesis is heresy, and cannot be used to support Abrahamic religion.2. If science cannot say how the universe was first formed - then science cannot be used to prove that it was first formed by a god or goddess.3. The God Hypothesis does not follow - there is nothing in the argument that requires any particular theological conclusion. 4. My partner has failed to meet his own "Essential Criteria" for winning this debate5. A hypothesis cannot be a scientific theory - by definition