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

THE BEGINNING OF THE UNIVERSE "The theory of general relativity, like the BGV theorem, states only that the universe must have at one point been a singularity. " Well first off, CON is confusing the the theory of general relativity (Einstein created) which does NOT include quantum gravity with the Space-Time Theorem of General Relativity ( Hawking and Penrose) which does include quantum gravity. According to the Hartle-Hawking's model, The Space-time theorem still shows a beginning from a single point it just would not be a singularity of infinite density . Second, the BVG theorem does not assume Einsteins equations. Thus, their conclusion still holds even when we don't have a complete quantum theory of gravity of the early universe according to the BVG theorem. "Why? They are different universes and so probably wont have the same physical laws." It does not matter. Again, Even if we are just a tiny part of a so-called "multi-verse" with different laws of nature, their 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. Unless CON can think up a way to avoid the theorems conclusion, my argument stands. However, Even if for the sake argument CON could create a way to avoid theorem without being logically incoherent, these universes (as CON even alluded to) cannot and would not be operating under the same principles of nature. This means CON would end up just making another metaphysical claim only his would be done to an infinite degree. By invoking an infinite number of universes with different laws of nature just to explain our universe, it would not only be unfalsifiable but violate Occam's razor to the highest degree. This is not the case with God Hypothesis making it the best explanation. THE CAUSE OF THE UNIVERSE CON has decided to claim things I did not say in this section. I never said that the universe is expanding infinitely but said that the universe will expand eternally into the FUTURE. Also, my claim that casual relationships are valid beyond the constraints of our universe was made in part of another claim involving the causal power of human's dimensionless mind. I admit that cause/effect occuring within the same moment claim would only be valid unless substance dualism is true which I do show below. God who is supposed to be an immaterial mind would have the power to cause material effects simultaneously in time at will the same way human beings immaterial minds can cause material effects in time at will through the brain. CON's point's out that we don't have any examples of disembodied minds making it incomprehensible. However, what CON does not realize is that the totality of my evidence is me providing newly found knowledge of a disembodied mind which would make it comprehensible. The other part of CON's objection was to presuppose that the mind and brain are identical. Since my argument that cause and effect can be simultaneous based on the assumption that human minds are immaterial, this objection of his is important to respond to more meticulously: SUBSTANCE DUALISM First, "The argument that we do not understand how a soul interacts with a physical body, appears to be based on an appeal to our ignorance (argumentum ad ignorantiam). For it assumes if we do not know "how" A causes B, especially if the two consist of different properties, that it is not reasonable to believe the two can interact. Yet, as Craig and Moreland point out, a tack can be moved by a magnetic field, and gravity acts on a planet millions of miles away.26 Gravitational forces and magnetic fields appear to have very different properties to the solid and spatially located entities they affect, and although we may not understand "how" such interaction takes place, it nonetheless does—just as we are alert to causation between the mind and body. " Second, What neuroscience has done is provide us with a more detailed picture of how the human mind is influenced by certain events in the brain. It has not changed the general nature of that picture. The fact that much of what happens in our minds is influenced by what happens in our bodies was something known by the first self-conscious human beings. However, not everything that goes on in our minds is causally determined by what goes on in our bodies. Sometimes what goes on in our bodies is a result of what goes on in our minds. For example, the movements of my fingers as I type this response is ultimately produced my mental events or Con choosing to accept my debate topic led to an intention to type up a response. Here we have mental-to-physical causation. What explains both this choice of mine and the physical events in my body that are ultimately produced by this choice? The explanation is the purpose that I provide an answer to your question. A purposeful explanation is a teleological explanation. When CON points out that chemical reactions causes people to choose. 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, so this is a logical fallacy on CON's part. 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. Just because chemical reactions influences choices does not mean they also produce choices. There is a difference. "It has been observed that when a part of one's brain is touched with an electrode, it may cause a mental experience such as a memory to occur. Some might classify this as evidence that mental states are reducible to physical states, yet this only demonstrates that the mind is causally connected to the brain and not that they are identical. Therefore, the distinctiveness of mental and physical properties and states argues favourably of substance dualism." "Secondary qualities are said to consist of properties like colours, tastes, sounds, smells and textures, whereas primary qualities are properties that characterise matter such as weight, shape, size, solidity, motion. The fact that secondary qualities exist favours dualism. A strictly physical and material world arguably force us to deny them": http://scott.brisbane.id.au... THE FINELY TUNED UNIVERSE CON did not make any further objections to this argument. This means my argument stands as true In conclusion, I offered CON a chance to provide another explanation when he himself said that " it does not mean there is no other explanation", but yet he provided no such thing. Therefore, I urge a PRO vote.