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

He's continued right from where he left off, which unfortunately means he is still ignoring the vast majority of my case and quite a bit of his own. It would be good to address those issues in this debate. Indeed somehow he's managed to answer even less of my points than last time. A1. Nothing is infinite in reality"Con did not bother to show how my conclusions were inconsistent with scientific observations"Yes I did, several times. It was Zeno's problem from round two of the last debate. "Con needs to demonstrate by explaining how my particular demonstrate is a logical fallacy"I did. I said that it makes the assumption of commonality among reality, which is flawed because of the all horses are the same color fallacy. I even gave an example with the pile of apples. You can't pick a few observations and use that subset of observations to justify a greater generalisation - all observations need to be taken into account for induction to work. So you cannot, for example, ignore the observation that movement happens in making a complete conclusion about the existance of infinities. And you cannot prove or disprove this particular observation according to Godel's Theorum. A2. Time must have been "begun"My opponent more or less restates his previous points and then calls me "confused" for not accepting them. I agree time could have been begun. I also agree B-theory could be true, though to rely on it for the basis of a scientific point is invalid as it's nowhere near proven, and there is virtually no evidence for it. Yes, cause and effect can be simultaneous. I'll even admit God could create himself. But the problem is that under all of these conditions, time could create itself as well, as could space. God would be an un-necessary cause in the chain, and thus by Occam's Razor, be excluded. This is a non-sequiter fallacy - all of his many premises do not lead to the conclusion that time MUST have had something to begin it. There is no scientific evidence one way or the other. The simple fact is that we don't know. B5. If it's not an abstraction it must be a disembodied mindFirst con argues science can confirm metaphysics when talking about God. This is useful, because this point is talking about disembodied minds, a distinct concept from God. Anyway, my opponent still doesn't explain why arguing for God from science isn't arguing in a circle. If God is the basis for science, then how can science confirm God without premising God's existence? The law of identity is that everything is itself, ie, that 9=9. That doesn't stop 9 being other things as well, such as the number just after 8. The law of identity is not to be taken in a restrictive fasion but rather an inclusive fashion. So how can my opponent tell that the number nine is not the cause of the universe? If that is what it is, then so it is, according to the law of identity. After all, nine is immaterial. It's omnipresent, in that it will still be the same no matter where you go. And it's eternal - 9 will still be 9 at the end of the universe. The best part is that the existance of the number nine has been confirmed countless times by observation - God has not. I look forward to hearing the remainder of this point in your next argument. C6. "Eternally existing" makes no sense without timeYeah, I changed my lettering system to avoid confusion over A and B. Here's the contradiction again. In time, God did not exist for eternity. He only existed since the dimension was created. And there we have the problem. If we say God existed BEFORE the creation of time, then we aren't making sense because BEFORE is a unit of time relative to something else. As a unit of time, it implies the existance of time outside of time, which would contradict the notion God created time. Notice that none of this has anything to do with whether time is conceptual. It's all based on the scientific principle that you can't apply unreal units to real things. Let us presume time is not a dimension, time is just an illusion, what my opponent calls the B-theory. What if there is no before and after? Then time does not really exist, and therefore eternity does not really exist, since eternity is a measure of something that does not really exist.