The God Hypothesis is a supported Scientific explanation

ALTERNATIVE HYPOTHESIS Correction: In formulating the question for my hypothesis, I meant to say "If there is a cause at all, what caused the big bang?". Nevertheless, let me me explain the data based on the results. Although, this being would have to be a timeless cause; The very act of creation does imply a direct causal relationship between the cause and the effect in which this cause did not stand before and therefore would be a change that brings God into time. Thus, What I would argue based on the results is that Cause and effect must have been simultaneous and occurr within the same moment. In other words, The moment in which God caused the universe to come into being would also be the moment the universe came into being making the cause and effect simultaneous . Moreover, this personal absolute mind must have had the emotional desire to create finite human beings along with our life-permitting universe and then freely choose to act upon that desire with the intention of having a relationship with its human creation. Drawing from experience, this would be similar to human minds acting as agents in the physical world through our bodies. Then, as humans, we have the emotional desire to have offspring with the intention to also have a relationship with our offspring. NULL HYPOTHESIS Well first off, Quantum fluctuations would not explain how we as humans came to be or the fine-tuning of the universe since the fine-tuning parameters were always the same. Second, Just because scientists cannot presently find a cause for some quantum events does not mean its evidence that some things don't have to have a cause. There are at least 10 different interpretations of quantum mechanics and some of them are fully deterministic. As physicist David Bohm, has pointed out, there are many "hidden variables" at the quantum level of reality, of which anyone could contain the sufficient reason for a certain quantum event [1]. We cannot make conclusions like this with any kind of confidence especially when we don't fully understand quantum mechanics in the first place since its still in its infancy. Lastly, Quantum events do not take place in "absolute" nothingness. It actually takes place out of a larger quantum field ,which is a part of physical reality, that enables particles to come in and out of existence. Without this field there would be no quantum events [1]. This is another reason why its not accurate to say that a particular quantum outcome is "uncaused". Therefore, there is no reason to think that not every cause precedes an effect and , as such, we can reject the null hypothesis. OMNI-PRESENT, ETERNAL, AND IMMATERIAL Well first off, Direct empirical evidence for a cause is not required in science/scientific method nor is the mechanism for it. For example, We know that gravitational forces accounts for planetary orbits, why masses fall to the ground on earth, etc... But, we cannot explain clearly what and why gravity "is" or where it "comes from" along with determine its mechanism. We just take it as a brute fact. Secondly, The Law of Cause and Effect does not require that every cause must have an explanation or cause. Instead, it states that for every effect there must be a cause for it. Now, I would accept that causality is also a metaphysical requirement called the principle of sufficient reason. Under these philosophical rules, God would indeed require an explanation. However, the topic of this debate is science not philosophy. Therefore, I am not required to provide an explanation of God any more than I would with Gravity. DISEMBODIED MIND I am not sure why CON feels I was arguing that human minds will gain super powers once the brain dies. In fact, I was arguing the exact opposite and was explaining how it could not be a human mind at all. Instead, the conclusion from the totality of my empirical observations was me providing "newly" found knowledge of a different kind of mind, which is a disembodied or absolute mind. ABSOLUTE MIND All-knowing Mathmatical relationships exist where we look for them in the universe because they're a human construct. Since we're a product of eternal inflating universe or multi-verse, it does indeed follow that the universe would have an infinite amount of possible knowledge that can be understood the more humans explore the universe. I merely mentioned inflation in order to explain that no matter how far technology advances we will always be stumbling upon new mathematical relationships or more relevant discoveries like different laws of nature or fine-tuning constants. CON focused on the expansion part only. All-powerful I am afraid my opponent needs to look up the definition of power again. Power is the rate at which energy is transferred, used, or transformed [2]; its not the synonymous term of energy. So I agree the cosmological constant or vacuum energy is not an infinite amount of energy; instead, this very precise cancellation effect between negative and positive effect happens to be the most well adjusted fine-tuning parameter of them all. Since this constant as well as the rest were present from the very beginning of the universe, it follows logically that the cause for this beginning was responsible for the fine-tuning of this constant as well. FALSIFICATION Experiment #1: Life from Non-life I am afraid the evidence CON provided was not evidence that life (as we know it) can come from non-living matter. Of course, the meaning of the term "life" is not fully established or defined in science and ,thus, there could be other types of life forms besides us we don't know. However, unless the Miller experiment can show that carbon based life forms can come from non-life, my argument stands. Experiment #2: Mind-Body Dualism CON is confusing the concept of the correlation of two events with the concept of the identity of two events. It simply does not follow from the fact that two events are correlated that they are identical. Correlation does not prove causation. There is the fact that movements of bodily limbs like arms and legs are correlated with events in the motor cortex of the brain. No one believes, however, that movements of arms and legs are identical with their causal antecedents in the brain. Upon reflection, it is just as obvious that there is no good reason to believe that psychological events are identical with brain events simply because the two are correlated. Again, CON must provide evidence that there is a region in the brain that causes these mental events when it comes to intention states and decisions or will power that are not determined by basic biological functions but by outside influences. Otherwise, my argument stands here as well. THE WORLD ENSEMBLE HYPOTHESIS (MULTI-VERSE) "A highly improbable event does not need an explanation for its occurrence once it occurs" The fundamental problem with this argument has been basically revealed by my opponent himself. Answer this riddle for me, Can accidents happen when there's nothing there? Let me explain what I mean by this. If there is not evidence for one other overlapping universe, how can CON base something that is not there? The fact is , NO, we don't know whether the fine-tuning constants could come from a random see of colliding universes. In addition, whether there could be other universes that came before us (or are paralleled) would not be relevant to the argument in explaining how we got a finely tuned universe in the first place; Most importantly, its unfalsifiable. Therefore, in a philosophical debate, I would be required to provide an argument against this explanation. However, in a scientific debate, an unfalsifiable hypothesis not based on empirical observation or experience has no place in science, which automatically disqualifies this as an explanation. [1] Michael A. Corey, "The God Hypothesis" p. 14, 197 [2] http://en.wikipedia.org...(physics)