The God Hypothesis should be considered a Scientific theory

I want to offer many thanks to my partner for having instigated this challenge, and for his final presentation. I also want to acknowledge any readers who might have followed the debate to this point. FalsifiabilityIn studying the previous argument, and preparing for my own final statement, I note that my partner seems confused as to the correct meaning of the term “falsifiable.” I had suspected that he was unintentionally misusing the word earlier, but now I am quite certain. Based on the context in which it is used in this final round, I am convinced that he believes that it means “to disprove” something. Consider the wording in this passage, taken from his last argument: Con did not and was not able to falsify this. This does not mean that my hypothesis was unfalsiafiable; it just means he was not able to show it to be false. For the full quote, please read the passage above – but my partner was pointing out that I did not show that the god or goddess that might have made the universe, or how they made it (or something), was “false.” This seems to be important to my partner, who appears to be almost beside himself with frustration at my intransigence. To begin, let us look at the dictionary definition of “Falsifiable.” From the online dictionary, (I am using Google Chrome, so an offering from Princeton University comes up first) the correct definition of falsifiable is: Confirmable: capable of being tested (verified or falsified) by experiment or observation. Interesting. Wikipedia (why not) explains the idea of falsifiability like this: That something is "falsifiable" does not mean it is false, rather it means that if it is false, then observation or experiment will at some point demonstrate its falsehood…. … Popper pointed out that it is always possible to change the universal statement or the existential statement so that falsification does not occur. On hearing that a black swan has been observed in Australia, one might introduce the ad hoc hypothesis, 'all swans are white except those found in Australia'; or one might adopt another, more cynical view about some observers, 'Australian bird watchers are incompetent'.” [1] Will experimentation and observation someday prove or disprove that the gods and goddesses created the universe? No. Not unless we have some gods or goddesses to observe and conduct experiments on.Falsifiability is important, even a necessary condition of some debatable statement of fact. However, it is not a sufficient condition to demonstrate the veracity of a given claim. Popper pointed out that falsifiability is important, because it gives us a sharp means by which we might separate superstition from science, but that it should not be over relied upon. This. But my partner wishes I would hurry up and tell if I think his claims are falsifiable, or if I can “falsify” them. I can’t. As the dictionary told me, I would need a god or goddess to be tested (verified or falsified) by experiment or observation. The good news for me, is that he cannot do this either. This is because his blasphemies are simply not falsifiable; we cannot experiment on his proposed gods and goddesses. I therefore completely reject the entire premise of this argument as nonsensical. My partner is also upset with my tardiness in answering the following question: Is it well-supported by many independent strands of evidence, rather than a single foundation? The context, again, is with the God Hypothesis. He regrets that I have yet to contend with this question, so I best get to it. In answer, I point out that the only ‘foundation’ of the God Hypothesis is within New Age theology. There are no atheists, for example, who describe “god shaped holes” in the galaxies. So, since my partner has not demonstrated that other strands of evidence exist (besides a cultural allegiance to a particular deity) exist, this statement cannot be properly evaluated. I say that there are no scientists who do not already believe in gods and goddesses who also say that they are likely to exist on other planets. Is it consistent with pre-existing theories and other experimental results? No, the God (and Goddess) hypothesis does not agree with any reputable branch of science, and is even rejected by the very gods that it seeks to “prove.” Did CON's arguments successfully prevented my hypothesis from rejecting the Null hypothesis? (The English language is molested by my partner…) The God Hypothesis is not my partner’s original idea, meaning that he did not design it. And the “Null Hypothesis” is not a real scientific question. Again, we go to Wikipedia: The practice of science involves formulating and testing hypotheses, assertions that are capable of being proven false using a test of observed data. The null hypothesis typically corresponds to a general or default position. For example, the null hypothesis might be that there is no relationship between two measured phenomena or that a potential treatment has no effect.[2] The “Null Hypothesis” is a benchmark by which scientists can determine the value of a set of experiments. The Null Hypothesis is always that nothing will occur as a result of the experimentation. A complicated set of parameters are set up to determine the weight that the Null Hypothesis will have, and how effective the experiment will have to be in order to overcome these challenges. With the God (and Goddess) Hypothesis, there is no way to test against the Null Hypothesis (the expectation that nothing will happen as a result of an experiment), unless we have a god or goddess to observe and experiment upon. My partner also does not (in all caps) want readers to decide if he has offered any scientific proof that there are gods and goddesses about creating the universe. This is fortunate, because he has not done this. However, his task was to establish that the God Hypothesis should be raised to the vaunted rank of scientific theory, alongside the works on Einstein, Newton, and Karl Popper (mentioned above.) This will not happen. To say the very least, more research is required. My final argument, then, is this:There has not been enough evidence presented in this debate to support moving the God Hypothesis to the status of theory. The main failure: we cannot observe any gods or goddesses with which we can experiment or study. Since my partner has not demonstrated that any even exist, there is no foundation upon which the theory can be built. Additionally, his best argument simply states that if science does not know the exact conditions that existed at the beginning of the universe, then science can know that gods and goddesses created it with magic. It remains mathematically possible that fantastical creatures such as gods and goddesses exist. However, it is incumbent upon advocates of the God Hypothesis to demonstrate them - and that did not happen in this debate.