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

C6. "Eternally existing" makes no sense without time Well first off, CON never explains how he is defining time in the first place. Second, CON again is contradicting himself when he says that eternity is a "measurement" of time. Measurements involve limitless and eternity means infinite or limitless amount of time or a timeless entity. As for myself on the other hand, I made it very clear to CON earlier that I was NOT arguing that GOD was "Chronologically" prior to the universe but arguing that he had to have been "Causally" prior to the Universe. Therefore, when I said God becomes real I did not mean in a temporal sense. Also CON even accepted that cause and effect can be simulatanoues so I don't get why he continues to argue this point. http://en.wikipedia.org... A2. Time must have been "begun" The induction method I was using was only there to provide evidence and describe this cause. When it comes to providing evidence of a cause at all, I was using the law of cause and effect which states that everything that begins to exist must have a cause. Therefore, CON will be engaging in what is called the "Taxi-cab" fallacy "when one hops in and assumes a certain system of thought or worldview in an attempt to make a particular point but then jumps out of the system of thought when it suits their fancy". For example, We know that gravity accounts for planetary orbits, why masses fall to the ground on earth, etc... But, we cannot explain why gravity "is" or where it "comes from". We just have to take it as a brute fact. In other words, CON is special pleading here and wants to arbritraily stop at the beginning of the universe. The God hypothesis can also be considered a brute fact and the explanation for the universe to come out of nothing as CON even admitted. Now, when it comes to the issue of providing evidence for the attributes of this cause, I have made it clear to CON that Direct empirical evidence is not required in science. Of course, you cannot prove an infinity directly. Indirect evidence is also valid in science and CON did not dispute this. Subatomtical particles would be an example of evidence being observed indirectly. Does CON deny the existence of these entities? "B5. If it's not an abstraction it must be a disembodied mind" Well first off, CON is confusing potentially which involves metaphysics with actuality which involves the physical world. This means science premising God's existence as possible does not automatically mean science is also confirming God's actual existence. This is why its not circular. Second, I explain the difference between abstract objects and Minds. One can cause effects in time according to expereince and empirical observations and One cannot. You cannot find the number 9 in nature or freeze and weight it as CON suggest: http://en.wikipedia.org... Now this leads me to what I said about minds and brains, So I will talk about it now. "B5. If it's not an abstraction it must be a disembodied mind" Again, just like he did with the universe itself, CON wants to special plead with the brain as well. He seems to forget about the law of cause and effect altogther, which is what I am using as evidence for the mind. He again does not want to apply this physical law. The mind would be the cause and the brain would be the effect, which is I cited neuroscientists AND what they said last round. They ,unlike CON and me, actually have the precise knowledge and understanding about the subject. This is not an appeal to authority because they are experts on the field and they provided evidence and explainations of what I said earlier. None of them actually confirmed what CON said about the brain. Now, CON's argues another thing I said. I realized after the last round that what I said about a mind disembodied was not the correct way in saying it. This is because it technically sounds like an argument for a soul from a human being. Souls are considered contingent entities, and claiming there is a disembodied mind implies this since , although they can be causal in nature, they are dependent on a brain like a projection are something. For now on, I am calling it an absolute mind to be more clear and accurate. I will provide an additional argument by elaborating on this point in the last round. "B7. Since all this defies the laws of physics and biology, it must be omnipotent" I don't get CON's objection here. By God creating and intelligently designing everything/universe, it ends up demonstrating and proving omnipotence since he is responsible for anything and everything.(especially if its out of true nothing) "B6. Since the universe is pretty good for human survival, it must be omniscient" Here was my actual argument for omniscience just in case some people were confused. Also, CON never addressed this: Since the universe is semi-infinite in the future according to the BGV theorem, there's potentially an infinite number of mathematical relations out there to be discovered. Each of these relations by definition represents a small amount of cosmic intelligence waiting to be understood, so it follows that the universe must necessarily possess an infinite degree of mathematical intelligence. This not only suggest that the cause is intelligent but the degree of intelligence and knowledge would be infinite. Thus, the attribute of this cause must be omniscience.