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

Thanks, kenballer, for fielding this interesting argument. There are so many targets that I don't know where to aim. Most of Pro's sentences contain either incoherency or obvious error. Because it takes longer to explain an error than to make one, I won't be able to point out all the problems with Pro's argument. Therefore, I must make a general demurer to cover any arguments that I couldn't get to. Readers will understand. - Pro says that infinities don't exist in reality because it is generally impossible to draw a perfect circle. This is a non sequitur; there is no reason to believe it. Further, this is one of the questions I like to put to physics professors when I meet one. Not one of the ones I discussed it with has endorsed the idea that there are no real infinities. - Pro says the first cause must be limitless by nature. He gives no reason to believe this. Moreover, the claim that the first cause is limitless refutes the claim that there are no real infinities. Also, Pro claims that god is eternal, which means infinitely old. Again, he contradicts himself. Pro claims the past can't be infinite because, "we would never have gotten here." But the opposite argument is equally strong: Nothing comes from nothing, so if there had ever been nothing, then something would never have gotten started. I don't say that's a good argument, but it is as strong as Pro's argument. And Pro has the burden of proof. (Pro has the burden of proof because 1. He initiated this debate, 2. He is Pro, and 3. He is the one making all these nonsensical assertions.) Pro says the first cause must be transcendent, an entity, and apart from the universe. He gives us no justification for any of these claims. Moreover, they conflict with the claims of William Lane Craig, theism's big gun. - Pro says there are theorems on his side. Obviously, there are theorems opposing him too. He doesn't even say whether the authors of these theorems believe they represent reality. He cites Hawkings (sic), who obviously doesn't agree with him. Steven Hawking, whom Pro intended to reference, does not believe that time began. - Pro talks about multiverses, meaning our "universe" may not be the only one. If there are other universes, then maybe they caused this universe. I’m not stipulating that this universe had a cause, or that there are other universes, but, having introduced multiverses into the discussion, Pro is estopped from claiming that they—rather than gods—didn't cause our universe. Numbers and gods are no longer the only causal candidates. Further, we know nothing about these other universes. Pro doesn't get to assume that infinities aren't real in those universes. So, his argument against infinity—even if it were true in our own universe, which I do not stipulate—is sabotaged by his suggestion that there may be other universes in which his assumption may not apply. Pro claims that multiverses would need an absolute beginning, but he made that up. He doesn't get to invent the rules of other universes and bind me to them. - Pro talks about the law of cause and effect. It's not a law, so much as a definition. Every effect has a cause because that's what we mean by the word "effect." Pro inexplicably assumes that the beginning of this universe is an effect, and that it therefore has a cause. That's a circular argument. By calling it an effect, he infers a cause. That's silly. I can do the same with his god: Pro's god is an effect, therefore it has a cause, therefore it is not the first cause. Again, that's not a good argument, but it is exactly as strong as Pro's argument. - Pro says that the first cause must "have been a changeless, timeless, and immaterial being," but he doesn't even attempt a justification for these outrageous claims. If something were timeless, it would not exist at any time, so it would not exist. If something were changeless, it would not do anything, so it would not create universes. Nor would it be the god of the bible, which god is sometimes angry and sometimes not, and sometimes does things it later repents of. Pro's god transcends space, which doesn't make any sense. Does that mean it doesn't exist anywhere? Pro's god is immaterial and omnipresent, but the god of the bible walked in the garden and rode pillars of flame to get down from Heaven. Pro's god is a disembodied mind. As far as we know, minds require bodies. Kill the body, kill the mind. Pro fields the design argument. But you can't conclude that something is deliberate because it is unusual or unlikely. Many unlikely things happen without being planned. It happens all the time. And the design argument shoots itself in the foot anyway, since if god were all-powerful, he wouldn't need a designed universe for us to live in. With his support—which is what the design argument is attempting to establish—we could live anywhere. Pro cites the "principle of universality." Principles, like theorems, don't have to be true. But, if we pretend this one is true, then most of Pro's argument is refuted. All the minds we know have physical brains, so, according to the principle of universality, god's mind would have a physical brain too, if there were a god, if it had a mind. Time passes for us, so it must pass for gods too. Every second we see has time before it, so every second that ever was must have time before it—in which case the universe must not have a beginning. Pro says the universe is "semi-infinite." That's gibberish. There's no such thing. He's trying to equivocate, to have infinities and not have them too. Pro says his god must be omniscient because the universe is semi-infinite. That doesn't follow. There's no reason to believe it. Pro says his god did a miracle, so it must be omnipotent. If you can do one miracle then you can do any miracle? Who made that rule? That's absurd. And anyway, people around here can't do miracles, so according to the principle of universality, gods can't either. Pro says his god must have created life because he is eternal and intelligent. That doesn't follow. First, eternality is impossible according to Pro, because infinities aren't real. Second, if eternities are possible, then the universe may not have a beginning. Third, life may have happened without an intelligent and eternal designer. Forth, even if one such did create life, we don't know how many intelligent and eternal people exist in Pro's multiverses, so we have no reason to assume that Pro's god is the responsible party. Pro says that life didn't exist at the beginning, and that only intelligent life creates intelligent life. This shoots down his whole argument. If life didn't exist, then either god didn't exist or god isn't alive. Either way, Pro's theory that his living god created life is kaput. Pro claims the support of Occam's Razor, but his argument is chock full of wild extravagances and special pleadings. Brainless minds, uncaused causes, multiverses, eternities there but no eternities here, miracles, etc. Occam would have rejected each of those individually, and would have totally trashed any theory that required all of them. Conclusion: Pro's case does not survive inspection. He has not proven anything. Pro has the burden of proof, but has not begun to shoulder that burden. Vote Con. Bonus Points: 1. The god hypothesis leads to the kind of obvious nonsense presented in Pro's case. It is not explanatory. It is not scientific. It appeals only to highly motivated believers. 2. Statistically, the more science you know, the less religious you are. That is, science rejects the god hypothesis. The god hypothesis is not the best explanation for anything. 3. People with good arguments tend not to make bad arguments. If theists had any good arguments, we wouldn't be seeing arguments like Pro's.