The God Hypothesis should be considered a Scientific theory

1. "Obviously, I disagree, and I am fairly certain that many readers will, as well." I finally am to see what CON is actually trying to do. He thinks he can win the debate by technicality rather than in spirit by dealing with my arguments directly (mainly because he can't falsify them albeit). His central argument essentially flows like this: A. Religion or religious claims mainly deal with the supernatural while science (particularly scientific theories) only deal with the natural. B. The term "GOD" from the hypothesis has religious connotations that are deeply embedded in it. C. Therefore, the GOD hypothesis should never be "considered" a theory . I beg to differ. First off, I called it the God hypothesis to just name a unknown force that could not be the universe. Secondly, the term "God" does not necessarily only have to be related or symbolize religious fervor. It can just be understood to be a creator of the universe/ a Cosmic designer that we call GOD to signify something that is the greatest amongst intelligent interactive agents. As I said before, my theory is based on observations of the fine-tuning constants that came about after the incepton of the universe. So saying that there was a cosmic intelligent designer and calling it God to signify an extraordinary designer is not a religious statement. Saying who designed it (Allah, Jesus, yahweh, etc) would clearly spark a religious theme that would require me to parttake in from the begining. Lastly, there are other bonafide theories that have names that signify and represent a particular idea that does not fully match the theories intentions or findings and is just not taken literally. For example, the big bang theory confused many people into thinking that the theory entailed a big explosion since the term "bang" signfied this. However, in reality, it was not an explosion at all. Its the same thing with the theory of everything. The theory is not suppose to literally explain everything just three of the four fundamental forces. In conclusion, I made it very clear to CON that this was not going to be a philosophical debate but a scientific one. The very fact that he accepted the debated and continues to ignore the rules of the debate should be and is a conduct violation on his part. All he is doing is giving strawmen arguments and OPINIONS about what I should do or should have done and its simply childish. 2."I feel that my partner is correct in asserting that it has never been established that there are gods and goddesses in the first place. Until that has been done, any discussion of how these gods and goddesses may interact with their environments is speculative "" and cannot be used as the basis of a scientific theory." No we don't agree and he is again putting words in my mouth. I said we cannot discuss who the intelligent designer is in terms of which personality without establishing what it is first. 3."The universe is hospitable "" on balance "" to the building blocks and environments that any kind of life requires" I have already clarified what I really said about this and what CON has twisted. I am still waiting for CON to show that carbon base life forms are the ONLY forms of life (which its definition is not fully established yet by the scientific community) throughout the multiverse. Most importantly, amino acids are indeed found in meteorites outside of our planet. So CON is wrong here on all accounts. 4."I am happy to agree with my partner that life can indeed come from non-life. This argument of his helps to support my argument, which is that the influence of gods and goddesses in this process is unnecessary." Again, CON wants to twist what I said. carbon-based life forms ,which is life as we know it, are what can only come from other life. CON made no effort to falsify this at all which I gave him a chance to. "in the case of gravity "" we can indeed observe the phenomenon in action" Exactly, we can observe all the known phenomena and complexity regarding the fine tuning constants within the universe just like with gravity. In CONCLUSION, What voters are here to decide on is three things that were established in round 1 regarding my hypothesis: 1. Does it make falsifiable predictions with consistent accuracy across a broad area of scientific inquiry (such as mechanics)? Yes, and CON did not dispute this. In fact, The only thing that CON disputed was the fine-tuning constants, which is appropriate because my hypothesis was based upon that only. However, Con did not and was not able to falsify this. This does not mean that my hypothesis was unfalsiafiable; it just means he was not able to show it to be false. There is a difference. CON still has a chance in the last round to do this but it would have to be under the guidelines that I have set to falsify my hypothesis. 2. Is it well-supported by many independent strands of evidence, rather than a single foundation? CON admittingly dropped all of these arguments and conceded. 3. Is it consistent with pre-existing theories and other experimental results? Yes, CON made no effort in this area as well. 4. Did CON's arguments successfully prevented my hypothesis from rejecting the Null hypothesis? The same also goes here. Now, What voters are NOT here to decide on is whether or not I actually scientifically proved the existence of God . Science is not about proof or certainty as CON constantly mentions but its about evidence and falsifying a claim.