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

THE CAUSE OF THE UNIVERSE CON makes a fair point here. Before I respond to this, Let me make something clear here. I was not implying or trying to argue that GOD is chronologically prior to the universe but argue that he is Causality prior to the Universe. You see There are two theories of time: The A-theory of time and the B-theory of time. The A-theory of time is the logical and concrete time where there's a series of "moments".The nature of a moment is "a beginning of the future and an end of the past." We as limited human beings can only understand this theory of time because we exist in it. I have already explained logically and concretely why this theory of time is what the universe itself operates under not apart from it. The B-theory of time (or meta-time as some would call it) is the definition of eternity where it implies that time is just a concept or an illusion of human conscious. There is no such thing as past or future. There would only be one moment of time, which is referred to as the "NOW" or present. This theory of time is what I argued God to operate under since the universe cannot and does not operate under it. For GOD being within eternity or B-theory of time, there is no series of thoughts in time but only one eternal thought of everything like a snapshot from a camera. Now, my response to CON's claim. CON is assuming a big burden of proof to suggest that the law of causality only operates under separate moments in time. Cause and effect could have simply been simultaneous and occurr within the same moment. For example, Immanuel Kant gave an example of a heavy ball laying on a pillow causing a depression of the pillow. Now, the ball and the pillow could have existed from eternity past so that the ball was always on the pillow, but clearly the depression of the pillow was caused by the ball. It would not be the roundness of the ball that would cause the depression. Nevertheless, one thing I do agree with is that the very act of creation does imply a direct causal relationship between the cause and the effect in which this cause did not stand before and therefore would be a change that brings God into time. What I would argue is that the moment in which God caused the universe to come into being is also the moment the universe came into being making the cause and effect simultaneous . THE BEGINNING OF THE UNIVERSE CON is wrong here. The BGV theorem does prove a forever expanding universe called Future-eternal inflation and this theorem would apply to all models because it carries only one assumption: If the expansion rate of any universe is greater than 0, the universe began. Period: http://arxiv.org... Now, CON mentions the cyclic universe theory to argue why you can escape BGV theorem by positing a contraction prior to the expansion. However Vilenkin says that any contraction phase is unstable and would introduce additional singularities that would hamper any later expansion phase. Apart from this, the scientific research has shown that the universe is not dense enough for gravity to pull itself back up together. Also, even if it could be proven that several big bangs have occurred, the second law of thermodynamics would still require that there was a first big bang and therefore a last big bang. This theorem happens to be accepted amongst the world's leading physicists. Here is a quote by one of the creators of this theorem about their conclusion: "It is said that an argument is what convinces reasonable men and a proof is what it takes to convince even an unreasonable man. With the proof now in place, cosmologists can no longer hide behind the possibility of a past-eternal universe.... There is no escape, they have to face the problem of a cosmic beginning." - Alexander Vilenkin. THE LAW OF CAUSE AND EFFECT I beg to differ. The Law of Cause and Effect does not require that every cause must have an explanation or cause. Instead, it states that for every effect there must be a cause for it. For example, We know that gravity accounts for planetary orbits, why masses fall to the ground on earth, etc... But, we cannot explain clearly what and why gravity "is" or where it "comes from" along with determine its mechanism. We just have to take it as a brute fact. Therefore, the God hypothesis would be a brute fact and the explanation for the universe to come out of nothing. However, let's accept for the sake of argument that CON's arbitrary rule that the explanation of the effect also required an explanation. If the best explanation of the effect always required an explanation in science, we would be left with an infinite regress. In other words, if this was a real scientific requirement, We would not get the explanation of anything and it would essentially destroy science. Now, I would accept that causality is a metaphysical requirement called the principle of sufficient reason. Under these philosophical rules, God would indeed require an explanation. However, the topic of this debate is science not philosophy. Therefore, I am not required to provide an explanation any more than I would with Gravity. THE FINELY-TUNED UNIVERSE Let me clarify something that CON distorted and misrepresented. I was not trying to argue that the universe is fined-tuned for just human life but according to the generic definition of life that scientists define, which is the ability of an organism to take in energy, metabolize it, and reproduce after its own kind. What CON does not seem to realize is that these finely-tuned laws do not only apply on a local level (like our galaxy or solar system) but on a cosmic level as well. These cosmic conditions must be present for ANY kind of life to evolve and exist anywhere in the universe. This is because if the constants were even altered just a little, You would not get chemistry or matter much less planets and stars that can serve as places where life might evolve. So even if we assume for the sake of argument that complex life came from non-life through random mutations and natural selection, these finely-tune parameters would be required for any life to exist. OCCAM'S RAZOR CON is ,again, revising the meaning of a scientific principle. Occam's razor does not require an explanation to be simple at least on its own merits since it would end up being somewhat subjective. Instead, it says when comparing an explanation to OTHER explanations that the simplest explanation is usually the correct one. Unless CON can provide a simpler explanation, my argument stands. Nevertheless, I have already provided indirect evidence for the supposed assumptions using the inductive method. Direct empirical evidence is not required in science. Thus, since there is evidence for these assumptions, it cannot be considered complex in the first place. CON cannot just dismiss my evidence without a valid argument as to why we should dismiss it. If CON wants to take the agnostic position, then he needs to at least explain why I don't know either or we can't know by falsifying my conclusions without appealing to authority or proof by assertion. Otherwise, I will assume he conceded the debate.