The God Hypothesis is the best scientific explanation for existence

The God HypothesisAny debate about God's existence is going to be philosophical, and not "scientific". The Law of Cause and EffectIt seems my Pro is appealing to the phrase "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence". However, it surely isn't evidence of presence either, (especially when dealing with something as counter intuitive as quantum mechanics). I don't really buy into that logic for the most part, because lets say I turn my pocket inside out, shake it a around a bit, pick out the lint, and turn the pocket the other direction there is a complete lack of evidence of any change or bills. This would be solid evidence of the absence of any money in my pocket.Also, the thing with quantum events is that nothing seems to change in their environment to cause them, and they are very weird and extremely counter intuitive. Uncaused events are not something "out of the norm" once you understand this. My opponent also appeals to their being 11 different interpretations of quantum mechanics. However, the Copenhagen interpretation [1] is the most widely accepted, and is extremely indeterministic.The "we are just ignorant of the cause of these events" arguments is simply not convincing. Pro also begs the question regarding the universe being the totality of all anything which the laws of physics can apply to. No modern major physicist I have researched believes this, I would post more quotes from more scientists if I had more room, but since you mentioned Alexander Vilenkin, he states: "The state of 'nothing' cannot be identified with absolute nothingness. The tunneling is described by the laws of quantum mechanics, and thus 'nothing' should be subject to these laws. The laws of physics must have existed, even though there was no universe" [2] - Alexander VilenkinWith regards to quantum fluctuations, the common view is that the conservation of energy seems to be violated for short periods of time (which is allowed by the Uncertainty Principle) with the spontaneous creation of energy out of empty space. Quantum events requiring no "trigger" (or cause) is no leap for the imagination, which is clear. So my opponent's objections are simply unfounded.Objective causation, and causal dependencies themselves presupposes time anyway, which undermines the God Hypothesis.The Cause of the UniverseSince my opponent failed to show that the law of cause and effect is completely universal, and I showed that there are events which all evidence points to being uncaused, then there is no reason to accept a "cause of the universe" either considering quantum fluctuations are spontaneous creations of energy (allowed by known physics), which is pretty much what the big bang would have been like (but on a much larger scale). Also, there was no "before" The Big Bang for this cause to exist. My opponent tries to debate in favor of simultaneous causation, when all examples we have could only occur if the causal dependency exists temporally prior. It seems like a poor attempt to save the "cause of the universe". The Beginning of the UniverseSince I have argued that there is no reason to necessitate causes with effects in counter-intuitive areas (I'm sure the beginning of the whole universe, definitely falls under this category), then even if the universe had a beginning, a cause does not logically follow. Regardless, Alexander Vilenkin's model [3] of how the universe began is plausible, and is so without appealing to a background space or time, also Steven Hawking's no boundary proposal entails a universe where time is finite but has no beginning point (like a sphere has a finite surface area and no starting point one could every measure), both are which completely consistent with the theorem mentioned by Pro. "Theologians have often welcomed any evidence for the beginning of the universe, regarding it as evidence for the existence of God … So what do we make of a proof that the beginning is unavoidable? Is it a proof of the existence of God? This view would be far too simplistic. Anyone who attempts to understand the origin of the universe should be prepared to address its logical paradoxes. In this regard, the theorem that I proved with my colleagues does not give much of an advantage to the theologian over the scientist." - Alexander Vilenkin (pg. 176 of Many Worlds In One)The Fine-Tuning ArgumentWhat I argued is that the Fine-tuning argument is not an argument for intelligent design, but rather an argument against intelligent design. The idea of an extreme fine-tuning beyond which the target cannot exist is indicative of a precarious natural system, not of any divine intelligent planning. I presented syllogism that my opponent failed to refute. Remember, I don't have to show how naturalism can account for this apparent "fine-tuning". All I have to do, is argue that the apparent "fine-tuning", doesn't fit with the God Hypothesis. I believe I have met my burden (I would delve into fine-tuning more, but my room is limited).Substance Dualism1) My opponent is claiming that the brain and mind are not the same, well, sure. The images a screen aren't the same as the projector, that doesn't mean the images are independent of what the projector does. Also gravity has no mass and doesn't have any spatial dimensions, yet it is still completely physical. Wave/particle relationships, and non-material forces produced by particles aren't material or have mass, yet they are 100% physical. (I think my opponent is confusiong materialism and physicalism). So even if one could describe the mind as something which is immaterial (which, I'm not conceding by the way), it wouldn't follow from this that it was non-physical or supernatural. Pro asserts that secondary properties favor dualism as well, however he hasn't shown that the mind is not a natural phenomenon, which we know it is, since it's activities are clearly caused by, and dependent on certain brain activity. Since the concept of "secondary properties" come from our brains in the first place, there is no reason to think this somehow favors such a flawed philosophical doctrine like dualism, which has utterly failed in the light of neuroscience (if we are speaking about the philosophy that mind which regarding mind activities not being dependent on particular brain activities).My opponent also states:"A strictly physical and material world arguably force us to deny them including the existence of abstract objects which are not suppose to be contingent upon anything."I would argue, that they are dependent on matter. "A tennis game" is an abstract object for example but in reality, it is used to describe a particular rearrangements of matter (people moving and balls flying). Also without brains (matter), the very idea of abstract objects wouldn't even be a reailty. 2) Pro asserts this as well:"the origin of lifeÃ‚Â continues to remain a mystery. CON is prematurely concluding that the origin of life is settled science but where is the evidence for this."I never concluded the origin of life is settled, it is far from it. We know Abiogenesis happened somehow however, even if we don't know exactly how (like if we see a vase smashed on the ground we know it was smashed, even if we don't know the exact method). Also, trying to place God as the culprit for the origin if life because science cannot fully explain it is a classical God of the Gaps fallacy.ConclusionPro seems to have completely failed to meet his burden of proof, and every claim of his I didn't falsify, I at least undermined. Thus, I believe I have the upper hand in this debate. Sources[1] http://plato.stanford.edu... [2] http://debunkingwlc.wordpress.com...[3] http://debunkingwlc.wordpress.com...