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

I'm glad my opponent responded to some of my other arguments in this round. Since he did not continue to defend the points from last round I'm considering them dropped. Remember, for the affirmative to meet their burden of proof, ALL of the points from lists A and B must stand, and none of the points from list C may stand.C1. The problem of evilPro claims that whether good and evil are subjective depends on our worldview. This is the very definition of subjective morality - if there is no single common morality for all of humanity (which pro apparently admits) then morality is objectively subjective. Since that's true, it is a logical contradiction to call something omnibenevolent and admit benevolence is subjective. Omni requires objectivity, but in morality is there is no objective right or wrong. If you're interested in how I arrived at this conclusion, I explained it in the last debate.C2. Problem of loving too muchRegardless of why God cannot do something (commit evil in this case), which is what my opponent debates, I'm more interested in the fact that God cannot do something at all. God cannot be both omnipotent and unable to do something, and yet my opponent's claim is precisely both of these things. The contradiction has not been addressed at all by my opponent.C3. We know personal relationships must depend on some kind of similarity in sociology, but God is almost the opposite of us and all our limitations.This isn't a logical contradiction, it's a scientific one. Science says relationships are defined by being relatable (hence the term), but God cannot be relateable as he is different in every sense from ourselves. The only appeal he makes is to his theory that minds operate outside of sociology, which is a claim not supported by science. It's like saying "to prove scientifically that God exists, I'm going to prove science doesn't apply to God". You can't use non-science to prove something and call that a scientific proof.C4. Omnipotence paradoxMy opponent restates the paradox - God cannot be all-powerful and not all-powerful, yet if God cannot create a rock he can't lift he is not all-powerful. What my opponent now needs to do is disprove the paradox, rather than restate it and calling that a refutation.C5. Why us?This has NOTHING to do with C3 - this is about why God did not create a better world given his onmibenevolence. It is more closely related to C1 than C3, but even there is it distinct - where C1 asks why God does not correct evil, C5 asks why evil was allowed to exist in the first place.B5. If it's not an abstraction it must be a disembodied mindI'm going to dispute that brain/psychological events (which is a silly and unscientific dichotomy my opponent invented last round - not a logical fallacy I ever made) have either correlation or causation, because they are exactly the same thing. A brain event is a psychological event - it doesn't cause one, nor is it correlated with one. My evidence for this is Occam's Razor - there is no need for an external processor of psychology if it is all explained by what happens in the brain, so unless there is actual evidence to the contrary, one should not be assumed. Since there is no evidence that my opponent has brought up, and bearing in mind that he has the burden of proof anyway, the only reasonable assumption to make is that my opponent's talk of correlation and causation is worthless.Of course, none of this discussion focuses on the actual dichotomy that we're dealing with (again made up by my opponent) between abstractions and disembodied minds. It simply focuses on the one, with no concern for the other.My opponent presents a lots of arguments for why correlation is more likely than causation (though again, both are false). First he argues that "much of what happens in our minds is influenced by what happens in our bodies". I agree - your brain will cease to function if your heart stops pumping, for instance. I fail to understand why this makes disembodied minds more likely.Then my opponent continues that "Sometimes what goes on in our bodies is a result of what goes on in our minds". I agree with this also - our bodies may react to a memory, for instance, because it was triggered by an associative network. What explains the choice is the fact that memory, perception and learning exist. For instance, in coming up with this response, I percieved that I was in a debate, I learnt this information, I got an email telling me I had to respond because it was my turn, this triggered my memory, I learnt that I would write a reply when I got up the next day, I percieved it was the next day, this triggered my memory, and I wrote a response. I suspect my opponent went through a similar process. Every action every individual takes can be explained by a combination of genetics (the extent to which the genetic factor is true is disputed), perception, and memory. My opponent explains it with reference to purposes, but purposes are contingent on memory. A purpose is a construct, not a cause of action. And that's why the brain doesn't have a section for storing purposes. You can trigger memory with electricity, perceptions with drugs, and to a limited extent you can trigger genetics as well with designer babies. However, you cannot trigger a single purpose without triggering a memory, as a purpose, in psychology, is by definition a series of links between memories pertaining to causes.Next my opponent appeals to the authority of a select group of neuroscientists. If I wanted to prove the sun revolves around us, I would simply need to cite all the great thinkers and scientists who believed that. Of course that's not actually proof, and that doesn't change the fact I'd be dead wrong.Finally my opponent explains that not having disembodied minds means logic does not exist. I fail to understand why the existance of disembodied minds means logic automatically comes into existance. What is logic? Ultimately it's a set of laws based on our observations, for instance, our observation that an apple is an apple. There are organisms - bacteria, for instance - that do not understand this and as a result do not percieve this element of logic. That's why logic can be derived from observation and memory, with no need for disembodiment.I should suffix this discussion by saying I'm not a naturalist. In my view science depends on finding out about things we don't know about yet, and naturalism denies this before it is tested. I do not. I do not deny God because of a lack of evidence, although that doesn't change the fact that my opponent has produced literally no evidence for God. I deny God because I do not deny logic. This makes me an athiest, but not a naturalist. I'd appreciate if my opponent wouldn't make such assumptions about my beliefs in future.I look forward to reading what my opponent has to say next.