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

REBUTTALS 1. "A1. Nothing is infinite in reality" I want the AUDIENCE along with my opponent to understand and be reminded by the title of the debate. The whole point of my presentation was to provide the best SCIENTIFIC explanation NOT philosophical one for the origins of existence. I was not using ,on its own merits, the first cause argument as an actual argument for God's existence. I was using it to establish an hypothesis that can be translated within the physical world, which is what the scientific method would require, that would eventually show that the God hypothesis is the best explanation for origins of the universe. This is why i specifically said right from the start that "PHILOSOPHICALLY, its one thing to concieve of an infinite set of causes.." and its also why my explanation was so long. I was following and letting the evidence speak for itself and then make the conclusion from the interpretation of the evidence. This is what scientist do not philosophers. I NEVER said that infinities don't exist. I said that an infinite quantity of something COULD NOT exist in REALITY because Every attempt to translate an infinite number of causes into the real world have produced contradictory results. I did not say they DO NOT exist as if its an brute fact that has been proven to be true for the physical and metaphysical world. There is a difference. Now as far as the existence of infinities on a qualitative level, of course they would have to be something that exist forever in some fashion. Either the universe is eternal and infinite or the God Hypothesis. I have already demonstrated that the universe could not be infinite or eternal, but apparently I have not been as clear. 2. "A2. Therefore time must have been "begun" What I am saying is that the cause would not necessarily be a part of reality but becomes a part of reality by freely choosing to manifest itself in reality at the moment of creation. This is whats called by philosophers as "agent causation", where a cause would be able to bring about new effects without any prior determining conditions by virtue of its agency. Again, its the best way to explain the data and understand why an eternal cause can produce a finite effect. 3."B1. Since it created a time dimension, it cannot exist in time dimension" CON must have not fully read my response in round 2. I said even IF we are just a tiny part of a so-called "multi-verse" for the sake argument, the BGV theorem applies to the so-called multiverse and would STILL require an absolute beginning from this multi-verse as well. Therefore, Since there has to be an absolute beginning in some way shape or form, 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 our universe. Moreover, The BGV theorem is accepted amongst the world's leading physicists. Here is a quote by one of the creators of this theorem about their conclusion: "It is said that an argument is what convinces reasonable men and a proof is what it takes to convince even an unreasonable man. With the proof now in place, cosmologists can no longer hide behind the possibility of a past-eternal universe.... There is no escape, they have to face the problem of a cosmic beginning." - Alexander Vilenkin. Its very simple: If u have an expansion greater than 0, the universe began. Period. 4."B3. Since it has no dimensionality, it must be changeless What CON does not realize is that by virtue of acknowledging the existence of abstract objects which are themselves timeless and changeless entities, he ends up verifying and accepting that there are things that are dimensionless and don't change. 2+2= 4 is a abstract object that's a necessary truth that does not change and we know it does not because we use it in science. In fact, its intrinsic to science. Minds are also abstract and are known to be dimensionless according to logic and experience. 5."B4. It cannot be an abstraction of our reality because they never cause anything" I explained this already. I did argue that GOD is a metaphysical entity along with abstract objects like numbers. The difference is that abstract objects don't stand in causal relationships by virtue of its definition. If they did stand in casuality, then they would not be considered abstract objects by definition but Disembodied minds. 6. "B5. If it's not an abstraction it must be a disembodied mind Well first off, I NEVER said that abstract objects and a disembodied mind were the only two possible explanation. What I actually said was that they were the only two candidates that CAN possibly "fit the description" of an immaterial, changless, timeless,etc. entity. I did not make an absolute claim. I explained already that Only an unembodied mind by definition would stand in causality since minds are metaphysical and have free will. Now, CON argues that we don't have evidence of minds operating without a brain. Well thats the point of this whole debate, its about me providing evidence of a disembodied mind. 7."B6. Since the universe is pretty good for human survival, it must be omniscient" I think CON means to say making a supremely finely-tuned universe to allow the existence of life in general not human life or any kind of universe. I did not explain the data as evidence of omniscient but as evidence of intelligent design or intelliegence, which CON apparently accepts as true since he mentions Steven Hawkings another intelligent being. The conclusion of omniscient came from another source of evidence by virtue of the universe being semi-infinite into the future as its been proven by the BGV theorem and separately with the first law of thermodynamics. Everyone can just read in response 2 to see it again. 8. B7." Since all this defies the laws of physics and biology, it must be omnipotent" I apologize to the audience. I did not mean to say it defies the laws of physics in terms of actually breaking them empirically or directly. I meant to say that it created the laws of physics out of nothing (which can be viewed as defying them). This is something that would be considered impossible because there is no example of an actual "nothing" in reality and it would be something that is outside of human experience and knowledge.Therefore, It would be like creating a round square, an example of something or action that could not exist in reality thereby showing he can do anything. 9."A. The problem of evil - why would an all-loving, knowing and powerful God permit suffering to go on?" Well first, CON would have to define what evil is to claim the existence of evil. Its something I doubt he can do based on his position. According to philosophy, God created us with the same kind of free will he has within himself. Since God would be the first cause or absolute, anything that is contrary to God's nature of perfect moral goodness would be considered evil. If people did not know what evil is, they would not know what good is in the process. Thus, God would not be able to demonstrate love fully or at all. It would defeat the whole purpose of creating us, which is to establish a personal relationship like any and every other personal agent may intrinsically want. 10. "B. The problem of loving too much - God is omnibenevolent, thus not perfectly free to do evil." GOD can do anything within his own nature according to the rules of logic. According to law of identity, "something is what it is". God would have the attribute of all-powerful as a part of his identity by definition. If God committed an immoral act, he would not be considered a moral person in the process. Thus, I don't see how this is a logical paradox. Unfortunately, I do not have enough room to respond to the rest of what CON said, so I will do so in the next round.