The God Hypothesis is a valid Scientific theory

ALTERNATIVE HYPOTHESIS Nevertheless, let me explain the data based on the results. With a simple thought, this personal absolute mind must have freely created and manifested itself in reality with the intention of having a relationship with its human creation. This would explain why we observe a life-permitting universe with a habitable planet. Drawing from experience, this would be similar to human minds acting as agents and manifesting in the physical world through our bodies. Then, as humans, we have the emotional thought to have offspring and create a suitable house 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 there is no evidence that the fine-tuning laws came into being by chance. 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 and accept the alternative hypothesis. OMNI-PRESENT, ETERNAL, AND IMMATERIAL "The Law of Cause and Effect may very well mean that for every effect in the universe, there must be a cause, but it does not mean that things outside of the universe have a cause." I agree. God would not require a cause himself because the law of cause and effect does not apply outside the Universe. "The Law of Biogenesis is not an absolute, in fact it is far from absolute." I agree. The Law of Biogenesis as well as every other scientific theory or phyisical law is not absolute. Nothing can be proven without a doubt in science. Also, the law of Biogensis is well established in science, so I don't know what CON is talking about. If he wants to see the experiments that were done by Louis Pasture that provide support for Biogenesis, then he can go read it himself: http://biotech.law.lsu.edu... PERSONAL ABOSOLUTE MIND Well first off, Science depends on philosophy, so its impossible to not use some philosophy. Second, I did provide evidence that mathemathetics entities do exist because as I said before we can make physical manifestations of them and why we are able to make conclusions that work in the real world. I don't need to provide a bunch of examples when its pretty obvious. We discover mathematical facts by empirical research, just like facts in any of the other sciences. So we they exist in general, they just don't exist specifically in reality. ALL-POWERFUL AND ALL-KNOWING CON is wrong here. The BGV theorem does prove a forever expanding universe called Future-eternal inflation. I provided links already. Life from Non-life Well first off, 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 the experiment did produce amino acids which are one of the three essential components of life. Thus, there could be other types of life forms besides us we don't know we might call "life". However, equal quantities of both right- and left-handed organic molecules always were produced by the Urey/Miller procedure. In real life, nearly all amino acids found in proteins are left handed, almost all polymers of carbohydrates are right handed, and the opposite type can be toxic to the cell. In a summary the famous Urey/Miller origin-of-life experiment, Horgan concluded: 'Miller's results seem to provide stunning evidence that life could arise from what the British chemist J.B.S. Haldane had called the "primordial soup." Pundits speculated that scientists, like Mary Shelley's Dr. Frankenstein, would shortly conjure up living organisms in their laboratories and thereby demonstrate in detail how genesis unfolded. It hasn't worked out that way. In fact, almost 40 years after his original experiment, Miller told me that solving the riddle of the origin of life had turned out to be more difficult than he or anyone else had envisioned (1996, p. 138).' The reasons why creating life in a test tube turned out to be far more difficult than Miller or anyone else expected are numerous and include the fact that scientists now know that the complexity of life is far greater than Miller or anyone else in pre-DNA revolution 1953 ever imagined. Actually life is far more complex and contains far more information than anyone in the 1980s believed possible. The major problem of Millers experiment is well put by Davies: "Making the building blocks of life is easy—amino acids have been found in meteorites and even in outer space. But just as bricks alone don't make a house, so it takes more than a random collection of amino acids to make life. Like house bricks, the building blocks of life have to be assembled in a very specific and exceedingly elaborate way before they have the desired function (Davies, 1999, p. 28)." Therefore, the Urey/Miller experiments did not produce evidence for abiogenesis because, although amino acids are the building blocks of life, the key to life is information in the form of DNA. Mind-body Dualism I did connect this to God already, but perhaps CON will respond to this now. Otherwise, it becomes a concession on his part. Horgan, John. 1996. The end of science. Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA. Davies, Paul. 1999. Life force. New Scientist. 163(2204): 27-30.