Science is just as provable as Religon.

I'm going to defend my logic proofs by simply refuting your attacks to my proofs together, then analyzing the overall basis of this debate. Happy New Year! First and foremost, my definitions of science and religion in this debate hold, and thus all arguments must have complete compliance with this definitions. "i. just becasue somthing is accepted does not make it absolutely true and therfore proven. ii. no god has been proven or accepted but is science so different. are there not opposing ideas and theorys that everyone arugues about? iii. science is unproven, religion is unproven. iv. science is jst as provable as religion." Laws of nature and science aren't simply accepted, in the science community a law is absolute and true. There were two stages to the proving of religion and science, absolutes and acceptance. Religion has no absolutes, whereas science has. Things have been proven with science, whereas nothing has with religion. If you are suggesting that laws do not exist, such as newton's laws of physics or what not, please clarify. If you do not believe such laws exist, the I will have to explain the certainty of laws in relation to man. Another key point is that religion is defined here as the search for a God, but nothing has ever been shown. Science on the other hand, does have things that are laws, or absolutes, whereas religion has no such things. This simple fact alone differs the two in their ability to be proven. ". science revolves on the belief that methodology and evidence proves points. ii. religion is the beleif in God. iii. methodology and evidence is a form of faith. of beliveing sothing is true. iv. science is just is provable as religion. " Science in this debate doesn't revolve on the BELIEF of proof, but it relies upon the premise of proof. You are rejecting the whole idea and the premise of science itself, and thus my later argument has previously refuted you. By rejecting the premise of science, then the premise of religion has to also be rejected, as does logic. By rejecting all of these premises, you are rejecting this debate itself. Without logic you cant show that something is more provable than something else, however I can since I'm complying with the premise; if you're following this train of thought then this rejection provides the CON with the basis of a victory. You then say that you have to believe something is true, and this is partially true, however the difference is one relies purely on faith, whereas the other has a clear methodology and usage of evidence, so if we are to assume that both require a belief, then science relies upon faith, evidence and methodology, whereas religion relies purely on faith. Thus under this circumstance in you refutation, again the CON side wins. "science is proven using the laws and sciece and religion the laws of religion, neither is absolute. therefor science is just as provable as religion in that neither are provabe." There are two problems with these two arguments. The first again relates back to provability. One has two be more provable than the other, and science has this ability. With analysis also, you see that science has a more plausible believable system. Just because one is allegedly not absolute does not mean that they are both equal. Next, the other problem is your rejection of absolutes. By rejecting absolutes, you are rejecting the inductive principle of logic, and defying logic itself. We assume that the sun will rise tomorrow, or that the law of gravity will take effect. This is because these simple scientific ideas have shown themselves to be absolute in circumstances. Also, basic chemical studies can show that boiling water and salt will evaporate the water is another example of provability. Simple things such as adding a colored dye will change a t-shirt color are all scientific principles and absolutes you are rejecting. Because of these necessary inductive absolutes science has proven something. Religion in this debate relies on the search of a God, however no God has been found. Thus because science has proven things, no matter how basic, it is more provable than religion due to the simple inductive principle and basic laws of nature.