Should the God Hypothesis be a Scientific theory

THEORY OF EVOLUTION 1. Nature's Flaws: Since only intelligent minds design complex things, we should not view mutations and natural selections as the driving force for design. Instead, intelligence should be the driving force where it would intervene periodically in the evolutionary process to cause systemic macro mutations and then allow natural selection and a random version of mutations to take its course in creating the diversity of life. Now, Even though the evidence suggested shows the evolution of carbon-based life forms was a guided process, there are many scientists that have pointed out supposed flaws within this design inference. For example, they claim that the placement of the optic nerve in the human eye is flawed because it would result in a small blind spot in our visual field. If these are truly flaws in design then this would challenge the theory that a all-powerful designer or divine intelligence was at work in biology. However, upon further investigation, there seems to be a biological reason for this. As Michael Denton explains, "the difference in the placement of the optic nerve in the human eye in comparison with cephalopod eyes is because of the need for the greater supply of oxygen for high-acuity vision in warm-blooded animals"". According to Denton, "Rather than being a case of maladaptation, the inverted retina is probably an essential element in the overall design of the vertebrate visual system" (personal communication). In addition, natural disasters themselves are understood to be important in gathering minerals, which are essential in keeping the earth stable. Over and over again, we have found that what appeared at first to be design flaws have, with greater understanding, turned out not to be flaws at all". Thus, these supposed flaws are only flaws in our understanding and we should try to look at the organism as a whole even if it may exhibit some features that may be puzzling. 2. Who or what designed the designer? This question is technically meaningless since my theory suggest that the cause is presumed to posses the property of eternality or "self-existence"" as the universe once has been perceived to posses. Nevertheless, I will address it in this manner. The Law of Cause and Effect, which is a scientific law I referenced, does not entail or require that every "cause"" must have an explanation for it. Instead, it states that for every "effect" there must be a cause for it. In fact, even if the scientific law did require this, the law of cause and effect does not apply outside the Universe. Thus, since there is no scientific reason that would require us to go another step further in answering what created God, we apply Occam's Razor in this situation. So the question as to what created God is purely a philosophical nature. ANALYSIS PORTION In conclusion, from the following inferences in nature, (DNA information, human minds, applicability of mathematics, The fine-tuning of a expanding universe) we can explain the data this way. A Divine intelligence in the form of a personal absolute mind is ultimately responsible for all the known phenomena and complexity within the universe. This means there are two fundamental kinds of substance that underlie all of reality: mental and material. The mental would not have extension in the spacial and temporal constraints with the universe but occupy an independent "realm" of existence distinct from that of the physical world while the material cannot think and depends on the mental. This would explain why " we are naturally disposed, from an early age, to see goal-directedness in everything, including the natural world. This tendency has come to be called "intuitive-theism" by developmental psychologists, since it is a tendency to see purposiveness throughout our world [1]. This naturally disposes us to believe in a purpose-giving force in the universe: gods or a God". However, if this personal being created and sustains the universe for our existence, the question is "why". According to this being, What is the meaning and purpose of life? This personal absolute mind must have manifested itself in reality, at the moment of the creation, with the intention of having a relationship with its human creation, which is why we can observe a habitable planet within a life-permitting universe. Drawing from experience, this would be similar to human minds creating physical effects onto our brain and manifesting in the physical world through our bodies. Then, as humans, we have the intentional state of having offspring within a suitable house and have a relationship with our offspring. Prediction: we should expect to see such a being establish and sustain a personal relationship with its offspring as it does the universe since we are social organisms by nature. In other words, "This agency seeks to interact with human nervous systems in a such way as to orchestrate the necessary neural activity that coincides with emotional attachment to itself" according to RobDelestun, a cognitive scientist I asked about this field of science. RELIGIOUS BELIEF If there was no god, there would essentially be no "belief" of the divine or the belief of the monotheistic God as the theory suggest. Unlike, all the other gods (like Zues, Apollo) that have died out in dust-bins of time, the belief of the God described by the theory and the Abrahamic religions has endured throughout time within culture and society despite scientific inquiry being at a all time high. This narrows the field of study to essentially two sorts of Gods: Judeo-Christian God and the Muslim God. When researchers studied Judeo-Christian sects who are speaking in tongues by brain scanning them, there were decreased levels of activity in the frontal lobes while there was increased activity in the emotional centers of the brain. Frontal lobes is an area in the brain that is responsible for self-control or will. This is significant because someone cannot simply say that these people are just creating these effects themselves like it was previously understood before when they studied other religious practices. [2] As Andrew Newberg says, "These findings could be interpreted as the subject's sense of self being taken over by something else. We, scientifically, assume it's being taken over by another part of the brain. But we couldn't see, in this imaging study, where this took place."[3] Although, Andrew Newberg study still needs larger sample size; this study essentially confirms my prediction at least for now. ALTERNATIVE AND NULL HYPOTHESIS Now, we are at the analysis portion where we compare the predictions from the God (alternative) hypothesis to those of the null hypothesis, to determine which one better explains the data and observations. Well first off, Quantum fluctuations would not explain how we as humans came to be or the fine-tuning of the universe since there is no evidence that the fine-tuning laws came into being by chance. Most importantly, Quantum events actually do not take place in "absolute" nothingness, but out of a larger quantum field , which is part of physical reality, that enables particles to come in and out of existence. Without this field there would be no quantum events [4]. This is why its not accurate to say that a particular quantum outcome is "uncaused" nor is it consistent with the data implying the beginning of reality. In summary, since the alternative hypothesis better explains and is consistent with existing data, we can reject the null hypothesis and fully accept the alternative hypothesis.