The God Hypothesis is the best scientific explanation for the origins of existence (2)

As you might have noticed, my opponent has dropped all but one of my points from last round. Here are my responses to what he's just told you. A2. Time must have been "begun"I never admitted the God hypothesis can be accepted as a brute fact. I argued that if it is possible for God to be the cause, that necessarily means it must be possible for time to cause itself. Furthermore I showed that this entire point was without basis as it relied on a theory of what time is that hasn't been proven (unlike, for instance, an infinity, which I've already shown can be proven by scientific observation in the previous debate, or a subatomic particle by the same method). The fact that there is time provides no indirect evidence for the beginning of time, because that would be presupposing knowledge about dimensions that we simply do not possess. So if time can come out of nothing, why the requirement for God? My opponent offers no response to my Occam's Razor argument. My opponent appeals to the taxi-cab fallacy, which would hold true if I was giving God a different treatment to the alternative hypothesis. Actually, I'm being 100% consistant. There is no evidence for time beginning, just as there is no evidence for God - even the supposed "indirect evidence" is really based on obervations that presuppose time - so it's wrong to say (equally, in both instances) that we have evidence for either. B5. If it's not an abstraction it must be a disembodied mindI'm not going to bother with the second refutation as I've already addressed that in our previous debate and my opponent did not respond. Second, my opponent says premising God's possible existance to confirm God's existance is not circular. My argument was that metaphysics is assumed in science and thus cannot be confirmed by science. Science does not say "it is possible for logic, math etc to be true", science says "logic, math etc ARE true". So my key point is unrefuted - metaphysics cannot confirm metaphysics. Next pro claim's I'm special pleading (ironically, his claim seems to be that I'm ALWAYS special pleading, which implies that my pleading isn't special at all, but I digress). Cause and effect applies where one thing causes another. Correlation applies where one thing is the same as another. Both concepts presuppose the existance of two unique entities - in this specific case, the existance of "mind" independant of "brain". I don't think it's valid to presuppose that because that's what we're arguing over. In any event my opponent provided no evidence in support of that. My opponent has kept citing the OPINIONS (not the research) of a SELECT GROUP (not a metaanalysis) of neuroscientists, who my opponent admits are experts and thus carry AUTHORITY. Hey look, it's the three arguments I raised last round that my opponent didn't respond to - I even summed it up nicely with my Sun and Earth analogy. Unless my opponent can provide scientific proof that the mind is independant of the brain, he is appealing to authority. Nobody is an expert in what they don't know or understand, and how could neuroscientists understand this "mind" my opponent talks about if it's entirely distinct from their field of research. The people who'd come closest would be the psychologists, but they aren't going to confirm my opponent's theory either. Also the use of a select group of researchers indicates that even if there was some evidence, it's far from being a "settled science" and thus cannot be considered to be more likely than no. My opponent renames disembodied minds to absolute minds, further making stuff up to suit his case. That's fine by me. Now he has to prove that thinking exists absolutely, even without a brain. I hope my opponent doesn't put too much new stuff into the last round and focuses on summarising, as otherwise we'll end up with another unsatisfactory conclusion, despite my best summarising efforts. B7. Since all this defies the laws of physics and biology, it must be omnipotentMy opponent doesn't get my objection. Simply put, if you defy science, that makes you unscientific, just because it proves you are not bound by science. It also proves you cannot be proven using what you can defy, since you defy the proof by definition. It's a simple contradiction of terms to say that God defies science and God is scientific. Furthermore, creating everything is not evidence for omnipotence as not everything exists. Lots of stuff doesn't exist, and I think that will be fairly self-evident to everyone. B6. Since the universe is pretty good for human survival, it must be omniscientMathmatical relationships exist where we look for them. That's because they're a human construct, and since we're a product of the universe, it makes sense that the universe would seem to have many of them. What I think my opponent is driving at is that since the multiverse contains infinite information, the creator of the multiverse must have known infinite information. That's like saying the creator of chess knew every single possible move combination. It just does not follow that because you create something, you fully understand it. C6. "Eternally existing" makes no sense without timeMy opponent criticises me for not defining time. For clarity, I shall define it however pro wants to define it. Second, pro argues I am contradicting myself by calling eternity a measurement. That would only be self-contradictory if I also said it wasn't a measurement, which I didn't. I continue to argue the point because my opponent has not yet made the extra step from agreeing God was not chronologically before the creation of time (a self-refuting notion anyway, as before time there was no chronology) to saying God is not eternally existing (which would imply time is eternal also). If God is not eternally existing, it contradicts the description of God my opponent gave at the beginning of our previous debate. In conclusion, my opponent continues to fail his burden of proof. I look forward to our final round.