SUCCESS in the SCIENTIFIC METHOD PROVES THAT GOD NECESSARILY EXISTS

I would strongly urge you to not be so arrogant in a debate of which you're using logic to the tune of "if god exists, god exists"You're a man who talks very strongly about evidence, please tell me what, besides a 7 minute youtube video with no substance you've provided me that must prove that science is the work of godThat 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 debateIm not sure how you can say you won the debate easily when you just shrugged off the fact that the entire point you made in round one was defeated with a single sentence, by saying:"uniformity and constancy over time must prove that god is keeping them there, but god being the only thing that could change those things so wildly overnight is irrelevant to the debate"no, it isn't, that's exactly what you set to prove and exactly what Im setting to disprove, and by blowing that off as no longer part of the discussion shows weakness towards your argument." 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.I didn't think i'd have to explain that what I said there are the steps of the scientific method to someone trying to debate the scientific method, but here we are. You absolutely did make that statement by saying: Preliminary Premise A: Without God (or something like God), nobody could successfully complete the scientific method.*The main issue I have with your argument now is your failure to realize that I deconstructed your points, plain and simple. You say that a God is behind the constancy of the universe 100%, without a shadow of a doubt, but proceed to say i'm not following the guidelines of the debate when i tell you that God is the only thing that can screw up the constancy of the universe to such an extent.". 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.Thank you for bringing up gravity and the laws of physics, because there is 0 constancy to gravity, every planet has different gravity and therefore different parameters of which a person could create laws from, so your gravity point is nil. Also, by laws made my man i didn't mean that "humans invented gravity", how you somehow processed that as my intention is beyond me, but since I had to explain the scientific method to a man who criticized me for using the word phenomenon instead of phenomena, I'll explain this too.The laws of physics weren't written up because someone invented gravity and the rules for it, instead the laws were written in accordance to what we could observe at the time, which makes sense when we're talking about constancy and uniformity of things over time. But, what you fail to mention is that when the laws of physics were written up, they were off on a whole planet's orbit. There is no constancy to the laws of physics, but most importantly there is no constancy to your argument.Show me some legitimate evidence that science just *cannot* exist without a god, and then prove that constancy MUST be maintained by this god or else the universe as we know it will just shift and change, and then we'll have a more fair debate, but for now i respectfully ask you to not be arrogant and cocky in your debate answers unless you're going to say something worth bragging about