The God Hypothesis is the best scientific explanation for the origins of existence

1. "Pro says I can't prove that infinities exist in the universe, but that is an attempt to reverse the burden of proof. If it's important to him that infinities not exist, then he has to prove that they don't. And if they don't, then he doesn't get to use them himself. " I want the AUDIENCE to understand and be reminded by the title of the debate since CON does not seem to quite get the memo here. The whole point of my presentation was to provide the best SCIENTIFIC explanation for the origins of existence NOT prove the existence of GOD on philosophical grounds. Therefore, I was not using ,on its own merits, the first cause argument as an actual argument for God's existence. I was using it to establish a rational hypothesis that can be tested and translated within the physical world, which is what the scientific method would require, that would eventually show that the God hypothesis is the best explanation for origins of the universe. Therefore, that being said, it is up to CON to falsify my God hypothesis if he wants to win this kind of debate. I told him how he can falsify the God hypothesis already and he has yet to do this. If the God hypothesis is true, it would show that the universe had an absolute beginning in the past and that it came from nothing. CON can falsify this by showing that the universe had no cause at all, the cause for the effect could still be natural or the universe is eternal. This would completely negate and falsify the God hypothesis entirely. Secondly, again, I NEVER said that infinities don't exist. I said that an infinite quantity of something COULD NOT exist in REALITY because Every attempt to translate an infinite number of causes into the real world have produced contradictory results. I did not say they DO NOT exist as if its an brute fact that has been proven to be true for the physical and metaphysical world. There is a difference. Abstract objects like finite numbers and the logical absolutes can be translated into reality even though they are metaphysical by nature. Now as far as the existence of infinities on a qualitative level, of course they would have to be something that exist forever in some fashion. Either the universe is eternal and infinite or the God Hypothesis. I have already demonstrated that the universe could not be infinite or eternal, but apparently I have not been as clear. 2. "Pro admits that "There is no conceptual problem with an infinite set ' countable or uncountable '" (sic) of possible or conceivable universes. " That's a turn, a slam dunk for me. Infinite universes are "possible," according to Pro. Pro's case is dead. " CON must prove this that because something can exist in the mind and/or the realm of mathematics automatically means I am also saying that an actual infinite set of causes or quantities exist in reality. Potentiality is not the same thing as actuality. This is absurd and I never said this. According to CON, leprechauns exist and pink unicorns exist because we can concieve and draw them on paper. 3. "Pro says I misrepresented Steven Hawking, whose name he persists in misspelling even after being corrected. Pro quotes Hawking, in A Brief History of Time as saying that we don't know what happened before the big bang so we should say that nothing happened. That's like saying that if footprints appear out of the surf, that we should assume that somebody materialized there at the shore. (I'm not making fun of Hawking, whose point is that there's no point in speculating on what happened before the big bang: We just don't know. )" Well I never said I knew what happened before the big bang either. The point of my argument was to show that the universe had a beginning and that there was a cause for this beginning based on what we do know. 4. "But Pro tries to portray this as a claim that the universe actually started at the big bang. This is improper. " Well first off, Hawkings was never my chosen authority figure to cite but was CON'S authority. The theorem he created was what I cited and focused on. In Hawkings model of the universe, it has a beginning of the universe. However, the main theorem that was important in establishing the beginning of the universe was the BGV theorem that CON never really addressed. CON objected to the begininning of the universe because he is claiming that we don't have a complete theory of quantum gravity regarding the Planck time era. However, I told him that the Borde, Guth,Vilenken theorem is independent of that when it comes to the early universe. Even if we are just a tiny part of a so-called "multi-verse", their theorem would STILL require an absolute beginning from this multi-verse as well. CON then claims that there is not a consesus acceptance of this theorem or that there's an absolute beginning to the universe. The BGV theorem is indeed accepted amongst the world's leading physicists and it does describe reality according to them. Here is a quote by one of the creators of this theorem about their conclusion: "It is said that an argument is what convinces reasonable men and a proof is what it takes to convince even an unreasonable man. With the proof now in place, cosmologists can no longer hide behind the possibility of a past-eternal universe. .. . There is no escape, they have to face the problem of a cosmic beginning. " - Alexander Vilenkin. Its very simple: If u have an expansion greater than 0, the universe began. Period. In Conclusion, The only thing CON can do is create a straw man of my argument by claiming that I said infinities don't exist Second, CON failed to stay true to the debate subject and kept steering away from it during the debate. Third, CON's sources were based on unverifiable personal meetings or anecdote's and. .. .. .. "wikipedia". Enough said there. Fourth, CON never attempted to falsify the God hypothesis because He felt that he was not obligated to do so, which means the GOD hypothesis is the best explanation since it can't be shown false by default from CON.