The God Hypothesis should be a Scientific theory

I myself greatly enjoyed this debate. Regardless of the eventual outcome, I would like to thank Pro for his elegant reasoning and insightful response. I have devoted all my energy to debunking the Law of Cause and Effect since I believe the very theory is the foundation of all pro"s arguments. By destroying it, as what I have attempted to do, I may be able to completely destroy Pro"s argument without necessarily discussing the more abstract or even intrusive concepts. I firmly believe the mathematical theory is applicable at the point of singularity. After all, all the theories in the field of theoretical physics such as Bing Bang or BGV theory are all constructed on the basis of mathematical formulas. I invoked a mathematical theory in attempting to prove that there could be an infinite past. As I have noticed, Pro did not spend much time on discussing the mathematical proof that I have proposed. For the reasons unknown, it may suggest that Pro had admitted that this particular mathematical theory should have some valid claim in dealing with the singularity. The philosophical discussion of the Law of Cause and Effect was primarily used to introduce the the idea of "Infinite series and sequences". Without discussing the infinite regress (cause of causes), it is very hard to conjure a image about how the universe can come into being without a beginning. The mathematical theory has patently suggested that the point of singularity can be an infinite collection of time. With respect to the utter destruction of science, my response is: relax. Whenever we try to a establish a theory or intend to investigate a scientific problem, we always try to do it in a way that we can measure it. Clinic trials, for example, only involve measurable trails. The limitation of human knowledge necessarily confines us within the boundary of material world. Spirits worlds are used to educate people, but not for establishing a scientific theory. The beginning of the universe and the God hypothesis, however, inherently involves in imagery theory and countless conjurations. These theory can be neither proved nor disproved because it cannot be materialized. How is it possible to test a hypothesis like "God wills it. ?" Therefore, the idea of infinite regress is not incompatible with the current practices. Does it make falsifiable predictions with consistent accuracy across a broad area of scientific inquiry? I believe that the mathematical theory I invoked should be sufficient to falsify pro"s hypothesis. Pro"s arguments are built upon a single assumption: There is no infinite past. By removing the underlying premise, his argument necessarily falls apart. Therefore, in a sense, by invaliding the central assumption, I did falsify his hypothesis, albeit not in a way that he had envisioned. P. S. With respect to the fine-tuning theory and Grand unified theory, I sensed that it is not in my best interests to contend the theory. The reason is twofoldFirst, both theories are highly contentious. In fact, Grand unified theory was rejected by Mr. Hawking for its untenability. By attempting to defend Grand Unified theory, I essentially would argue against some eminent physicists and I have yet mastered the necessary skills to explore such a complicate question. Second, the fine-tuning theory itself has yet been recognized in the science community. In other words, it may not be a valid natural observation. By attempting to utilize a hypothesis (the God hypothesis) to prove a controversial observation (fine-tuning theory), it may not be entirely scientific. Is it well-supported by many independent strands of evidence, rather than a single foundation? Perhaps and perhaps not. But it is not really support by a mathematical theory which suggests that there can be an infinite past. Besides, all pro"s arguments are necessarily based on a single assumption: there is no infinite past. Without this central piece of argument, his arguments will collapse. Is it consistent with pre-existing theories and other experimental results? No. First, It runs afoul of a particular branch of mathematics. Second, as I have mentioned previously, the God hypothesis is not compatible with evolution theory: Why did mammals make their first appearance about 65 million years ago? And why does this personalized God decide to sacrifice other species in order for human species to prevail? What is so particular about the time? What is so special about the human races? If this God was all powerful, should he also contain the thoughts of these pre-historical organisms? It is hard to fathom why humans are the only species that can have a real relationship with him. Third, If the God hypothesis can be considered an established theory, it should provide a plausible explanations to the mass extinction happened 65 million years ago. The God hypothesis would be explaining in the following way: God wills it. Perhaps everything we have been doing falls into the domain of "God wills it. " The God hypothesis would devoid a range of disciplines which study human evolutions and commentary history all because of one phrase: "God wills it. " It is a convenient theory, but perhaps not a scientific one. Did Con"s arguments successfully prevent my hypothesis from rejecting the Null Hypothesis? My answer is yes. As I have explained above, if there is an infinite past, pro"s argument would not survive. Now, even if the God hypothesis is a valid hypothesis, there is no reason to believe that the God hypothesis is a better hypothesis. Pro has established is that the God hypothesis is a convenient theory. The hypothesis can explain a vast number of seemly intricate questions with an easy answer: God wills it. Quantum fluctuations would not better explain the data because the quantum randomness is immeasurable in such a complicate and interactive system. There is no mathematical formula can model the world flawlessly. But as I have suggested, pro"s argument does not really establish that the God theory is a better one. All he has concluded is that the theory is a convenient one. In conclusion, the God hypothesis should not be considered a scientific theory on the grounds that the very foundation of the theory is fallible thereby rendering the entire superstructure collapse. I have fully complied all the requirements set out by pro in the first round and I have strived to, within my capability, to address every point advanced by pro in the subsequent exchanges. I did refrained from confronting two contentious statements specifically: the fine-tuning theory and Grand unified theory. The fine-tuning theory is not falsifiable because of lack of man power and computer power to simulate another situations that may perhaps generate life forms. The Grand unified theory was abandoned on the grounds that the theory itself is unachievable, suggested by Mr. Hawking. I have successfully proved that there could be an infinite past. Hereby I affirm the alternative hypothesis: The God Hypothesis should not be a scientific theory. Thank you.