The God Hypothesis should be a Scientific theory

Rebuttals There are essentially two parts in pro"s arguments. The first part concerns about the the origin of the singularity, and the second part deals with the "omnipresent, eternal, and immaterial. " My rebuttals would be separated into two parts: Rebuttal Part I, and Rebuttal Part II with the latter one addressed in next round. By designing my rebuttals in this way, I believe it would provide myself and my opponent with sufficient time and space to make detailed counter-arguments. My primary focus in this round is to counter the arguments that pro has made about the beginning of the universe and fine-tuned universe/life. Rebuttal Part I THE BEGINNING OF THE UNIVERSE Pro argued that space, time, and matter and energy all had a concrete beginning, and since matter and energy cannot exist without time, the singularity had to have come into being as well. The theory resembles the famous Paley"s Watchmaker argument which argued that since there has to be a designer for the watch, there has to be a creator for human as well. A common way to rebut the theory is to ask the question: who creates the creator? And who creates the creator of the creator? The list can literally go on forever. In this debate, in addition to the above philosophical rebuttal, I attempt to prove that there can be an infinite past. Sequence In mathematics, a sequence is an ordered list of objects. Perhaps the most famous sequence in mathematics is the Fibonacci Sequence (Fibonacci numbers). [2] 0,1,1,2,3,5,8,13,21,34,55,89,144. .. The unique proper of the fibonacci sequence is that any subsequent number is the sum of the previous two. Infinite Sequence (or Series) A series is an infinite ordered set of terms combined together by the addition operator (+, -, x, /). The term infinite series is sometimes used to emphasize the fact that series contain an infinite number of terms. [3] It has been proved that 0.999. .. = 1 For those who have the stomach for some technical details, please visit . http://en.wikipedia.org...... Obviously, in a mathematical sense, an integer can be constructed or represented as a sum of an infinite series. Applying the infinite series to the origin of time It is debatable if the infinite series can be applied in the case of the origin of the singularity. One could certainly argue that there would be no infinite approximation for the beginning of the time, which is usually defined at time zero. Two possible solutions would be proposed to solve this problem: S1. Re-define the beginning of the time. Number system itself is an artificial invention developed by Indian mathematicians. The primary object of number system is to address and simplify the natural phenomenal by converting it into mathematics. Number zero is invented to fulfills a central role in mathematics as the additive identity of the integers, real numbers, and many other algebraic structures. Given the fact that time is also a man-made concept, one can redefine the beginning of everything at time-scale 1 which, in theory, equals to 0.999. .. S2. Shift Time Scale. Another way to solve the problem is to "shift" the time-scale forward by scale 1 and then shift the entire time-scale back to time zero. The main purpose of this shift is to derive an infinite series for time zero. For example, assuming that if the beginning of everything is defined at point zero, we can define a function f(x) = 0 where f(x) represents the beginning of the time. The second function, which is designed to shift the previously defined function, can be defined as f(x) = f(x) + 1 where f(x) = 0 and The third function, defined as f(x) = f(x) -1 where f(x) = f(x) + 1 and f(x) = 0, will shift the time-scale back to its original state. By shifting the system forward and the backward, we derive an infinite series (0.000. .. ) that can represent the beginning of the time. And since 0.999. .. and 0.000. .. are both infinite series, it is not unreasonable to assume that there could be an infinite past. THE FINELY-TUNED UNIVERSE The finely-turned universe is another contentious topic in the field of theoretical physics. It is debatable whether the universe is indeed fine-tuned or the fine-tuned is nothing but a random variations. Numerous theories have been established to explain the fine-tuned universe phenomenal. For more details, please visit: . http://en.wikipedia.org... . http://biologos.org... In this debate, I will be briefly discussing Multiverse theory (since the theory has been mentioned by pro in his argument) and then I will proceed to discuss my own opinions on the topic. Multiverse The concept is built on the statistical probability theory. In statistics, suppose someone rolls a set of two dice (six faces, number ranges from 1 to 6). Assuming that he only rolls a set of two dice once, the probability that he gets double six is 1/36 (out of 36 different possibilities). In analogy, the fine-tune universe argument states that the odds of rolling the dice to get, by chance, a universe where life can exist, are extremely low, given the fact that there is only a finite number of choices for the physics constants that are considered essential for life. The multiverse hypothesis assumes the existence of many universe and suggests that there could be infinite number of universes and life just happens to be in one of them. Critics rebuked the arguments by suggesting that: 1. There is no evidence that other universes exist (or even if there exists other universes, one universe is deemed inaccessible to another). 2. There are no guarantees that all possible values of physical constants can be generated to ensure the existence of this universe at the beginning of the time. My understandings of fine-tuned universe There is no fine-tuned universe The slightest change itself contains infinite number of possibilities. For example, there are infinite sets of numbers between natural number 1 and 2. The word "change" necessarily presupposes the measurements. In other word, "change" means the "change" that we can measure and perceive. The human technology can only measure "change" up to a certain degree of accuracy, which suggests that a change can be made without necessarily invalidating the entire natural system. Therefore, in a sense, it is not entirely reasonable to assume that there must be a narrowly constructed sets of values that permit life come into existence. The Equilibrium State - Life exists in a state of balance Equilibrium means a state of balance. The Equilibrium state is achieved when the reactants and products are in equilibrium with each other. According to the fine-tuning theory, there are many constants in the nature, and the slightest change in these values would prevent any kind of life from evolving or existing. Some of the most widely recognized physical constants are the speed of light in vacuum, the gravitational constant, and Planck"s constant. The life is, however, formed in a equilibrium state whereas all constants exist in homogeneity. If one constant is changed, the equilibrium is shifted, as shown in the chemical reaction, and new equilibrium state is formed. Therefore, even if there is a slightest change in these constants, it does not necessarily mean the life we know cannot form in the new equilibrium state. Besides, all these so-called constants are either defined or measured on the basis of another constants, and I have yet found an example of absolute constant that bears no relation to other constants or equations. In other word, I believe that all these constants are derived from a formula which entails other constants. I would like pro to explain his theory in more details. To be continued. .. References . http://www.acsu.buffalo.edu... . http://mathworld.wolfram.com...