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

I respect my opponent for so rigorously defending his position. Despite that, I still cannot say he is doing so in a way that can even begin to be associated with science. In fact, where he does speak of science, he does so incorrectly, as I intend to show. For example, let's take his first point that he has indeed provided a method for us to falsify his hypothesis, which is that if the God Hypothesis (GH) is true, it would show the universe had an absolute beginning in the past with nothing as a cause. What my opponent has done here is advocate for a method of confirmation (which I will later refute), not show a method for falsification. If we looked back at the beginnings of the universe and it appeared different, how would that prove God did not create the Universe? Even if there was one or two examples of a universe that would have been impossible to be caused by an intelligence, this is still not a scientific test. What my opponent has done is looked at a single result, the creation of our universe, and has drawn conclusions based off of that result. False conclusions, as best as I can tell, but we'll get to that later. This may be acceptable in the realm of philosophy, but in science a hypothesis must be testable, falsifiable, and repeatable [1]. Looking at the same data over and over again does not constitute repeatable. We cannot change any of the variables, we have no control group, we have no science here. How can we tell the difference between something that is truly uncaused, and something that was caused by a force we cannot perceive? To someone who cannot see the puppet's strings, it may seem as though nothing is propelling the puppet. In his previous rebuttal, Pro asserts that his hypothesis can be falsified if another hypothesis is proven. While proving a rival theory would disprove the original theory if they are mutually exclusive, my opponent misunderstands falsification. Imagine if we have a picture of someone with a Black Eye, and I develop "Baseball Theory", where the black eye was caused by a baseball. While we could test if black eyes can be caused by baseballs, my theory is nothing more than a possible explanation that hasn't been refuted. If we cannot know anything about the events leading up to black eye, then we really only have conjecture. If I claim "my theory is entirely falsifiable, if my opponent would just prove that the black eye was caused by a punch to the face", then I am not understanding the principle of falsification. In short, in order for a claim to be falsifiable, it must be able to be proven incorrect without appealing to an alternative explanation. Pro asserts that my computer analogy is nothing more than a God that I call a computer, that if I posit a computer that can self-design and is abstract then that's what a God is. However I explicitly stated neither that neither of these cases are required. My point was an actual computer, like the one you are using to read this debate, is capable of generating or simulating a three dimensional space. It is not abstract, and it is not conscious. Remember that a God cannot be an unconscious force. I am then accused of redefining words arbitrarily, in this case, life. In reality, there is a difficulty in science in defining what life really is [2]. The majority of the effort into defining life has been in regards to defining life as we would expect to see it within our own universe. It is that by which my opponent has attempted to define life, and then he goes on to say that this form would be impossible in any other universe, as though that in any way makes a point. The BGV theory that my opponent stands by asserts that some of the different universes would have different laws of physics [3], but Pro claims that the forms of life that would work under different circumstances than our own don't count as life for some reason. As for teleology, and how BGV theory implies multiple universes, my opponent admits this is true, but claims that there is no evidence that the other universes exist already, and that we could be the first. Even if I were to grant this, Pro forgets that he has the burden of proof, and the way he has attempted to answer that burden is by saying his theory is the only tenable theory. Therefore if he cannot disprove an alternative explanation, he would not meet the burden of proof. However, I don't grant Pro's assertion, as he is wildly inaccurate about it. According to Vilenkin, there already have been multiple big bangs, and in fact the number of universes is not finite as my opponent claims, but infinite (as opposed to the number of possible histories those universes could have, which is finite) [4]. Again, my opponent cannot cherry pick. My opponent then attempts to say that multiple universes does not show "chance" but rather another form of design where God is the one who buys all of the lottery numbers. However, he makes no statement as to why this should be considered the case. He asserts it as a possibility, and I will admit that an intelligence creating the multiverse is a possibility, but an idea being possible does not a scientific theory make. In reality, there is no scientific reason to require an intelligence in the BGV theory. Let me directly quote Vilenkin: "This picture of the universe, or multiverse, as it is called, explains the long-standing mystery of why the constants of nature appear to be fine-tuned for the emergence of life. The reason is that intelligent observers exist only in those rare bubbles in which, by pure chance, the constants happen to be just right for life to evolve. The rest of the multiverse remains barren, but no one is there to complain about that." [3] Next, my opponent asserts that my three dimensional blog example implies that laws and constants were fine-tuned through an unguided evolutionary process. I have no idea why he reaches that conclusion. I can literally, consciously, create the laws and constants and rules that govern the behavior of the simulation, just as he believes God did to our universe. I can then let the simulation run for a hundred years, and if I make the space large enough it could go through an enormous amount of changes, producing many, many relations. My intelligence has nothing to do with the number of relations in my simulation though. Now, we move on to Substance Dualism once more. He claims my split brain example merely reiterates what he said in round 2, that the mind is intrinsically connected to the brain. It is exactly that proposed connection which makes SD an untenable theory for the human mind. If the mind is made of "mental stuff" and is connected to the brain, then the "mental stuff" should be aware that it saw a pan, regardless of which hemisphere made the "mental stuff" aware said pan. Again, since it is allegedly connected to the brain, it should then be able to cause either hemisphere to express its awareness. I find it quite advantageous that my opponent used the example of moving fingers as a mental event, asking what produced that choice? Well, as best as we can tell, it is the unconscious portion of our brain that often causes it, not exactly a "free decision". In the study done by Soon et. al, they were able to predict which hand a subject would move over five seconds before the subject consciously chose to move their hand. They made this prediction by looking at the fMRI scan of the subject in question [5]. As for Penrose, the study would not cause a person to believe they performed actions. Mental events are caused by incredibly complex string of processing. Shocking part of the brain would not produce a thought any more than shocking a computer's processor would cause Daffy Duck to appear on the screen. [1] http://www.lhup.edu... [2] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... [3] http://tinyurl.com... [4] http://www.tufts.edu... [5] http://tinyurl.com...