SCIENCE = GOD'S PERSONAL PROPERTY (PROOF of GOD)

Contention 1: Pro is using fallacious arguments in an effort to reinforce a baseless argument Subpoint A: Pro never once says how his supernatural deity can change a subjective fact to an objective fact This means that your entire argument is based completely on us assuming that this Deity can somehow reassure me that I am objectively typing this on my mom's laptop right now pretending to do school work in my house while my dog is trying to jump on me, instead of me subjectively saying all of those things. The only problem is once you start to use this sort of argument, it becomes very easy to simply say anything you want. In which case I can objectively high jack this debate with my own fallacious argument. Contention 2: Science is the Property of the Flying Spaghetti Monster who says that his existence is objectively true, and that he cannot be disproven. However, he states in his holy text, which is objectively true under Pro's own argument, that he cannot be proven by science, ergo Pro must concede this debate since all Con has to do is say that God cannot be proven by Science. Contention 3: Pro's Argument does not conform to the rules of the debate, since he is not following HIS OWN RESOLUTION. Subpoint A: The resolution states Science=God's Personal Property (Proof of God). For one, I can say for certain that Proof of God's Existence in reality is not the same thing as saying that it is God's Personal Property, which doesn't even connect to proof of god. For one, I could simply forge God's existence with the help of an accountant who knows how to cook the books, and then buy Science under that false identity. That however doesn't mean he exists in reality. Certaintly his alleged God exists on paper, but is he a real person? No. Ergo, the resoultion itself is ridiculous, and this debate pointless. Contention 4: There is no need for Science to be objectively true, since Science is not mathematics. Objectivity is a goal we can aspire to, but it can never be attained. To understand why, first we need to clarify what exactly is meant by objectivity. Before we discuss science, let's start with mathematics. Most people would say that 2+2=4 is an example of an objective mathematical truth. But, in fact, it is only true relative to a certain set of axioms. You and I are free to choose different axioms, and 2+2=4 may be false for you but true for me. So, it is clearly not a completely objective truth. Similarly, if I adopt axioms of Euclidean geometry, the interior angles of a triangle always add up to 180", while if you adopt axioms of non-Euclidean geometry, they do not. So, this geometrical proposition is not a completely objective truth. Because mathematical truth depends on our free, subjective choice of axioms, it is not completely objective. However, if we both adopt the same axioms, we will both necessarily agree upon what is true and what is false. In that sense, mathematical truth is objective, but only if we agree to constrain our subjective choices in the same way. Now, let's consider objectivity in empirical science. Most people would say that the 100-yard length of a football field is an example of an objective fact. But, in fact, according to relativity, intervals of length are only well defined relative to our choice of reference frame. Such choice is a free, subjective choice. You can choose one frame, and I can choose another. And the football field will have one length in your frame and another length in mine. We can say the length of the field is objective only if we agree to constrain our subjective choice of reference frame in the same way, e.g., we both adopt the frame of the football field. Actually, even if we are both in the rest frame of the field, its 100-yard length is still not completely objective. I could be using a mis-calibrated yardstick, or an idiosyncratic measurement procedure, or a survey yard instead of the common yard. I could even be using octal instead of decimal to represent my measurement results. A measurement of length is thus objective only relative to a choice of measurement procedure, units, and numerical representation. All of this illustrates the fact that we can treat something as objective only to the extent that we define and explicitly specify the subjective conditions under which it is defined or measured. Objectivity arises as the result of imposing common constraints on subjective choices in our definitions and procedures. The power and effectiveness of empirical science is a direct result of the degree to which it precisely and explicitly specifies the definitions and methods presupposed in making empirical measurements and formulating mathematical theories. To the extent that we constrain our subjective choices to these precisely specified conditions, we will eliminate arbitrary uncontrolled subjective variables. That is, that which is objective is clearly defined only by clearly defining and rigorously constraining what is subjective. The objective arises by constraining the subjective. Conclusion: Pro's contentions are fallacious, Pro's entire Argument is baseless and fallacious, and this entire debate is a fallacious trap so that Pro can have an ego trip. Thank you and I would like to strongly encourage a Con Vote.