The God Hypothesis is a valid Scientific theory

Here we are in the final round. I hesitate to say too much as my opponent will not have the chance to refute my arguments. Regardless, at this point in the debate, the real objective is to be using the standards set up at the beginning of the debate to judge the resolution. At the end of my R4 argument I reviewed where each standard stood at that time. In that summary, I proved that not only did the God hypothesis fail in one area, it passed none. My opponent completely dropped this assemsement, conceding it therein. In doing so, my opponent basically conceded the debate. Because of this, I do not need to refute his arguments in this last round, but will do so anyway just to be sure that I have covered all of my bases. First, however, I would like to make another point very clear. In R4 I stated:"The biggest logic jump is in assuming that there is a God in the first place. Because I have disproven his claims in the Omni-present etc. section, I have shown that there is no need for a God in the first place. " This contention that there is no need for a God in the first place was dropped. With this in mind, I will refute my opponent's final arguments. Alternative hypothesis"When I said that the personal absolute mind created other human minds I was talking about the law of biogenisis and possibly the theory of information. It makes no difference because the mere fact that this being created life in the first place is evidence that this being is interested in human affairs and consicious as well as personal. "My opponent dropped my point that the human mind evolved, and was not the result of a divine creator. It is a huge jump to say that God created the first life, therefore he created the human mind and is interested in humans. Conclusion: Pro's argument is void. Omni-present, eternal, and immaterialSince my assertion was confusing to my opponent, I will try to make it as clear as possible for readers and voters.1. Everything that we can observe in the universe has a causeThis may or may not be true but I will assume that it is.2. Therefore, this does not apply to things outside the universe as far as we know3. The laws of the universe do not apply to the way in which the universe began, because at this time there were no laws of the universe.4. Because causality is a law of the universe, it does not apply to the beginning of the universe.5. Therefore, the universe did not need a cause. This brings us back to my point: A God is not required for the universe to begin. Conclusion: Pro's argument is void. Personal Absolute MindSince the universe didn't need a creator and there is no reason for a God to exist, there is no reason to describe the attributes of God. Conclusion: Pro's argument is unnecessary. All-powerful and all knowing There may be, as my opponent puts it, an infinite degree of power or rates of acceleration being exerted to expand the universe. That does not mean that God is the cause of this expansion. Conclusion: Pro's argument is unsubstantiated and therefore void. Life from non lifeI am not claiming that today we know exactly how life could have arisen from non life. All I am saying is that just because we can't explain it now does not automatically defer it to God. We can see how the building blocks of life could have formed which may very well lead us to how the first life was formed. Conclusion: Pro's argument says that if we don't know know, a personal mind must have created it which is a big logical jump. His argument is void. Mind body dualismI think my opponent's argument is that the brain does not cause certain mental events, but rather that that determination comes form an outside source. He claims (I think, his sentence is very confusing) that I must show that there is an area in the brain that is responsible for decision making. This area in the brain is the orbitfrontal cortex are of the brain [1]. I believe I have debunked this argument as well. Source: [1]- . http://en.wikipedia.org...Conclusion: Pro's argument here is, um, dangit, I can't think of the right word to describe it. Maybe it starts with a v, or something. Oh, void. Pro's argument is void. Conclusion:My opponent never linked the standards, so I already won there. Beyond that, most, if not all of his arguments have been refuted. Of course it is out of my hands now, but I don't think it is difficult to see who the winner of this debate is. I thank my opponent for this opportunity to debate this interesting and important topic, and everybody who reads and votes this debate. That's all folks!