The God Hypothesis is a valid Scientific theory

Omni-present, eternal and immaterialThe Law of Cause and Effect may very well mean that for every effect in the universe, there must be a cause, but it does not mean that things outside of the universe have a cause. The properties of something cannot necessarily be used to determine the beginnings of that something. The Law of Biogenesis is not an absolute, in fact it is far from absolute. There is plenty of evidence, including the evidence from the Miller-Urey experiment, which we be discussed a little later. There is more evidence to support that the elements present in the early atmosphere, when charged with electricity (lighting), produced the amino acids that are the building blocks of life. My opponent provides no evidence to support biogenesis over abiogenesis, which is the origin of life from non living material.This refutes my opponent's ar gument that there must be a creator with an eternal life force without spatial and temporal properties who consciously designed carbon based life forms along with the universe itself. Personal Absolute MindI would argue that my opponent's arguments under this section are much more philosophical than scientific. The bases of his arguments include mathematical Platonism and ideas from Descartes. Both Plato and Descartes were not scientists. They were philosophers. Part of the rules for this debate state: "This means unless my opponent can back it up with scientific evidence, NO philosophical arguments or claims." This works both ways, and so my opponent's philosophical argument should not be counted.Regardless, this argument alone is not enough to prove God.All-powerful and all-knowing"The expansion rate of the universe, which is called , will continue to accelerate with increasing speeds forever."Not true. Scientists do not know what the universe will do because they do not completely know the nature of dark matter [1]. There are several possibilities. One is that the universe will go on forever. Another is that eventually the universe will collapse back in on itself in the Big Crunch and the Big Bang will be reversed. Others include the Big Freeze, the Big Rip, and the Big Bounce.This means that the attributes of the cause do not have to be omnipotent.Therefore, I argue that the cause is not all-powerful or all knowing, and therefore it is not omniscient.Falsification1. Theory of EverythingIt is true that there currently no theory of everything, but it is certainly in the works. My opponent states that once scientists discover a successful theory..., thus agknowledging that scientists will one day find a unified theory. 2, Life from Non-life "The Miller Urey-experiment attempted to prove the origin of life (as we know it) could have occurred on the early earth under natural conditions without intelligence, but the experiment actually provided compelling evidence for exactly the opposite conclusion."Another fallacy. In fact, my opponent's source claims that the experiment did show exactly how life could have occurred from non-life. Nowhere does the source state that the experiment provided evidence opposite that. From his source:"After Miller's death in 2007, scientists examining sealed vials preserved from the original experiments were able to show that there were actually well over 20 different amino acids produced in Miller's original experiments. That is considerably more than what Miller originally reported, and more than the 20 that naturally occur in life. Moreover, some evidence suggests that Earth's original atmosphere might have had a different composition from the gas used in the Miller–Urey experiment. There is abundant evidence of major volcanic eruptions 4 billion years ago, which would have released carbon dioxide (CO2), nitrogen (N2), hydrogen (H2S), and sulfur dioxide (SO2) into the atmosphere. Experiments using these gases in addition to the ones in the original Miller–Urey experiment have produced more diverse molecules" [2]. 3. Mind-Body DualismMy opponent has argued that there is mind body dualism, but in no way connects this to God.ConclusionI have shown that several of my opponent's claims are false, and he has not yet logically connected his claims to the existence of God, and then connected that to the three standards. He still has much work to do.Sources:[1]- http://en.wikipedia.org...[2]- http://en.wikipedia.org...