SUCCESS in the SCIENTIFIC METHOD PROVES THAT GOD NECESSARILY EXISTS

My opponent wrote: "Circular Reasoning" Without God, circular reasoning could not be objectively wrong. "Your adamancy to the point that science cannot exist without a god" I never made that statement, so that is a straw man logical fallacy on your part. "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." That is true. 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." That is true. "(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)." That is true. "Oh, okay, so what we are saying here is that atheists" I did not make any statement about "atheists" in my argument, so that is a straw man logical fallacy on your part. Actually, there is no such thing as an atheist. "I believe in God" I know you do -- you stated that the changes in the Laws of Nature are proof that God exists. "and that a God is the only logical way to have a rational expectation of constancy" I never made that statement, so that is another straw man logical fallacy on your part. "There is nothing in existence other than God that could ensure constancy over time in any of the Laws of Nature")." That is true. "PA2: 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 is true. "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." That is true. "Hmmm, well, this is where the circular reasoning starts." The only circular reasoning is yours. Also, without God, circular reasoning could not be objectively wrong. " "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. " That is all true, yes. ""constancy doesn't exist without god, but the scientific method doesn't work successfully without constancy, therefore I win"" I never made that statement, so that is a straw man logical fallacy on your part. "(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)." That is all true. "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." That is all true. "you're saying now that god is the only thing that makes sure that the laws of nature stay constant all the time" I never made that statement, so that is yet another straw man logical fallacy on your part. " of previous circular reasoning would allude to" The only circular reasoning here is yours. Also, without God, circular reasoning could not be objectively wrong. "(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)." That is true, yes! " 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." That is also true. "(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)." That is true. "The rest of PA4 is just the exact same, strict guidlines for refuting what you say just worded different." No it isn't. "PA5 is just PA4" No it isn't. " 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." I never made that statement, so that is yet another straw man logical fallacy on your part. "Conclusion to Supplementary Proof: Therefore without God (or something like God), nobody could successfully complete the scientific method." That is true. "you were cherry picking grammatical errors: No I wasn't. "why do you use the word "supplementary"" Because it is supplementary. Why do you use the word "word?" "P3.1: If "something like God" exists in reality, then God necessarily exists in reality." That is true. "(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)." That is also true. "P3.2: "Something like God" exists in reality. (See Preliminary Proof in Section 1, above, for Proof of this Premise)." That is also true. "Not only is this argument feeding off of the circular reasoning" No it isn't, and I didn't commit any circular reasoning -- only you did that. Also, without God, circular reasoning could not be objectively wrong. " it's also a logically incoherent idea." No it isn't. " Your tone implies that there is without a shadow of a doubt a God," No it doesn't. "evidence for a creator" I did not mention the word "creator" anywhere in my entire argument, so that is another straw man logical fallacy on your part. "it's a silly idea in every way." No it isn't. "Purushadasa has dug him/herself into a hold of which was dug by circular reasoning" No I haven't -- I didn't commit any circular reasoning, and you didn't point out any circular reasoning on my part. You are the only one that has committed circular reasoning in this debate. Also, without God, circular reasoning could not be objectively wrong anyway. You utterly failed to even address my argument, setting up about 10 or 12 straw men and arguing against those. Therefore I won this debate: Thanks for your time! =)