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

The God Hypothesis is not a scientific explanationI claim Pro's failure to address this point concedes the debate. A scientific explanation explains phenomena in scientific terms. Newton's laws explain action and reaction in terms of mass and acceleration. Mass and acceleration are scientific terms with meaning in the physical world. Saying "God did it." is not an explanation in scientific terms, so it is not a scientific explanation.Thus far Pro has provided a grand total of one linked reference, the paper by W. R. Stoeger et al [P1]. That paper states clearly:"One can introduce a “Creator” who intentionally sets their values to assure the eventual development of complexity. But this move takes us beyond science." Pro suggests that God doesn't need to be explained for the same reason that gravity can be described by Newton's Laws without further explanation of why the laws are the way they are. The analogy is wrong because Newton describes gravity in scientific terms: force, mass, and distance. The God Hypothesis does not explain in terms of sciene. Newton's Laws are subject to further scientific inquiry. One of the objectives of M-theory is to provide the next level of scientific explanation on the relationship of General Relativity, which is about gravity, with quantum physics.Pro claims the God Hypothesis is simple. If that claim is scientific, then it is fair to question how simple God could be. God must be far more complex than the universe in order to be all knowing and all powerful. Pro then claims that such discussion is off limits. It cannot be off limits because Pro must defend a claim of simplicity. Science does not place explanations of explanations off limits. Science pushes explanations are far as possible.Multiverse TheoryWe have Stephen Hawking, the greatest living cosmologist, asserting that M-theory is a properly formulated theory. Papers are published, including Pro's only cited reference in the debate, discussing M-theory as a theory, Pro then declares on his own authority that M-theory is not a theory. What are Pro's credentials as a scientist that should convince us that he is right and Hawking is wrong?M-theory is not proved, it is a hypothesis. The God Hypothesis is certainly not proved, so they equal in that regard. However, M-theory has two advantages over the God Hypothesis. M-theory agrees with observed physical laws, and in particular unifies gravity with the other three forces (strong, weak, and electromagnetic) of the universe in a common theory. The God Hypothesis explains nothing about any observation of science. Second, M-theory can be tested experimentally. I cited one test in the previous round, and a series of short videos explains more of the proposed tests [13. http://science.discovery.com... ] The tests are to be conducted at the Large Hadron Collider at CERN. Since the God hypothesis makes no predictions, it cannot be tested experimentally.There might be a cause for quantum fluctuation that's currently unknown. Since quantum fluctuation occur in a vacuum, the cause would have to derive from a higher dimension, which would confirm one aspect of M-theory. Pro has the burden to prove that there is definitely a cause, since he is claiming that everything is caused. What is important is that science does not demand a cause. This is a debate about scientific explanations, and uncaused events are admissible to science, just not to Pro's argument.Pro claims that whatever science claims must be subordinate to logic, and logic demands causes. The error in Pro's argument is that it confuses logic with incredulity. Consider that light is both a wave and a particle at the same time. Is that logically possible? Consider the Heisenberg Uncertainty principle, which state that a particle does not actually have a position, but rather exists only as a probability distribution. It is not the case that the particle is really at some location and we can't measure where; rather it exists only as a probability distribution. Is that logically possible? It's not only logical, it's a fact. What makes something logical is not whether we can relate it to our everyday existence. What makes it logical is whether the mathematical description conforms to observed behavior.The First Cause ArgumentI cannot understand exactly what Pro is trying to say about the scientific treatment of infinity. The example taken from Xeno's Paradox shows that infinite series do exist in the real world and that an infinite number of terms in a series can be traversed in practice. A faster car can in fact overtake a slower one. No scientist to my knowledge rejects the possibility.Pro quotes George Ellis but doesn't say where the quote came from. I need to know the source to evaluate the context. The quote says " Can there be an infinite set of really existing universes? We suggest that the answer may very well be , 'No'" He's not asserting that he knows the answer and that it is "No." Separately, Ellis said, "As skeptical as I am, I think the contemplation of the multiverse is an excellent opportunity to reflect on the nature of science and on the ultimate nature of existence: why we are here…... Parallel universes may or may not exist; the case is unproved." [14. http://en.wikipedia.org...] Recall that Einstein was skeptical of quantum physics -- But he wisely did not rule it out. Skepticism is fine.Pro cites Stoeger who says associated with an infinite number of universes can be solved: "any adequate cosmological account of the origin of our universe as one of a collection of many universes – or even as a single realised universe – must include a process whereby the realised ensemble is selected from the space of all possible universes and physically generated." [p1] M-theory does not necessarily demand that an infinite number of universes be realized, only that any possible universe can be realized. One claim is that 10^10^16. [15. http://www.physorg.com...] suffice.Physicist Tegmark claims that an infinite number of universes may be a simpler solution that a finite number. "... an entire ensemble is often much simpler than one of its members. This principle can be stated more formally using the notion of algorithmic information content. The algorithmic information content in a number is, roughly speaking, the length of the shortest computer program that will produce that number as output. For example, consider the set of all integers. Which is simpler, the whole set or just one number? Naively, you might think that a single number is simpler, but the entire set can be generated by quite a trivial computer program, whereas a single number can be hugely long. Therefore, the whole set is actually simpler. Similarly, the set of all solutions to Einstein's field equations is simpler than a specific solution. ..." [14] The Metaphysical ArgumentPro claimed that something must exist outside of existence in order to explain existence. I pointed out the logical contradiction, that anything that exists must be part of existence, not outside it. Pro responded that he doesn't need to explain the explanation. He does need to explain it, because an explanation that contradicts itself s not an explanation. This type of contradiction also occurs in "If God is omnipotent, can he make a stone so big He can't lift it." The answer to this classic question is "No." Omnipotence is power over objects, not the ability to perform a logical contradiction. If God exists, then all the properties of existence apply. If causes predicate existence, then God must have a cause. The only way out is if a cause is not required. In that case, the universe might as well be the thing uncaused.DebatePro must provide references for all his quotations and claims about what science says.The resolution is affirmed.