The God Hypothesis is the best scientific explanation for existence

The God HypothesisMy opponent talks about falsifiability, however God's existence itself is an unfalsifiable scientific hypothesis. Humans live within space-time, we change, and are physical so how one could possibly falsify a claim that a being exists who is spaceless, timeless, changeless and beyond the physical is "beyond" me (pun intended). However, one can falsify or undermine the claims which lead theists to their beliefs, which is what I have done, and will continue to do in this debate.My opponent has said that cause and effect has been tested countless times, but this is not true at the sub-atomic level and it is not true for anything that "began" that didn't have time exist before it. My opponent seems to just deny or ignore these points without valid justification. The Law of Cause and EffectMy opponent is claiming that I'm appealing to ignorance, however its ironic due to the fact that he is appealing to ignorance. I mean, just because we don't know how things can begin to exist uncaused doesn't mean they don't. The problem for my opponent, is that quantum fluctuations don't behave like something that has a cause, and they behave like spontaneous events without triggers. I doubt any physicist worth taking seriously would say:"Even though these seem like uncaused spontaneous creations of energy which temporally violate the conservation of energy, they must be caused because intuition gained at the macroscopic level holds true at the sub-atomic level."This physicist would get laughed out of the room. Also, the Uncertainty Principle shows that local-hidden variables are impossible (so their goes Pro's appeal to ignorance), and there is absolutely no reason to abandon locality because that would open up more problems than it would solve. I have quoted many physicists who disagree with my opponents weak stance regarding causality. Here is another supporting quote, this one is from a very respected philosophers of physics:"A vacuum fluctuation is an uncaused emergence of energy out of empty space that is governed by the uncertainty relation delta-E • delta-t >= h/(4*pi)" - Quentin Persifor Smith. American contemporary philosopher, scholar and professor of philosophy at Western Michigan University in Kalamazoo, Michigan.[1]Now.."Con MUST address this and explain where this quantum field came from that caused these particles to fluctuate in the first place when this clearly contradicts the evidence of the universe emerging out of nothing" - ProThere is no evidence the universe came from absolutely nothing. There is evidence that the universe is expanding and has a finite past though, and this is called The Big Bang theory, however there is nothing about the this theory which requires the universe to come from absolutely nothing. My opponent is simply mistaken if he is claiming that is the case. It seems that in order to get a leg up in this debate, my opponent must falsify uncaused events because he is the one with the burden of proof and claiming the necessity of a cause. He must also refute this argument (which I have slightly refined): P1: If x has a cause, then x is a consequence of that which occurs earlier to xP2: There was no earlier to The Big Bang, the Planck Epoch (0 to 10−43 seconds) was the earliest period [2]P3: The universe could not have been a consequence of that which occurred earlier to the universeC: The universe is not something which had a causeThe Cause of the Universe "Immanuel Kant gave an example of a heavy ball laying on a pillow causing a depression of the pillow. Now, The ball itself was not always on the pillow, but the ball being on the pillow and would be the initial causation that is able to create the depression as a result." - ProAs I already implied in my first round regarding simultaneous causation, it still presupposes time because the ball must have been lowered towards the pillow temporally prior to the simultaneous causation. So Premise 1 of my syllogism is in no way in jeopardy in light of simultaneous causation, because even the simultaneous causation could have only occurred if it was the result of that which occurred earlier. The theist cannot demonstrate a cause of the universe by appealing to simultaneous causation.Pro also mentions the difference between personal causation and impersonal causation, however personal causation as we know it boils down to scientific causation which is what we now can infer due to the implications of neuroscience and in other fields. We have 0 examples of disembodied minds, the argument here on my opponent's behalf is extremely weak. He also says that the mind which caused the universe would be very different from human minds, but it hasn't even been established that a mind caused the universe in the first place. It's based on the assumption that a mind can be independent of thebrain, and there is no evidence to show this is the case.The Fine-Tuning of the UniversePro is accusing me of accepting the first premise of the Fine-Tuning Argument for Theism, however, my argument was just to show that if we accepted that first premise, Atheism would be the better explanation than Theism (I apologize if I wasn't clear enough). My opponent claims however, that my argument appeals to "physical necessity" but I never said that the constants are the way they are be cause they have to be. I said that if the first premise of the Fine-Tuning argument is true, then these constants are the only ones that are capable of sustaining life, thus they are necessary to sustain life, because it's not possible for other constants to sustain life. Pro is confusing two types of necessity (i) These constants are necessary, because no other constants "could have been"(ii) These constants are necessary for life, because no other constants could sustain lifeI'm appealing to (ii) not (i). Thus, the Fine-Tuning Argument for Atheism still stands. If these are the onlyphysical constants which could sustain life then God does not exist, because if God exists, any constantscould sustain life due to his omnipotence and would be completely contingent to God's design. Substance DualismMy opponent is claiming that correlation does not mean causation. However there are clear ways to know that specific brain states cause certain mental states, and that there obviously is more than just a "correlation". Here are 5 reasons: (1) When an individual's brain is directly stimulated and put into a certain physical state, this causes the person to have a corresponding experience. (2) Certain injuries to the brain make it impossible for a person to have any mental states at all. (3) Other injuries to the brain destroy various mental capacities. Which capacity is destroyed is tied directly to the particular region of the brain that was damaged. (4) When we examine the mental capacities of animals, they become more complex as their brains become more complex. (5) Within any given species, the development of mental capacities is correlated with the development of neurons in the brain. My opponent's argument is as equal to an argument stating that there is just a correlation between a projector and the images on the screen, and that this doesn't mean the projector is causing the images. However, if we damage certain parts of the projector and the images change accordingly (and this does not happen vice versa), then one can reasonably conclude a causal relationship. One can show thistype of relationship with the brain/ mind.ConclusionPro hasn't demonstrated that every effect must have a cause, let alone the universe. Also, if we accept the first premise of the Fine-TuningArgument for Theism then it can lead into a more compelling argument for Atheism. Lastly, the argument from physical minds is more compelling and has more evidence to support it than any dualist theory. My opponent simply has failed to demonstrate any credibility in the God hypothesis.Sources[1] http://www.infidels.org...