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

As people may have noticed in the last round, I provided scientific terms after careful consideration. I will be explaining these terms in this round . THE GOD HYPOTHESIS CON needs to understand that the conclusion from the totality of my empirical observations is me providing "newly" found knowledge of a disembodied or absolute mind. I do agree that if I don't successfully defend what I feel is a piece of evidence of a metaphysical entity, it would not necessarily falsify the God hypothesis but it would prevent negation of the null hypothesis. Also, the fine-tuning observation for design could imply consicuousness as well. THE BEGINNING OF THE UNIVERSE Let me clarify something I said last round. What I mean with the universe having a beginning is that one point in the past space, time, and matter/energy came into being. At this point, called the initial singularity, gravity, space-time curvature, density etc. becomes infinite. I think CON is confusing the the theory of general relativity (Einstein created) which does NOT include quantum gravity with the Space-Time Theorem of General Relativity (Hawking and Penrose) which does include quantum gravity. Even though quantum gravity does reject singularities, According to the Hartle-Hawking's model, The Space-time theorem still shows a concrete beginning of space-time, matter, energy from a single point. This point just would not be a singularity of "infinite" density. Lastly, matter and energy cannot exist without time, so CON cannot say time did not exist but the universe still existed. This means the singularity had to have come into being as well because the law of conservation of energy does not hold at this initial singularity or boundary. OMNI-PRESENT, ETERNAL, AND IMMATERIAL When I say spaceless, timeless,etc, I am saying this cause would not be what we understand space and time to be through science and reason. If thats how he wants to put it, then I don't see how this challenges my inferences. However, for the sake of argument, I will go along with PRO's contention since I think it will be good in giving a clear understanding of time. There are two theories of time. The A-theory of time and the B-theory of time: The A-theory of time is the logical and concrete time I explained in round 2 where there's a series of "moments".The nature of a moment is "a beginning of the future and an end of the past." We as limited human beings can only understand this theory of time because we exist in it. I have already explained logically and concretely why this theory of time is what the universe itself would operate under. The B-theory of time (or meta-time as some would call it) is the definition of eternity where there is no such thing as past or future. There would only be one moment of time, which is referred to as the "NOW" or present, which means eternity cannot and is not a measure of time as we know it, according to CON. This theory of time is what I argued God to operate under since the universe cannot and does not operate under it. THE FINE-TUNING Let me explain another scientific term. Fine-tuning just means that the laws and constants fall under an extraordinarily narrow range of life permitting values in which the right value was chosen every time. Therefore, this is called fine tuning, but it does not mean its design. A cosmic designer would be one of the explanation of this fine-tuning that I am advocating but the terms are not synonymous. 1) Well first off, I was not trying to argue that the universe is fined-tuned for just human life but according to the generic definition of life that scientists define, which is the ability of an organism to take in energy, metabolize it, and reproduce after its own kind. This is why I specifically said ANY kind of life to evolve and exist anywhere in the universe. If the constants were even altered just a little, You would not get chemistry or matter much less planets and stars that can serve as places where life might evolve. For example, in terms of how finely tuned these parameters would be, most of them are 1% different. However, the cosmolgical constant which refers to the expansion rate of the universe or the future eternal inflation I spoke of in round 2 is so finely tuned its tuned to 120 decimal places. If this were different, the universe would be so drastically different it would be impossible for us to evolve. So even if we assume for the sake of argument that complex life came from non-life through random mutations and natural selection, these finely-tune parameters would be required for any life to exist. 2) CON's world ensemble hypothesis: I agree with CON when he says that we cannot know whether there are more than one universe in the first place nor have any evidence of them, so posing this as an alternative makes his point moot. However, for the sake of argument, let's assume there is more than one universe that could exist outside of our own. The problem with this explanation is that it does not answer the question as to why this "life-permitting" universe exist. All it does is just beg the question of "well, it just has to exist" because under an infinite number of universes its possible that there could be at least one life permitting universe from an infinite or large number of chances. The other problem is that this world ensemble hypothesis,as being the explanation for fine-tuning, is so unthinkably improbable that it would require an infinite number of fine-tuning from an infinite number of universes for this to reasonably happen. The main problem is that the BGV theorem would essentially require this multiverse to have a beginning as well, so it could only be a finite number of universes. Therefore, even if CON deposits many universes or versions of the multi-verse, it still would not weed out the God hypothesis as the actual explanation for the fine-tuning of our universe. This is because there has to be an absolute beginning in some way shape or form anyways and the world ensemble hypothesis does not explain anything. Unless CON can somehow provide some explainatory power as to how exactly this explaination would yield a life-permitting universe from a finite number of universes colliding or something, his objections on the fine-tuning cannot stand. 3) Knowledge is a subset of intelligence. Intelligence is the understanding of that knowledge through demonstration and behaviors. Since eternal inflation is a product of fine-tuning, infinite intelligence would be a mixture of all-knowing and all powerful, So no there not synonyms but it does not matter. http://en.wikipedia.org... SUBSTANCE DUALISM Instead of responding to CON's arguments here, I am going to explain and describe some terms so I can better to respond to CON's objections and for the audience to follow along. Reductive materialism, Epiphenomenalism, Substance dualism are three general views of mind-body dualism: Reductive materialism: This view basically claims that mental and physical properties (mind and brain) are identical and synonymous. Epiphenomenalism: this view accepts that mental and physical properties are separate entities but claims that the mind has no causal power and all mental events are ultimately caused by physical events. Substance dualism: my view is essentially the same as Epiphenomenalism except that the mind has causal power over the brain and vice versa. However, it does not assert that the mind is completely independent from the brain as CON suggested like what you see in movies or cartoons. That is a separate claim neither CON or I can prove or disprove. I have already made it clear to CON that I claimed my empirical observations suggest that there's an absolute mind not a human mind. CON needs to be clear as to what he is objecting to and arguing for me to respond. Is CON arguing that Reductive materialism or Epiphenomenalism is true or that Substance dualism is false?