The God Hypothesis should be a Scientific theory

What CON is saying does not make sense scientifically because as I said before the Law of Cause and Effect does not require that every cause must have an explanation or cause for it. That being said, I see what he is getting at with his point philosophically. The law of causality is also a metaphysical requirement called the principle of sufficient reason. Under these philosophical rules, God would indeed require an explanation. However, the topic of this debate is science not philosophy, so CON is asking me to explain where the cause came from is a purely philosophical question that I actually addressed in my hypothesis. There logically has to be a first cause and this cannot rationally be the universe itself. Maybe in the realm of mathematics but not reality. Nevertheless, let's accept for the sake of argument that this scientific law did actually require that the explanation of the effect also required an explanation. As CON even alluded to, this would resort to an infinite regress. If this was a real scientific requirement, We would not be able to get the explanation of anything and everything. This would essentially destroy science in the process. "Besides, if the law of cause and effect is indeed inapplicable, how can we explain the creation itself? Isn"t the universe the effect of God"s creation at the singularity? " I explained this already in round 3: Human minds are understood to have agent causality where a cause would be able to bring about new effects at will without any physical dimensions or determining conditions by virtue of its agency. This is called "substance dualism" where there are two fundamental kinds of substance: 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. .. .. A mind absolute force would explain why you can get a temporal effect with a beginning from an eternal cause with unlimited properties. We should find, from more empirical observations, attributes of an all-knowing and all-powerful being exhibited within the universe. "wouldn't it be possible that there is a god who creates the beginning of everything and then leaves everything else to its own fate? " Well again, CON's alien creation hypothesis is unfalsifiable and ,thus, unscientific. Most importantly, it implies that the laws and constants were fine-tuned through an unguided evolutionary process. For instance, there are people who believe that God started life and then allowed the molecules to evolve into a complex life form through natural selection and random mutations. As I explained to CON already, if he wants to argue and prove that the fine-tuning constants were established through the physical necessity of evolution, I provided CON the instructions of how to falsify this in the previous rounds regarding the Grand unified theory. He has yet to do this. 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, CON agreed to this regarding the fine-tuning constants and the Grand unified theory. In addition, CON was unable to falsify my hypothesis. 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? Yes, CON essentially conceded here and focused all of his attention on showing an eternal universe in order to invalidate all the other independent evidence for it. However, he failed to do so here as well because his arguments had no scientific backing for it and they were mainly theoretical and philosophical which violates the terms of the debate. 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? No, He failed to show how quantum fluctuations better explains the data compared to my own. Its too late to do it the next round because I can't respond 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. Now, the rest of the questions CON made were just not aligned with the debate terms and topic, but I answered them anyways for FUN only. "why human species come into exist only about three million years ago whereas the universe has existed about billions of years? " Well, as I said before, this cause would have to be timeless and spaceless and therefore not bound by time. For this being time would probably not operate in the same way as human beings perceive, so its pure speculation as to whether or not it took a billion years to create the universe. For us, it would be a billions year since we are bound by time, and for this cause the time interval cannot be measured or known. Secondly, I don't agree with CON's notion that we came into being three million years ago. Where's your evidence for this? the fact is human recorded history has only been documented within 6-5 thousand years. I am sure CON has the evolutionary perspective on his assertion, but this evolutionary story is mathematically impossible for it to be true. The only evidence I am aware of that may suggest that humans came to be 3 million years ago is through radio metric dating, which is considered by some to be inaccurate and not reliable. Nevertheless, its obscure and indirect evidence while the evidence for 6 thousand years is direct and much more transparent. So CON's assertion is based mainly on belief or popular belief. Why this particular creator creates humans with mind whereas other organisms without human minds? I don't know If the God is truly unbiased, why does he decide to sacrifice other species in order for human species to prosper? this question is simple. its because humans have the capacity to have a real relationship with him since they possess a mind.