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

Thanks go to my opponent for not only taking the time to do this debate, but also for writing what appears to be an original work, and not something merely copied and pasted from a website. There is one fundamental aspect that is constant in the understanding of God that my opponent mostly leaves out until his last section, and that aspect is what is known as consciousness. Therefore I disagree with my opponent's statement: "First cause must be some sort of entity that is not made up of the Universe, so I will call this cause the God Hypothesis." If my opponent establishes that there is an eternal and timeless entity that exists outside of space and time, but does not show that this entity must be conscious, then he has not proven that "God" exists or that God is in any way a scientific explanation. All arguments other than ones that attempt to show a conscious entity created the universe can go out the window, for the most part, though I will address the others nonetheless. I will agree that time had a beginning. Note that when I admit this, I am admitting nothing else. I do not admit that the energy or matter in the universe had a beginning (though obviously it changed forms). There is no reason to assume that matter and energy could not exist in a timeless state, and in fact the Big Bang theory, the most widely accepted scientific theory on the origins of our universe [1], states that "Extrapolation of the expansion of the Universe backwards in time using general relativity yields an infinite density and temperature at a finite time in the past" [2]. This is as best as we can get. Perhaps Pro can provide some scientific evidence that states that the material within the singularity had a beginning, but otherwise, all we are left with is a beginning for time and space. I should point out that General Relativity does not include matter in its creation, as my opponent claimed, but only the aforementioned time and space [3]. My opponent claims that whatever created space must also transcend space. This is not quite the same as being space-less. For example, we have space, and we are able to create in-depth computer simulations of entire cities [4], in effect, we created a space. While we have no reason to think that our universe is merely an incredibly advanced computer simulation (though some arguments could be made if we had the time), there is nothing to disprove this possibility, and therefore it is possible that whatever did create the universe does exist in some sort of space that is fundamentally different to our own. The same can be said for all of the other attributes he listed: changeless, timeless, omni-present, and immaterial. We can create what could be perceived as a universe (however small) and we are none of these things. Therefore the creator of our universe would not need to be any of these things, even if conscious. Next, Pro argues that our universe falls under an extraordinarily narrow range of life permitting values, and therefore it must have been an intelligent life responsible for its creation. This is false for two reasons: 1.) Scientifically, we cannot know that there are not a number of universes out there, each with different sets of variables and that we are simply one of the lucky ones. 2.) My opponent is wrong to say "The slightest change in these values would prevent any kind of life from evolving or existing". Perhaps we could say life as we know it, but even that is a stretch. True, if you screw with the variables a bit, our universe could change in such a way that carbon based life wouldn't exist. However we don't know how many different sets of variables would produce some form of life. It is possible there would be a set of variables that would produce a form of life utterly alien to any concept we are currently aware of. As far as the number of life producing variables are concerned, until we can create near perfect simulations of every set of possible variables and play out those simulations throughout its existence, then all we can put under the column of "percentage of life producing variables to non-life producing variables" is one gigantic question mark. When my opponent claims, "Each of these relations by definition represents a small amount of cosmic intelligence waiting to be understood", I would argue he does not really understand his definitions, be it for "intelligence" or "all-knowing". For one, infinite intelligence and all-knowing are not synonyms. Secondly, intelligence may be defined as the ability to think, but how much thinking you have done has no relation to your actual intelligence, just how much you've used your intelligence. Now something of infinite intelligence may actually know very little. It is possible that I have more raw intelligence than some scientists, but they may be older and have vastly greater knowledge that I have on virtually everything there is to know. Likewise, when I taught a genius kindergartener how to do long division, he may have had more intelligence than I did, but I knew more than he did. Further, even if we assume that a conscious entity created the universe, I do not see how the mathematical relations of the universe represents a piece of cosmic intelligence. Now we move on to whether the entity my opponent describes must be all-powerful. He relies on, as he does throughout his argument, the BVG theorem. I would like to point out at this juncture that the evidence that allows him his eternally expansive universe is the same evidence that leads us to the conclusion of a multiverse [5], which would entirely undo Pro's telelogical point. Finally, we get to the crux of the issue. As I stated, he does attempt to establish that the entity he speaks of has or is a mind in his last section "DISEMBOIED MIND". He begins by stating that whatever created the universe must conform to the definitions of omni-present, all-knowing, eternal, etc. I handled these earlier, and assert that whatever created the universe does not have to be these things. My opponent attempts to put forward the idea of "Substance Dualism" (SD), the existence of a "mental substance". Findings in neuroscience would show that SD is an entirely untenable theory. The existence of split-brain patients alone would debunk this idea. Split brain patients have had their corpus callosum, a band of nerves responsible for communication between the left and right hemispheres, completely severed. Experiments have been performed where patients were fed stimuli to only one hemisphere of the brain. Depending on which hemisphere, you could ask a person what they saw, and they will reply "I didn't see anything", yet they will be able to draw what they saw [6], despite verbally insisting they never saw what they just drew. If SD were true, the "mental substance" would be aware of what was seen. There is no mental substance though, as the experiment clearly shows. Without this, we have no reason to think that a non-physical entity could be conscious. If my opponent insists this is a timeless being, then it would also seem to be impossible that it would be conscious, as consciousness requires time, a state of affairs to be aware of yourself and a state of affairs to act upon that awareness. My opponent cannot establish anything about the consciousness of what is responsible for creating our universe, except perhaps to show how unlikely it is, and therefore the God Hypothesis is not even a valid explanation for the origins of existence, let alone the best one. [1] http://www.bbc.co.uk... [2] Hawking, S.W.; Ellis, G.F.R. (1973). The Large-Scale Structure of Space-Time. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 0-521-20016-4. [3] Einstein A. (1916 (translation 1920)), Relativity: The Special and General Theory, New York: H. Holt and Company [4] http://en.wikipedia.org... [5] http://www.tufts.edu... [6] http://faculty.washington.edu...