SUCCESS in the SCIENTIFIC METHOD PROVES THAT GOD NECESSARILY EXISTS

I'm beginning to think that you started this debate up for joke purposes, you take me out of context time and time again and refute the same points with the same sentences repeatedly. You call everything I do a straw man because i'm not sure you know of any other logical fallacies so let me introduce to you the one that your entire debate is based on commitingCircular Reasoning: a logical fallacy in which one begins arguing in the wrong end of a premise that indicates some regularity and tries to move in the opposite direction, from an assumption or observation that verifies a consequent.Your adamancy to the point that science cannot exist without a god (even though you said you never claimed that) and that the scientific method cannot be completed without god is circular reasoning in the way that you are presenting it. your Preliminary Premise(s) A and B hold a good example of this fallacy in action Preliminary Premise A: Without God (or something like God), nobody could successfully complete the scientific method.* Preliminary Premise B: We can successfully complete the scientific method. Preliminary Conclusion: Therefore, either God or something like God exists in reality.It is virtually impossible to say that these set of premises and the conclusion are not circular reasoning, but just to be safe let's break it down. Your evidences for your "Preliminary Premise A" are as follows:Without God (or something like God), the believer in atheist Dogma could have no rational expectation of constancy over time in any of the Laws of Nature, nor could he have any rational expectation of uniformity over time, anywhere in the universe. (There is nothing in existence other than God that could ensure constancy over time in any of the Laws of Nature, nor is there anything in existence other than God that could ensure any rational expectation of uniformity over time, anywhere in the universe. The only way to successfully refute this Premise would be to posit some entity other than God that could somehow ensure constancy over time in the Laws of Nature, and could also ensure a rational expectation of uniformity over time in the universe -- and then demonstrate that such a posited entity actually does ensure constancy over time in the Laws of Nature, and that it also ensures a rational expectation of uniformity over time in the universe).Oh, okay, so what we are saying here is that atheists (like myself, not entirely certain as to why you keep assuming I believe in God) cannot have a rational expectation of constancy, and that a God is the only logical way to have a rational expectation of constancy (implied in the line "There is nothing in existence other than God that could ensure constancy over time in any of the Laws of Nature"). That's a good groundwork thesis i suppose, But that doesn't mention the direct statement that the scientific method can't be completed without a god, only the laws of nature. Either way I can't wait to look at all of the links you've provided me backing it up... oh wait... Maybe the next couple of sections will verify things for mePA2: Both a rational expectation of constancy over time in the Laws of Nature and a rational expectation of uniformity over time in the universe would be required in order to successfully complete the scientific method and reach any rational scientific conclusions about the universe. PA3: If God (or something like God) did not exist, then all of the Laws of Nature observed in the universe could change overnight, and all of the uniformity observed in the universe could also be lost forever, overnight.Hmmm, well, this is where the circular reasoning starts. For PA1 we know that "There is nothing in existence other than God that could ensure constancy over time in any of the Laws of Nature, nor is there anything in existence other than God that could ensure any rational expectation of uniformity over time, anywhere in the universe.", but then the circular reasoning starts at PA2-3, when we learn that you need to have a rational expectation of constancy over time and a rational expectation of uniformity to complete the scientific method successfully. And to that, I ask:Says who?What source material are you getting your parameters for completion of the scientific method and reasonable constancy/uniformity from? saying that "constancy doesn't exist without god, but the scientific method doesn't work successfully without constancy, therefore I win" isn't going to work here. I will not continue to examine the rest of PA3 and PA4*part of PA3* (There is nothing in existence other than God that could ensure that the Laws of Nature won't change overnight, nor is there anything in existence other than God that could ensure any rational expectation of uniformity over time, anywhere in the universe. The only way to successfully refute this Premise would be to posit some entity other than God that could somehow ensure that the Laws of Nature won't change overnight, and that could also ensure a rational expectation of uniformity over time in the universe -- and then demonstrate that such a posited entity actually does ensure that the Laws of Nature won't change overnight, and that it also ensures a rational expectation of uniformity over time in the universe). PA4: Therefore the only rational explanation for the fact that such changes in the Laws of Nature and in the uniformity of the universe cannot and do not occur is that God (or something like God) is personally upholding all of the Laws of Nature, and God (or something like God) is also personally upholding all of the uniformity that we observe throughout the entire universe.Okay, so the rest of PA3 is basically the same paragraph from PA1 *refer to analysis above* except you're saying now that god is the only thing that makes sure that the laws of nature stay constant all the time, 3/4ths of this paragraph are copy/pasted. PA4's main thesis pretty much sums up what the result of previous circular reasoning would allude to. Next.*part of PA4* (The only way to successfully refute this Premise would be to posit some entity other than God that could possibly uphold all of the Laws of Nature, and that could also uphold all of the uniformity that we observe throughout the entire universe -- and then demonstrate that the posited entity is actually upholding all of the Laws of Nature, and also upholding all of the uniformity that we observe throughout the entire universe). PA5: Therefore there is no entity in existence other than God that could possibly provide a rational basis for the scientific method to be completed with any rational expectation of success. (See P2). (The only way to successfully refute this Premise would be to posit some entity other than God that could possibly provide a rational basis for the scientific method to be conducted with any expectation of accuracy -- and then demonstrate that the posited entity is actually providing a rational basis for the scientific method to be conducted with an expectation of accuracy).The rest of PA4 is just the exact same, strict guidlines for refuting what you say just worded different. PA5 is just PA4 except used to say that god is the only way you can have a rational basis for the scientific method to be completed with an expectation of success. Kind of like PA2 except a few words and the premise have changed. Next we come to this:Conclusion to Supplementary Proof: Therefore without God (or something like God), nobody could successfully complete the scientific method.There is PA5 and PA2 summed up in one short sentence, now since you were cherry picking grammatical errors in round 2 I want to ask, why do you use the word "supplementary" when you haven't put anything out there aside from your main thesis reworded a couple of times, and said in a tone of certainty so you're automatically right. Even your "supplementary video" is just 6 minutes of scrolling text with dramatic music that says what you said. We next come to this interesting quoteP3.1: If "something like God" exists in reality, then God necessarily exists in reality. (In order for any real entity to be actually "like God," God would also have to be real " otherwise the entity in question would necessarily be "unlike God" by dint of one being real and the other being unreal). P3.2: "Something like God" exists in reality. (See Preliminary Proof in Section 1, above, for Proof of this Premise).Not only is this argument feeding off of the circular reasoning you used prior, it's also a logically incoherent idea. Your tone implies that there is without a shadow of a doubt a God, or God-like entity controlling our universe, neglecting to think about the lack of evidence for a creator or a god, let alone that this god is making sure that the laws of nature don't change, it's a silly idea in every way. Implying a god beyond certainty like you are automatically assumes a burden of proof you have yet to acknowledge, let alone fulfill, which is why I haven't supplemented my thesis with any sort of links or sources, but that's the nail in the coffin. If God is the reason that we have science you would think that scientifically we could test the existence of a god, but surprisingly (not really) it hasn't been done, and it won't be done. Round 4 will tell if your argument can hold up and reverse the logical fallacy you cursed yourself with, if you'd like to get a seperate debate on the existence of a god going i'm fine with that.Round 3 Conclusions: Purushadasa has dug him/herself into a hold of which was dug by circular reasoning, and repeated numerous times purely to exaggerate the substance and length of your argument. The burden of proof that comes with implying a god beyond certainty was not fulfilled, and therefore I have no reason to post any sources, which as I explained above there isn't really any sources that are scientific and not opinionated.