The God Hypothesis is a supported Scientific explanation

== Rebuttal == I don't understand my opponent's labeling system, so I'm going to change his labels. {{{ God caused the Universe }}} My opponent calls this "Alternate Hypothesis." My opponent claims that God created the Universe by using cause and effect at the same moment. However, this still doesn't answer any of my arguments. If time did not exist, the concept of "the same moment" is incoherent; the singularity thus can have no cause. Furthermore, cause must precede effect otherwise it is not a cause. If I laugh and tickle me, at the exact same moment in time, down to the millisecond, then you cannot possibly say that tickling me caused me to laugh because the tickling did not even have time to register in my brain. My laughter must have had another cause. Lastly, my opponent never answers what caused God to exist? If things can exist without causes, then the singularity does not need a cause. My opponent then asserts that God's mind had the desire to interact with humans. Firstly, my opponent fails to show that God has ever interacted with us. If he would like to introduce the Old Testament as evidence, I'd happily refute it. Secondly, God is supposed to be omnipotent. Human emotions, such as neediness or loneliness, contradict omnipotence because they are weaknesses that cause us to act less than rationally. {{{ Quantum Fluctuations }}} My opponent calls this Null Hypothesis. Yet, this wasn't the only explanation I put forward for the singularity. My opponent once again mentions fine-tuning but doesn't respond to any of my arguments against it. Given that we exist, we should not be surprised that we do not observe features of the universe which are incompatible with our own existence. Highly improbable events happen randomly by chance, especially if you believe multi-verse theory, as my opponent does. With an infinite number of universes, it was inevitable that one would result in the constants we see. Thus, highly improbable events don't prove God's existence; they just prove an improbable event happened. My opponent claims we cannot draw conclusions from quantum mechanics because we do not fully understand quantum mechanics. *This takes out all his arguments.* You cannot conclude God created the Universe merely because we do not understand quantum mechanics. A full understanding of quantum mechanics and general relativity (a Grand Unified Theory) would fully explain the Big Bang, without resorting to God. Lastly, my opponent claims that quantum fields are made of matter. However, this isn't true. A quantum field is a "theoretical framework for constructing quantum mechanical models of systems." Particles pop into existence out of nothing due to the Uncertainty Principle. {{{ OMNI-PRESENT, ETERNAL, AND IMMATERIAL }}} I don't even know what my opponent is arguing anymore, quite frankly. All I can do is refute what he is saying. He tries to defend God superceding the Law of Cause and Effect by not needing His own cause. He defends this by saying not everything in physics (or science) needs an explanation. Besides being ridiculous, this takes out his own argument. If the singularity doesn't need an explanation, we don't need God as a cause. But in addition, we *do* know what causes gravity because of general relativity: gravity is caused by curvatures in space. My opponent claims existence doesn't need a cause (to bypass the problem of God having no cause). But if this is true, we don't need an explanation for the singularity's existence. There simply was a singularity, which was nothingness and infinite energy, all packed into one. It existed. And from it, came the Universe. My opponent never contests the singularity's existence, he merely says its existence requires a cause. This is incoherent. Then God's existence also requires a cause. My opponent consistently holds God to a different standard, above causation. {{{ DISEMBODIED MIND }}} My opponent claims he provided "evidence" of a disembodied mind, but he clearly doesn't understand what the scientific method means by evidence. An observation of a disembodied mind would be evidence. Our inability to prove that humans live on after death, as disembodied minds, seems to disprove this hypothesis. My opponent also doesn't answer how God's disembodied mind could be both infinitely big and infinitely small. Or how God can cause material things to happen if he is immaterial. Supposedly my opponent answers this above when he says that not all scientific theories need explanations, but we can *observe* gravity. We can't observe God. All my opponent *has* is explanatory factors. If he can't explain things about God, his only method of proof breaks down. {{{ All Knowing }}} My opponent, again, claims that because the universe is expanding, we'll always discover new knowledge. However, just because one infinite exists ("an infinite amount of observable universe") does not mean that another infinite exists ("an infinitely knowledgeable God). Humans may make new observations as the universe expands, but it's unlikely we'll discover new "mathematical relationships." The Laws of Physics should hold constant for newly observable regions of the universe. And it's not like new knowledge is always being created; all the matter already existed. Inflation is just stretching it out, like an inflating balloon. Lastly, my opponent, at best, proves that the scope of *human* knowledge is infinite. This doesn't prove God. {{{ All Powerful }}} My opponent just morphs this argument into fine-tuning, which is answered above. {{{ FALSIFICATION }}} Experiment 1: Life from Non-life I really expected more from my opponent than multiple appeals to ignorance. The Miller-Urey experiment was *not* designed to create life from non-life. The evolution of life from non-life would take millions of years. We cannot possibly produce this in a laboratory in 5 years. I ask my opponent: do you agree that evolution is true? If evolution is true, then the evidence is sufficient to prove that RNA evolved, then cell membranes evolved, and when you combine the two, you get the first bacterium. The experiment which showed that older genes produced proteins using amino acids that would have been more prevalent in the young Earth provides substantial support for this hypothesis. My opponent isn't providing support for the God hypothesis. He's making the classic Creationist argument: "well, we've never *seen* a monkey turn into a human, so evolution is wrong." The demand for observable results is ridiculously hypocritical when my opponent's "hypothesis" is completely unobservable. Mind-Body Dualism My opponent just asks for an impossible standard of proof here as well. His argument is essentially: "it is impossible to establish causation using science, only correlation." He then argues, right after that, "thus, if my opponent fails to establish causation, I win." This makes no sense. My opponent agrees that it's impossible, using science, to ever 100% establish causation. This doesn't prove God. Given that the brain can cause reactions in the limbs, there's no reason the brain can't cause our emotional state. The fact that drugs alter our emotional state by binding to specific synapses in the brain is additional support for this theory. There would be no explanation for why drugs work if you believe that the soul controls our emotions. Then how does Prozac act on the soul to make depressed people happier? I'll let my opponent explain that one. And I did prove there is a specific brain region that regulates decision-making using the UK brain imaging study. {{{ THE WORLD ENSEMBLE HYPOTHESIS }}} Is my opponent trolling me? He says, in response to my multi-verse explanation of fine tuning: "in a scientific debate, an unfalsifiable hypothesis not based on empirical observation or experience has no place in science, which automatically disqualifies this as an explanation." I agree - apply the same standard to God. Game over.