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

That was a very long explanation of a very simple argument. Let me break it down for everybody:A1. Nothing is infinite in realityA2. Therefore time must have been "begun"From this con makes a number of assertions about the thing that was the cause:B1. Since it created a time dimension, it cannot exist in time dimensionB2. Since it created space dimensions, it cannot exist in space dimensionsB3. Since it has no dimensionality, it must be changelessB4. It cannot be an abstraction of our reality because they never cause anythingB5. If it's not an abstraction it must be a disembodied mindB6. Since the universe is pretty good for human survival, it must be omniscientB7. Since all this defies the laws of physics and biology, it must be omnipotentI will use my alternative series of identifiers to help nut out the issues where my opponent has erred. Remember, for the God Hypothesis to stand, ALL of these (A1, A2, and B1-7) have to hold true. Even if I prove one of these wrong the motion falls. A1. Nothing is infinite in realityRemember how I said science was testable? If my opponent's case is that nobody has ever drawn a perfect circle, that's not a test for whether a perfect circle can exist in reality. That's a lack of observational data. We are quite sure that some things are infinite, however. There is no limit to the divisibility of time or space - they are not digital dimensions, just as there is no limit to Chuck Norris' awesomeness. According the Godel's Theorem, this hypothesis (of divisibility-based infinities) cannot be proven or disproven, so my opponent is just making assertions and calling it "scientific". However, the philosopher Zeno of Elea has shown that not having infinite sets is absurd in reality, and these absurdities have never been fully resolved. For instance, to get to one place, we first need to go half way, and then half of the remaining distance, and then half of the remaining distance, ad infinitum. If there was a limit to how far an infinite set can go, we'd never arrive at our destination. With my opponent's light-switch example, I invite my opponent to try to test that scientifically by flicking a light switch on and off infinite times. If he has not done so already, then I call him unscientific. If he has, I ask that he report the results of his experiment after infinite flicks of the light switch. A2. Therefore time must have been "begun"Even if time were not infinite (which is an absurd unscientific assertion) then surely God cannot be infinite. My opponent's argument is that the God Hypothesis is true, and that therefore God is real, and that therefore God is a part of reality. But if God is an uncaused first cause, then that implies that it is possible for uncaused things to occur in reality. Therefore, time need not have been begun any more than God need have been begun. B1. Since it created a time dimension, it cannot exist in time dimensionAgain, this has not been scientifically validated. How would you know that you hadn't created a time dimension somewhere else in the multiverse during lunch yesterday? Unless you have travelled to every corner of the multiverse to check, and you could somehow ascertain exactly what causes a time dimension to be created, this is another wild assertion. B2. Since it created space dimensions, it cannot exist in space dimensionsSame as B1, but for space instead of time. It's still an unscientific assertion. B3. Since it has no dimensionality, it must be changelessAgain, show me the proof. Just because the only way we can change is by moving in dimensions, does not mean that something not bound by dimensions cannot possibly change. That's making an assumption based on something you haven't tested scientifically, which is because you can't test it since you don't have anything without dimensionality to test it on. B4. It cannot be an abstraction of our reality because they never cause anythingIf the number nine did not exist, the world would be very different. Abstractions are very powerful, so the claim that they never cause anything is quite absurd. But how is "God" not an abstraction? It is, after all, a concept we use to help us make sense of the world - just as we use numbers, letters or ideas to help us make sense of the world. God perfectly fits the idea of an abstraction just as much as it fits the idea of a disembodied mind. B5. If it's not an abstraction it must be a disembodied mindAgain, can you prove these are the only two candidates? Can you prove that a disembodied mind is even possible? Have you ever met one and proved its existance scientifically? We know abstractions exist, but we can't prove disembodied minds, so this whole concept is unscientific. Why not a disembodied artery or mammoth hair? Can you prove that these cannot create universes, in their disembodied forms? B6. Since the universe is pretty good for human survival, it must be omniscientJust because you know how to make universes doesn't mean you're omniscient. Steven Hawking, whom you cited, obviously knows all this stuff about what's required for a universe to work - to even more decimal places than our universe is correct, in fact - but that does not make Steven Hawking omniscient. B7. Since all this defies the laws of physics and biology, it must be omnipotentSorry, but claiming to defy the laws of science does not make you omnipotent. It makes you unscientific. Since there is no scientific basis for any of this stuff, the God hypothesis cannot be scientifically proven. If God was consistant with the laws of science, that would make him scientific, but it still wouldn't make him omnipotent. To prove omnipotence, God would need to show he can do ANYTHING, not just break particular laws of nature. Why God would probably fail a God-testYou'll note that my opponent doesn't actually provide a proper test for God's existance - it's all a pile of untested and unscientific assertions about the nature of the universe pointing to the likelihood of the God-hypothesis under Occam's Razor (which is more like a generalisation than a way to uncover the right answer). But assume for a moment one could easily prove whether God existed or not. I believe it is much more likely that the proof would show God does not exist than that he does. These are the essential qualities for God, according to my opponent:1. Omnipotent2. At least partially omnibenevolent (because he fine-tuned the universe for us and created us)3. Omniscient4. The Creator5. Perfectly Free6. Eternally existing7. Personal ("the cause of the universe is a personal disembodied mind")Such a God has the following contradictions, among others:A. The problem of evil - why would an all-loving, knowing and powerful God permit suffering to go on? B. The problem of loving too much - God is omnibenevolent, thus not perfectly free to do evil. C. 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. D. Omnipotence paradox - can God create a rock even he can't lift? E. Why create this universe, and not one with less suffering? F. "Eternally existing" makes no sense without time. So it is unlikely that a God would exist given the number of logical paradoxes and impossible implications of that alternative. It's far more likely that God does not exist. Therefore, even if there was some way to determine if God was real, the outcome of that determination would almost certainly be that God is not real. I look forward to reading my opponent's rebuttal.