Science is the study of God.

Seeing as I'm new here, I cannot be sure about how flexible I am allowed to be with the established rules of the argument. Just my caveat. For the purposes of my argument, I will rephrase "The Study of what Is" as "The Study of Everything," purely for purposes of understanding. I believe that this is a valid equation because "is" is the singular third-person form of the infinitive "to be," which can roughly be restated as "to exist." In any case, my argument can be followed and is, in my opinion, valid, regardless of which word is used. For additional reference: http://dictionary.reference.com... "What is = what exists"; therefore, "the study of what is" = "the study of what exists." Thus, if "the study of what is" = "the study of God," then "the study of what exists" = "the study of God," in which case "what exists" = God. Since we know that a lot things exist, or many things "are," such as soccer balls, Alaska, and Ray Charles, as well as a bunch of other things, and God is certainly not any of these things ALONE (except perhaps the third one), we must slightly clarify our definition as being "all that is" or "all that exists." So, if the argument is true, then the statement God = "all that exists." I do not believe that this is the case. Furthermore, Any argument for or against that statement can be effectively countered with a contradictory yet equally valid set of religious beliefs. Unless my opponent is able to provide a compelling argument proving, beyond the proverbial shadow of a doubt, that God is, in fact, somehow equated to everything in every single applicable religious system, I think we can safely say that that particular set of equations is invalid. In any case, if I may use Dictionary.com as an arbiter: http://dictionary.reference.com... According to the above page, God is defined as a Supreme Being or Creator, which supports my claim. (I don't feel any particular desire to get any senior theologians involved in this, but if it comes to it, I'm game. ;-) ) My opponent might now argue that since God CREATED everything, science is the study of his creations, and through them, of him. For that argument to be true, we would have to assume that studying a result (everything) = (or is equivalent to) studying a cause (God). I would not say that the study of, say, dandelions is the same or near enough to the study of aerodynamics, even though the former would be impossible (in nature*) without the latter, and the two are therefore in the following cause-result relationship: aerodynamics cause dandelion seeds to spread, therefore, dandelions exist. For an analogy that focuses more on the creator-created dynamic, one need only consider that the study of a literary work is not necessarily the study of its author. For example, J. R. R. Tolkien is often credited as creating a world of his own in his body of works focusing on the invented location of Middle Earth. There are people who approach his works from a scientific standpoint – those studying literature, sociology, and Warg reproduction. While the author is of course relevant to the topic, he (the creator) is not the one being studied. Therefore, the idea that we primarily study God through all of the sciences whenever we study his world is not true. Finally, while I agree that a scientist may apply his profession as a means of studying God, this is a question of intent, not of definition. The closest idea to that of my opponent I can agree with is that science is the study of what God has wrought (if, of course, God exists). The connection between the father and the son, however, is up to the individual to make.