The God Hypothesis should be considered a Scientific theory

I hope that I am not mistaken here, as I will await the completion of the opening argument before I begin a full examination of it. That aside, there is no way we can discuss this topic without recourse to religiosity. To do so would require that we ignore the “god” portion of the God Hypothesis. I will attempt whenever possible to avoid violating the “philosophical arguments” injunctions – but the nature of the debate itself makes this impossible to fully implement. I propose that either we eliminate this prohibition altogether or modify it to include discussions of gods. 1. I must insist that the GH be connected to a specific deity. I maintain that a necessary component of the God Hypothesis is the god element. It is disingenuous, in my view, to pretend that the religious aspect of the GH is irrelevant or immaterial to the idea of a divine origin to the universe. As I read over the Opening Arguments, it seems that my partner and I both agree on this point. Therefore, it becomes incredibly important that we specify exactly which god we are supposing to have created the universe. As the God Hypothesis could conceivably be used to prove that Tiamat was the origin of the universe as it could be used to prove that Enki and Enlil did. A major flaw in the God Hypothesis is that it is unconnected to any particular god, and if found to have merit, could “prove” any number of religions. As presented, the scientific-sounding babble that was displayed in R1 is a much closer fit to the Hindu Over-God Brahma than it is to Yahweh. A side by side comparison of these two deities can be had by studying the links here. [1] [2] 2. I mentioned that my partner is engaging in heresy, if viewed from the perspective of the Abrahamic pantheon. Essentially, he is claiming that we can learn about the god that he follows – by studying the works that he has authored here. I must remind everyone that this essentially places my partner into the role of “prophet. ” Never mind the bible – we may learn about this god (he is so far vague on precisely which one) by way of careful study of his research. As I understand the matter, another member of the Abrahamic faiths made a similar claim, saying that, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. ” (John 14:6) If we can gain greater understanding of this ancient Mesopotamian deity by studying the works of my partner, rather than the bible, then we have either a heresy or a prophet. He essentially makes the claim that there are now two ways by which we can “come to the father. ” This raises an interesting question: is my partner’s realization of the God Hypothesis divinely inspired? If he has come to this knowledge thanks to a visitation from a god, then it follows that the God Hypothesis could supplant biblical scholarship and study of scripture. If not, then it follows that the God Hypothesis is a potentially errant and heretical blasphemy. This possibility simply must be ruled out before any Christian, Muslim or Jew can safely study the hypothesis. Important: I am not alleging that the God Hypothesis is simply incompatible with Abrahamic religion. I am making the claim that Abrahamic religion directs worshipers to learn about those faiths biblically – and not by way of rejecting the bible, or diminishing it’s role within those religions. The God Hypothesis reduces the role of the bible by relying on faux science rather than biblical scholarship to describe that god – which I maintain is an act forbidden by that religion. This is important for more than just establishing the internal consistency of the GH argument. If the god that the GH is attempting to “prove” is unlikely to exist as anything other than a cultural and literary figure, then the god hypothesis will also fail. The God Hypothesis will also necessarily fail if it is rejected as heresy. Considering all of this, we must spend at least some time discussing the “god” portion of the God Hypothesis. If we must remove all thought of god from the GH, then I honestly do not see what we are discussing at all. 3. This is the God Hypothesis, in a nutshell: All things require some prerequisite event to allow their existence. If we go far enough back in time, we will eventually run out of preceding events by which we may explain subsequent events. Since this period of development is a mystery to scientists, then gods exist and one of them was responsible for the creation of the universe. In other words, "If you can't prove to me that you know how the universe was created, then this specific god exists. " Which is a bit like saying that "If you can't explain how lightning and thunder occur, then Thor exists. " This argument skips a few steps. For one thing it does not follow that a god is needed to explain this mystery. Why not any of a number of other fantastical scenarios – such as a cosmic computer program, or galactic dream? Second, which god? To be frank, introducing a god into this mystery does not answer anything at all – it simply works as a synonym for “I don’t know. ” But the “god response” fails in many other ways, as well. Which I will discuss in the next round. But in the meantime, I will define a few logical fallacies that I suspect that I may find helpful:1. Appeal to Ignorance: If there is no evidence against P, then P is proved true. "It's true because you can't prove it isn't. " 2. Unexplained isn't unexplainable: Science doesn't know now, therefore science will never know. "The Earth must be flat, because how could people stand on the other side of the Earth without falling off? "3. Does Not Follow: The conclusion does not follow from the premise. "The sun is hot, therefore it is a god. "4. Post hoc ergo propter hoc: Confused causation: "Stranger comes into town at noon, and the clocks struck 12:00. Therefore, the stranger made the clocks strike noon. Or The universe has life, therefore, it was designed for life. "Despite the fact that there may be more of the Opening Argument coming in soon, I will nevertheless address this strange statement:"The Universe is finely tuned for life. "In all the years that I have been arguing with everyone in sight, I have never met a more ridiculous statement made by anyone with a straight face. The universe is decidedly not well suited for life. In the entire thing, mankind is only aware of one insignificant speck of life - on one dust-like fleck of a planet in some forgotten backwater of a lonesome galaxy. Even here, on earth, life seems to die in exactly the same proportion that it is created. In regards to humans, ten living humans will become ten dead humans in less than one million years. Remove these short-lived beings from the protection of the planet earth - and the humans die almost right away. Place them on their sun - throw them into the vacuum of space. .. or leave them alone for only a billion years or so. Even with food and water, they still die. Only the most incompetent god would create such a sterilized universe and expect it to foster life. In fact, all of the evidence seems to suggest that life exists despite the very best efforts of a truly destructive, mad and tyrannical god that tries at every moment to stamp all of it out. If I could find even one magical geanie in a bottle, I could do better. Anyone who feels that the universe is finely tuned to support life does not know what a quasar is. [1] Yahweh Wiki: . http://en.wikipedia.org... [2] Brahma Wiki: . http://en.wikipedia.org...