Science is just as provable as Religon.

I'm going to try and keep my arguments as short as possible, but with this topic it's going to be a little hard. The premise of the argument is that the con has to show that science is MORE "provable" than religion. First I'd like to argue my own case, then refute my opponents. The debate needs definitions of religion and science, and since the Pro provided no such definitions, I shall. Since science itself isn't a questioned entity, I'm going to simply use scientific theories and laws. For religion I'm going to define it as the search for God and/or a higher being of worship and creator qualities. I have two arguments/proofs under these definitions for the round. I. The argument from laws The argument can be summed up simply that there are proved scientific laws that have been shown to be true and are simply accepted absolutes, whereas religion hasn't ever been proven, thus science is more "provable" i. Laws of nature and other scientific laws exist, and are accepted on a massive scale. (Beyond 99.99% of the population) ii. No God has been proven, or accepted on a massive scale. iii. Science is proven, religion is unproven. iv. Science is more provable than religion. II. The argument from belief The argument can be summed up simply that science is reliant upon a method, the scientific method, and proven principle, whereas religion is faith based. Since faith is personal and not a provable entity, science holds in analysis between the two. i. Science relies upon methodology and strong evidence physically ii. Religion relies upon faith iii. Methodology and evidence are better sources of explanation than faith iv. Science is more provable than religion. Next, refuting my opponent. "science is just as provable as religion. all science is the belief that data proves something. if one does not believe that data provides a fact than science is wrong. just as a person believes in a religion can believe that another is incorrect despite no data. one may say 1+1=2 well another can argue that that is incorrect and there is no way to prove which is right. " My opponent first argues that the premise of science, when denied, makes it equal to religion. The difference is, when you deny the premise of science, you also deny other premises, and thus nothing can be proved at all, however this defies logic, and logic itself is rejected. When logic itself is rejected, you can't necessarily determine anything, and thus further it is seen that if all premises are rejected, then nothing can be known for certain, so there is no weighing mechanism towards "provability." Because you can't tell which is greater, since there is no system, the system is pointless. My idea however thus stands, since it is the only weighing mechanism to see which is actually better, or if the two are equal. Without such a mechanism, this resolution can't say anything, because it assumes one or the other can be proven. "off coarse most everyone believes the religion that says 1+1=2 religion is just as provable as science in that neither can be proved. science cannot be proved with religion and religion cannot be proved with science." Religion cannot be "proven" necessarily, however science can.(see my case) Just because one cannot prove the other, (as you stipulate) doesn't mean that one is not greater than the other. If you're saying that because neither can prove one another, then they are equal, then please tell me, and I will further clarify. My opponent vaguely outlined his case, and further explanation would be greatly appreciated. Through all of this it is evident that science is more easily proven than religion in a logical and rational standpoint, which is the only world view mechanism able of proving anything.