SUCCESS in the SCIENTIFIC METHOD PROVES THAT GOD NECESSARILY EXISTS

My opponent wrote: "Without God (or something like God), nobody could successfully complete the scientific method That's not true" Yes it is. , "and that's a bit of a radical conclusion to jump to right off the bat," No it isn't. " to say that you can't ask questions, and do research, and coming up with a hypothesis is impossible without a god is a large logical fallacy." I never made that statement, so you just committed the logical fallacy known as straw man. "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 Existence itself is ensured constancy," Who or what supposedly "ensures" this constancy? God, of course: You have offered nothing other than God (or something like God) as an explanation for this constancy, so I won the debate. " but i'm not sure if i would say the universe is entirely uniform," If it isn't, then we cannot expect an accurate or successful result from scientific method anywhere in the universe. "it just seems that way to us human beings because we can observe uniformity in a minute percentage of the universe as a whole." Without God, nobody could make an objective distinction between uniformity and a lack thereof. 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. That's not necessarily true either" Yes it is. , "once the laws of nature are established" Who or what established them? God, of course: You have offered nothing other than God (or something like God) as an explanation for this act of establishment, so I won the debate. " their very existence ensures their constancy" No, the Laws of Nature do not and cannot ensure their own constancy. If you could say that without evidence, then I could say that "the truth of the statement "God exists" ensures the constancy of itself," and therefore its truth is necessarily constant, and thereby prove that God exists. However, I am not making such a claim because both claims are logical fallacies, and in fact, none of the Laws of Nature are even stated to ensure their own constancy (none of them even address the issue of their own constancy at all), so you are just making that up anyway and have grossly misrepresented the Laws of Nature. " Logically if the scientific method is practicable once it will be consistently over the course of time due to simple existence," That statement is patently false and has no evidence in its favor. "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 I would be very careful with your wording here, because logically that makes no sense" Actually, it makes perfect logical sense. , if anything a sudden loss of uniformity and changing of the laws of nature suddenly would imply a higher power able to just change things to his own whim" That is also true, and I have another argument that makes that same point. I'm glad that we agree on that, and I'm glad that you accept the factual existence of God based on the merit of that argument, but that argument is not the subject of this debate. If you are interested, you can see that argument of mine at the following video: I'm glad that you and I agree on the conclusion of that particular argument (That God necessarily exists). However, that other argument is a side-issue to this present debate. ". The laws of nature are also just laws made by man" No they aren't: Gravity, for example, is holding your body to the planet right now, but a law made by man cannot do that. " to explain natural phenomenon," Okay, so your semantic point is well taken: By "Laws of Nature, I was referring to what you call "natural phenomenon [sic], which if stated with grammatical correctness would actually be "natural phenomena:" This debate, however, is on the actual issue, not on the semantics of my OP, so please address "natural phenomena" where I state "Laws of Nature," because our respective definitions of those two terms are semantically equivalent. "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 Again, I think the only logical conclusion here is that a god would be the only way something like the laws of nature could just change overnight," Again, I agree with you there, and that is a different proof for God altogether. Please address the proof of God from my OP in this present debate instead of that one, or you risk committing straw man logical fallacy. I am glad, however, that you accept the existence of God based on the changes that have been observed in the Laws of Nature: It's good to know that you and I both accept God's factual existence! =) Still, please try to stick to the argument I actually made in this debate instead of addressing that other argument, okay? " especially considering the science behind it" Without God, there could be no science. "therefore your argument doesn't exist if a god DOES exist." Actually, both God and my argument definitely exist. "Implying that the only other alternative to a god is "something like god" in itself is a logical fallacy," I never made that claim, though, so that is just another straw man logical fallacy on your part. "if this: P3.1: If "something like God" exists in reality, then God necessarily exists in reality. is true than your main thesis is defeated by believing that there is no god, no "something like god" just existence." That statement is constructed with such poor grammar that I honestly have no idea what your point may be: Please re-phrase it with some modicum of intelligible grammar. BTW, if you are claiming that "just existence" is responsible for the observed constancy in the Laws of Nature, then you have posited "something like God," and you have chosen to call God "just existence." Therefore, if you are correct in that claim, then God necessarily exists. (I don't know if that is what you are claiming because your grammar is so horrendous, so please forgive me if you actually meant something else). "FINAL CONCLUSION: The laws of nature are constant because of existence as a whole" No they aren't, and you have failed to provide evidence for that claim: It is merely your own personal faith-based religious belief, posited without any support. Also, if it were true, then you have actually posited God (or something like God), and you have chosen to refer to God as "existence as a whole." Incidentally, many of God's revealed scriptures also refer to God as "existence as a whole," in different languages and different semantic constructions, so you are actually echoing God's very own conclusions when you make that statement: I am beginning to suspect that you are arguing in favor of God's factual existence, not against it! LOL =) "the only rational way to explain how the laws of nature could reasonably scientifically shift overnight and humanity still be here to observe it is if a god could bend things to his whim" That is true, and I am glad that you and I agree on that point. However, that is not my argument in this debate, so even though you are right, and you have proven God's existence with that argument, I did not make that argument in this debate, so it is technically a straw man logical fallacy on your part. I will allow it, however, because you prove that God necessarily exists by that argument. =) Both a change in the Laws of Nature and constancy in Laws of Nature would require explanations, and you have admitted that God is the only rational explanation for their changes. Thank you for proving God's existence in that way. My argument in this debate, however, is that God is the only rational explanation for their constancy, and because you failed to posit any entity other than God (or something like God) to explain their constancy, I won this debate. in fact, the only thing that you posited for the constancy of the Laws of Nature is something like God, so actually, if we are to accept your position as true, then God necessarily exists. . "A point i forgot to add above is that the laws of nature are only relevant to our planet, and we haven't seen anywhere near even close to enough of the universe to say if that is false or not" If you haven't seen, then that part of your argument commits the fallacy known as "argument from ignorance." in short, I won this debate quite handily and easily (and with a good amount of assistance from you): Thanks for your time! =)