The God Hypothesis should be considered a Scientific theory

I welcome the latest installment of this debate by my partner. To say the least I was curious as to what form it might have taken. I feel, this round, that I can best continue my challenge of his premise by offering a few rebuttals. "What CON is babbling about (regarding gods and godesses from different religions) is nonsense and completely off topic. He is in a sense just attacking a strawmen." Obviously, I disagree, and I am fairly certain that many readers will, as well. I view our current discussion as follows: Science can be employed to prove that certain fantastical beings exist – such as gods and goddesses. One way that this can be done is by way of the “God Hypothesis,” which suggests that if science does not know what created the universe, then science knows that a god or goddess created it. If we remove the gods and goddesses element from the argument, what we are left with is a nonsensical statement about nothing: Science can be employed to prove that certain fantastical beings exist. One way that this can be done is by way of the “Hypothesis,” which suggests that if science does not know what created the universe, then science knows that.” I maintain, therefore, that the gods and goddesses element is a necessary component of the debate, and cannot be removed without significant argument destabilization. My own counter argument reads in a way that is very similar to that used by my opponent, if his demand that we do not discuss gods and goddesses is followed: Science can be used to explain the origins of the universe, but cannot do so right now – due to insufficient data. " In summary, CON is so wrong when he says 'none of the "science" matters with regard to this topic" until the theology is consistent. The "god" in the God Hypothesis must come first'. I am afraid not." It is very difficult for me to accept this statement as anything other than blasphemy. Were I to be a religious person, I would be loath to place anything before whatever god I wanted to declare allegiance to. Additionally, the god of the Hebrews may be outraged that a mere hypothesis could supplant his divine rule. " Once this question is answered and I win the debate , then we can ask the question as to which religion is true ... the theology debate becomes meaningless when its never been established that there is a god in the first let alone a particular GOD." Here we agree; I feel that my partner is correct in asserting that it has never been established that there are gods and goddesses in the first place. Until that has been done, any discussion of how these gods and goddesses may interact with their environments is speculative – and cannot be used as the basis of a scientific theory. "Again, I made it very clear to CON in round 2 that when I say fine-tuned for life, I am talking about fine-tuned for the building blocks and environments that life of ANY kind requires. CON's response is whats called "carbon based chauvism" where CON just automatically assumes that humans or carbon based life forms are the only kind of life that can and actually exist throughout the universe." This argument has two components: 1. The universe is hospitable – on balance – to the building blocks and environments that any kind of life requires 2. There are likely non-carbon life forms that can exist where we cannot These two arguments should be treated separately. I regard 1 as utterly absurd: when we view the universe we see mostly empty space – not life, and no environments that support any of the basic building blocks of life – except on earth. Even on earth, life is tenuous, and short-lived when viewed on a cosmic scale. Argument 2 is only an act of speculation: “If we can’t see around the corner, then it’s possible that almost anything could be around that corner.” Such speculative hopes are not the grounds by which the scientific community bases its theories. "Unless CON has evidence or can soundly argue that carbon based life forms are the only kind of life forms, the fine-tuning argument stands because there could be other types of life asides our own we might call "life" now or in the future. (I doubt he can do this since there are already experiments that show amino acids and RNA viruses ,which are two of the three essential components of life, can come from non-life. )" I am happy to agree with my partner that life can indeed come from non-life. This argument of his helps to support my argument, which is that the influence of gods and goddesses in this process is unnecessary. Direct empirical evidence for a cause is not required in science/scientific method nor is the mechanism for it. I honestly have no idea what this sentence means. "Again, there are all kinds of things that we can't see or identify but yet we see there effects which led us to potential hypothesises about what they potentially were and how those things manifest using the inductive method of reasoning." No there isn’t. My partner goes on to say: "For example, We know that gravitational forces accounts for planetary orbits, why masses fall to the ground on earth, etc... But, we cannot clearly define, directly observe, nor determine the mechanism for which gravity uses to move objects. We just take it as a brute fact." However, in the case of gravity – we can indeed observe the phenomenon in action. This is not the case with gods and goddesses. For example, if I “chose” not to believe in gravity, I would not get far before I was forced to comply with its forces. If my partner were to “choose” to believe that gods and goddesses could grant him wishes, he would not get far before he would be forced to admit that they will not. " The Law of Cause and Effect, which is a scientific law I referenced, does not entail or require that every cause must have an explanation for it." I am not at all certain which scientific law my partner is referring to. I am unaware of any “Law of Cause and Effect.” I would need to know more about this before I can rebut the information that he provides here. He could be talking about “Karma,” a doctrine that is often called a “law” by Buddhists. "the law of cause and effect does not apply outside the Universe. So the question as to what created God is purely a philosophical question. Thus, since there is no scientific reason that would compell us to go another step further in asking what created God, we apply occams Razor in this situation. Occam's Razor is a principle urging one to select among competing hypotheses that which makes the fewest assumptions and thereby offers the simplest explanation of the effect. In other words, one should not multiply causes beyond necessity. There is no need to deposit another cause that are equally or greater than this cause in this situation. The casual chain apparently stops here." Occam’s Razor stipulates that, all else being equal, the simplest solution to a given problem – that accounts for all of the parameters – is normally the best answer in most situations. Occam’s Razor is specifically ill-suited to demonstrate that a god or goddess created the universe with magic. This type of proposition explosively adds complexity, and does not remove it – thereby violating Occam’s Razor. Examples of complexity: where is the native habitat of the gods? What do they eat? How so they procreate? What do they look like? Etc. My argument as of this round: The God Hypothesis as it is being presented, is an act of heresy to Abrahamic religion, and has no scientific backing. It assumes that if science does not know what created the universe, then science can know that it was a god or goddess that accomplished this feat. This is a well-known logical fallacy, called “appeal to ignorance,” and offers no basis for scientific proof.