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

The Metaphysical Argument 1. "Pro claimed that something must exist outside of existence in order to explain existence. I pointed out the logical contradiction, that anything that exists must be part of existence, not outside it. Pro responded that he doesn't need to explain the explanation. He does need to explain it, because an explanation that contradicts itself s not an explanation. " I never argued this. CON has created a false premise. When I said every explanation not requiring an explaination itself, What I was actually saying was that an explanation for the effect was demanded in science. If the explanation of the effect was also required an explanation, then you would not get the explanation of anything and it would essentially destroy science. CON earlier explained that Gravity ,which is the cause, can be explained through its effects, but he does not explain where Gravity itself came from nor can we see Gravity. However, we know that gravity still exists because we see the effects, which is INDIRECT evidence. Direct evidence is not required in science. As I explained before, If the cause is there, then the effect would have to be there once the initial conditions of the effect are given (i. e. gravity). CON does not even clearly define what gravity is. "force, mass, distance" The same rules of science can be applied with the God hypothesis. We know that this explanation exist because we see the effects of it, which is the universe coming into existence out of nothing perfectly fine-tuned to allow the existence of life. lets summarize this now: A. Even though its hard to define gravity, we can't see it, and have no direct evidence of it, we still know it exists because This force called gravity manifests itself in reality (planetary orbits, masses falling to ground, etc) there by providing indirect evidence of its existence Same situation applies to God. Its hard to define it and we can't see it directly, but we still know it exists because we see this entity/force manifest itself by creating a finely tune universe out of nothing. B. By explaining the effects of gravity, we end up explaining gravity itself without being required to ask where Gravity itself came from. By explaining the coming into existence of our finely tune universe, we explain the first cause (i. e. God) C. Lastly, CON already accepts that there is a cause for the finely tuned universe in the form of the quantum field regarding M-theory , which he calls nothing and ends up not addressing himself. I am just calling this cause God because the evidence suggests this as I showed in response 2. So CON can't say I am making no explanation for God when he acknowledges the explanation already exists. 2. "The analogy is wrong because Newton describes gravity in scientific terms: force, mass, and distance. The God Hypothesis does not explain in terms of sciene. Newton's Laws are subject to further scientific inquiry. One of the objectives of M-theory is to provide the next level of scientific explanation on the relationship of General Relativity, which is about gravity, with quantum physics. " CON is implying that in science you are somehow explaining a theory by choosing one of the competing models over the other. But this isn't true. Once scientists select a single theory, they still haven't explained anything about why the theory is true, or where it "comes from". But that's okay, since that isn't demanded in science. Multiverse Theory 3. "We have Stephen Hawking, the greatest living cosmologist, asserting that M-theory is a properly formulated theory. Papers are published, including Pro's only cited reference in the debate, discussing M-theory as a theory, Pro then declares on his own authority that M-theory is not a theory. What are Pro's credentials as a scientist that should convince us that he is right and Hawking is wrong? " Not at all. I am not the one who actually said this about M_theory but it was Roger Penrose who co-authored the Space-time theorem of general relativity with Stephen Hawking one of the greatest findings in science: . http://www.youtube.com... 4. "M-theory is not proved, it is a hypothesis. The God Hypothesis is certainly not proved, so they equal in that regard. However, M-theory has two advantages over the God Hypothesis. M-theory agrees with observed physical laws, and in particular unifies gravity with the other three forces (strong, weak, and electromagnetic) of the universe in a common theory. " We can make testable predictions for this hypothesis. Determining gravity predicted the existence and location of Neptune. If the God hypothesis is true, it would predict that the universe would exhibit characteristics that support the existence of life. You can falsify this by showing that there could be other universes or show evidence of one. In addition, if the God hypothesis is true, it would show that the universe had an absolute beginning in the past and that it came from nothing. You can falsify this by showing that the universe had no cause at all or that the cause of the effect was still a natural cause. Unlike M-theory ,which has no empirical obeservation whatsoever according to Roger Penrose, we have many empircal evidence that conclude the God hypothesis to be true as I demonstrated in Response 2 ( the Space time theorem and Guth theorem, Finely tune laws, etc) 5. " Pro has the burden to prove that there is definitely a cause, since he is claiming that everything is caused. What is important is that science does not demand a cause. This is a debate about scientific explanations, and uncaused events are admissible to science, just not to Pro's argument. " Well like I said before, I did not nor was I trying to argue that everything is caused but that every effect was had to have been caused and we have zero examples showing that some effects do not have causes. Therefore, the burden of proof is on CON to show otherwise. Besides, I have said already that the Quantum field ,CON is reluctant to address, can be considered the cause for the fluctuations. 6. "Pro quotes George Ellis but doesn't say where the quote came from. I need to know the source to evaluate the context. " Well first off, I have already provided the source of my George Ellis quote. Second, I fail to see how the "A faster car can in fact overtake a slower one" example is describing an actual infinity in reality. Don't allow CON to manipulate you into thinking this is an successful example of a real infinity. 7. Pro cites Stoeger who says associated with an infinite number of universes can be solved: "any adequate cosmological account of the origin of our universe as one of a collection of many universes" or even as a single realised universe" must include a process whereby the realised ensemble is selected from the space of all possible universes and physically generated. " [p1] M-theory does not necessarily demand that an infinite number of universes be realized, only that any possible universe can be realized. In 2003, Borde, Guth,Valenken in their theorem were able to prove that ANY universe which is on average in a state of cosmic expansion greater than 0 throughout its history cannot be infinite in the past, but must have a past space time boundary. This theorem holds even when we don't have a quantum theory of gravity of the early universe. In addition, even if we are just a tiny part of a so-called "multi-verse", their theorem would STILL require an absolute beginning from this multi-verse as well. Since there has to be an absolute beginning when its all said and done anyways, CON can deposit as many universes or versions of the multi-verse as he wants. It still would not weed out the God hypothesis as the actual explanation for these universes AND for the fine-tuning of the universes. Thus, CON has failed to falsify the God hypothesis let alone show it to not be a scientific explanation.