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

1. The EXISTENCE OF INFINITY Well first off, I never said that there are no real infinities. On a qualitative level, I accept as well as CON the existence of an infinity, but I explained logically why it could not be the universe itself. Therefore, it had to have been another entity I call the God Hypothesis. Second, I said that there cannot be an infinite set of causes IN reality on a quantitative level. CON probably can demonstrate on paper an infinite set in the realm of mathematics but CON cannot use an example in reality to prove quantitatively that an infinity exist in the form of the universe itself. George Ellis , who is considered one of the World's leading theorists in cosmology, was asked if there can be an infinite set of existing universes. He actually reiterates what I have been arguing and saying before: "When speaking of multiverses or ensembles of universes as possible or realised, the issue of infinity inevitably crops up. Researchers often envision an infinite set of universes, in which all possibilities are realised. Can there be an infinite set of really existing universes? We suggest that the answer may very well be , "No"ï¿½. The common perception that this is possible arises from not appreciating the precisions in meaning and the restrictions in application associated with this profoundly difficult concept. Because we can assign a symbol to represent infinity and can manipulate that symbol according to specified rules, we assume corresponding infiniteï¿½ entities can exist in practice. This is questionable. Furthermore, as we have already indicated, such infinities lead to severe calculational problems in the mathematical modelling of ensembles of universes or universe domains, blocking any meaningful application of probability calculus. There is no conceptual problem with an infinite set " countable or uncountable " of possible or conceivable universes. However, as David Hilbert (1964) points out, the presumed existence of the actually infinite directly or indirectly leads to well-recognised unresolvable contradictions in set theory (e. g., the Russell paradox, involving the set of all sets which do not contain themselves, which by definition must both be a member of itself and not a member of itself!), and thus in the definitions and deductive foundations of mathematics itself (Hilbert, pp.141-142)." http://arxiv.org... 2. "Pro says there are theorems on his side. Obviously, there are theorems opposing him too. He doesn't even say whether the authors of these theorems believe they represent reality. He cites Hawkings (sic), who obviously doesn't agree with him. Steven Hawking, whom Pro intended to reference, does not believe that time began." First off, CON needs to explain what those theorems are that oppose me. Second, his claim he made about Stephen Hawkings is false. Here is a quote from him: "....As far as we are concerned, events before the big bang can have no consequences, so they should not form part of a scientific model of the universe. We should therefore cut them out of the model and say that time had a beginning at the big bang. Many people do not like the idea that time﻿ has a beginning, probably because it smacks of divine intervention. ... There were therefore a number of attempts to avoid the conclusion that there had been a big bang." (Hawking, S.W., "A Brief History of Time: From the Big Bang to Black Holes," [1988], Bantam: London, 1991, reprint, p.50) ] The MULTI-VERSE 3. "Pro is estopped from claiming that they—rather than gods—didn't cause our universe. Numbers and gods are no longer the only causal candidates." CON misread the Alan Guth theorem and my argument. I said even IF we are just a tiny part of a so-called "multi-verse" for the sake argument, the BGV theorem would STILL require an absolute beginning from this multi-verse as well. Therefore, Since there has to be an absolute beginning in some way shape or form, CON can deposit as many universes or versions of the multi-verse as he wants. It still would not weed out the God hypothesis as the actual explanation for these universes AND for the fine-tuning of the universes. 4. "Further, we know nothing about these other universes. Pro doesn't get to assume that infinities aren't real in those universes. So, his argument against infinity—even if it were true in our own universe, which I do not stipulate—is sabotaged by his suggestion that there may be other universes in which his assumption may not apply." If CON is arguing that if there were other universes, its possible they could not have been operating under the same principles of nature as this one, then this multi-verse could not be considered a natural cause. He would end up just making another metaphysical claim only his would be done to an infinite degree. By invoking an infinite number of universes with different laws of nature just to explain our universe, it would not only be unfalsifiable but violate Occam's razor to the highest degree. THE LAW OF CAUSE AND EFFECT 5."Pro talks about the law of cause and effect. It's not a law, so much as a definition. Every effect has a cause because that's what we mean by the word "effect"." This is a false belief on CON's part because science and scientist do indeed deem this to be an actual law as well as an metaphysical principle. Since my approach is more scientific than philosophical, I don't see how this is silly. He needs to explain how its silly not just assert it to claim there's a problem with my argument. 6. "Pro says that the first cause must "have been a changeless, timeless, and immaterial being," but he doesn't even attempt a justification for these outrageous claims." Direct empirical evidence is not required in science. Gravity as well as many examples, do not provide direct evidence of its existence. For instance, Even though gravity is hard to define, we can't determine its mechanism or have no direct evidence of it, we still know it exists because this force called gravity manifests itself in reality (planetary orbits, masses falling to ground, etc) there by providing indirect evidence of its existence. As I explained before, If the cause is there, then the effect would have to be there once the initial conditions of the effect are given. The same rules of science can be applied with the God hypothesis. We know that this explanation exist because we see the effects of it, which is the universe coming into existence out of nothing. 7. "... god's mind would have a physical brain too, if there were a god, if it had a mind. Time passes for us, so it must pass for gods too. Every second we see has time before it, so every second that ever was must have time before it—in which case the universe must not have a beginning." Well first off, this whole debate is me providing evidence of a disembodied mind. Second, If CON is arguing that the causal principle only operates "temporally" between "temporally" related entities, then he is assuming a big burden of proof. What he is saying is just an assertion NOT a fact. The onus is on him. Otherwise, CON will be engaging in Special Pleading. In fact, There's no reason why we can't have a cause exist simultaneously with the effect. LIFE COMES FROM LIFE 8. "Third, life may have happened without an intelligent and eternal designer." CON must Prove this then OCCAM'S RAZOR 9." Brainless minds, uncaused causes, multiverses, eternities there but no eternities here, miracles, etc. Occam would have rejected each of those individually, and would have totally trashed any theory that required all of them." I find this ironic because Occam just happens to be a Christian. Nevertheless, I never argued that the God Hypothesis was simple on its own merits but the "Simplest" explanation compared to other ones.