The God Hypothesis should be a Scientific theory

I think pro for his rebuttals. Counter-Arguments "Who creates the creator? And who creates the creator of the creator? The list can literally go on forever." In accordance with pro"s argument, it seems that the law of cause and effect is artificially restricted to the existing universe. I have some serious doubts about this assertion. It may perhaps be true that in space-time that is infinite, the laws of physics do not apply, but it does not necessarily imply that the law of cause and effect was also inapplicable. Besides, if the law of cause and effect is indeed inapplicable, how can we explain the creation itself? Isn"t the universe the effect of God"s creation at the singularity? Pro also suggested that "even if it did apply outside,...be cause of it" my question remains: who is the creator of the creator? In a sense, "God" can be seen as a "effect" of an unknown "cause." Since every cause is the direct or indirect consequence of another cause, an individual event can be either treated as cause or effect, depending on how the observers incline to perceive it. If the law of Cause and Effect was genuine, it should be applicable in all cases. And if we had to make an exception to the law of cause and effect, it would be constituting begging the question: God is not subjected to the law of cause an effect because it is not. "Given the fact that time is also a man-made concept" It is not my contention to argue that Time is a man-made concept per se. The argument may perhaps be better perceived if I instead suggested that the number system used to label the beginning of time is a man-made system. And if that is the case, it is not unreasonable to conclude that we do not have to define the beginning of everything at time zero. The argument was not well constructed at the first place. I deeply apologized for any misunderstanding. As regarding to to the Space-Time theory of General Relativity, it may perhaps be true that everything has to have a concrete beginning, the theory falls short of explaining if this beginning cannot be an approximation of infinite past. Mathematically speaking, it is not impossible to have an infinite series to express a single point. If the same principle is applicable in the case of time, the beginning of time does not have to be a single point, but rather it can encompass an infinite past and the point itself is merely a perfect approximation. In other word, if the beginning of the time is defined at time 1, a universe can exist forever on the time-scale 0.999...and eventually come to the beginning of everything. Another way (although less obvious) to show that the infinite past is not impossible is to show that the function expanding of the universe can be constructed in terms of a function. One thing about BGV theorem is that it only stresses the expansion beyond time zero, and it leaves people to wonder what will happen when the time approaches to negative zero. Mathematicians usually separate positive zero from negative zero when they deal with limits and infinite. I am under the impression that the BGV theory may model the expansion of the universe as a logarithm function. If it is the case, then when the time approaches negative zero, the entire function approaches to negative infinite, another illustration why there could be an infinite past. On the basis on the above analysis, I believe that there can be an infinite past and it is therefore not absolutely necessary to have a creator for the beginning of the universe. The Finely-Tuned Universe I agree with Pro"s analysis on the theory of Multiverse, albeit on a rather different ground. As pro had suggested, the fine-tune events appear to be significant when one constant is altered while holding other constants unchanged. If this fine-tune theory, however, might be interpreted in terms of natural law e.g., The structure of DNA has to be double helix, the fine-tune theory may appear to be plausible. In this case, however, the fine-tune theory is really a description of natural phenomenon. I may need more time to explore this idea. Rebuttal Part II "Both these physical laws...and immaterial as well as personal force." The word "must" suggests that this "enteral life force" can be the only logic implication of the observations and no other possibility shall be considered plausible. But one may ask: wouldn't it be possible that there is a god who creates the beginning of everything and then leaves everything else to its own fate? It is not out of absolute certainty that an eternal life force has to come to existence. There is a theory called Alien Creation Theory. It suggests that the creation of the entire universe is an alien experiment, and the fine-tuned theory can be explained by a pre-program mechanism (similar to computer programs). Just like human can stimulus reality (in military training), it is not impossible for any advanced race to impose certain order on the chaos of genetic evolutions. The alien creation theory is widely seen in both Video Games (Mass Effect) and Films (Prometheus & Matrix). It is not entirely clear to me why the god we are worshiping right now cannot be mortals or may perhaps even abandon us after the creations. As for the personal mind, If we assumed that the Creator does exist, it is not unreasonable to conclude that every species on earth is the creation of the creator. If that was the case, every DNA (perhaps even RNA) that holds vital information can only from the Creator. It implies that this Creator not only possesses human mind, but may also encompasses all the minds that every ever existed organisms and the organism that yet come to live. Arguably, not all organisms share human minds. Some single-cells organisms may not have "minds" at all. It appears that this God possesses the capability to perceive both mind and non-mind (or absolute mind and all powerful as pro had suggested) . If it is the case, then a natural question would follow: Why this particular creator creates humans with mind whereas other organisms without human minds? What is so special about human races, and why human species come into exist only about three million years ago whereas the universe has existed about billions of years? Absolute Mind & All Powerful and All Knowing The validity of the assertions of absolute mind and all powerful and all knowing can be true only if the arguments concerned about omni-present, eternal and immaterial is true. But since there is no rational basis to support the above claim, the contentions may not be used to advance pro"s arguments. Null Hypothesis & Falsification One example that I am able to imagine is the mass extinction at the end of Cretaceous period. The God hypothesis, as proposed by con, necessarily defines a personal God. The mass extinction happened at the end of Cretaceous lead to the extinction of dinosaur and up to 70% of all species on the planets. Mammals such as humans made their first appearance after the extinction and dominate earth ever since. The mass extinction can be explained by natural forces such as asteroid impacts or continent shifts. The God hypothesis may not be very successful in explaining the mass extinction since it requires assumption that that God would need favor one particular specie over another. The fundamental perception of every human mind is the sense of justice. Supposedly we indeed inherit minds from the Creator, it follows that Creator should also appear to be fair minded. Then it leads to the conclusion that he shall treat all species equally. The mass extinction happened 65 million years ago emphatically suggests that the Supreme Being loves human species more than any others. If the God is truly unbiased, why does he decide to sacrifice other species in order for human species to prosper? P.S. I may have to leave Null Hypothesis for the final round since I am still contemplating the idea of fine-tuned universe.