Scientific reasoning ultimately does not Matter when debating God's existance

PrefacePlease note that Pro actually needs to present a case to win this debate. All he has presented so far is mitigation of my case, which is unsufficient for him to uphold the resolution even if the mitigation was effective. I not sure how answering the question of " Is [scientific reasoning] more important than the moral justifications in favor of the Christian God's existance?" affirms or negates either side of the resolution. Presumably I am Pro on this question, so I will simply affirm why scientific reasoning is more important than moral justifications in favor of the Christian God's existance.Scientific reasoning vs. Moral JustificationsScientific reasoning has two major advantages over other philosophical justifications (including moral justifications):1. It is completely objective 2. It actually works Science is a branch of philosophy, thus uses the best tools of logic and deduction that are on offer, however by operating within the contraints of evidence, it ensures that claims never extends further than what is actually demonstrable in reality. Scientific theories progress and build upon previous theories by provided additional explanatory power for the empirical dataset that is had. Purely philsophical reasoning however does not operate within these constraints, and consequently suffers from the "raft problem". Where even the most elegant and beautiful philosdophical theory may have absolutely nothing to do with reality - and no way to know whether it it does or does not since they are often untestable.Moral justifications require that moral non-cognitivism is solved, and that even if it was, then it would entail God's existance. However in the presence of multiple explanations for any dataset (for example a naturalist position may posit that our "moral intuitions" are a complex mixture of emergent and innate biological behaviors and responses. This would explain exactly the same dataset, with no way to purely philosophically distinguish between the "God explanation" and the "naturalistic explanation". The only way to argue otherwise would to ironically appeal to scientific reasoning (such as explanation x is physically impossible/improbably).In science, we have objective well-characterised (and thus unambiguous) expectations for any hypothesis (including the Christian God hypothesis), and thus we can confidently prove or disprove them by evidence-based reasoning. However in moral justifications we do not have objectively well-characterised expectations (e.g. what is the non-question begging definition of "moral", "good" or "evil"), and thus cannot be confidently proved or disproved based on evidence since we do not have fixed goalposts. Frequently we see these terms re-parameterised to fit social conventions (e.g. unequal womens rights, the execution of sodomites, and the enslavement of coloured people was seen by swaths of people to be the "good" thing to do). We have no such issues when defining "a centimeter", or "a second", since they are done so according to objective features of reality.Ergo, scientific reasoning is immeasurably more valuable than moral reasoning, and must more important when discussing the question of God's existance.