Science Implies God's Existance

I understand that in this round I should not defend my initial arguments, but only refute the ones that you have brought forth in your opening arguments. First of all, I think there is a general misunderstanding here. I showed interest in debating n7 on his debate titled “God Probably Doesn’t Exist”, but told him that I want to debate God’s existence with probability, but without anything to do with philosophy. He agreed and made this debate, which I accepted. Which is why this debate has science as the headline. Nevertheless, Con has still based his arguments on philosophy. I feel this is a very unfair move by my opponent. The debate was supposed to look at the observable world, and determine whether it implies the existence of God, or not. However, Con has made this impossible. Con has based his arguments not on what we know about the world, what we can observe, what we can experiment with, but based on presupposed theoretical truths. This is philosophy and destroys the topic of this debate. Con has made it so that instead of debating on what the observable world implies, we have to debate on what the world is, which inevitably leads to “philosophy vs philosophy” We should not have to debate what the world is, that’s why it is science. What we should debate is what the world implies. Yet Con has shifted the focus to the Eternalism is defined as a point of view within the philosophy of time. Eternalism is a philosophical approach to the ontological nature of time, which takes the view that all points in time are equally "real", as opposed to the presentist idea that only the present is real[1] and the growing block universe theory of time in which the past and present are real while the future is not. [1] The basis for the first argument is this philosophy of time (eternalism) But I feel that using such an argument goes against the will of this debate. It might be true that it is supported by certain scientific theories, as is the opposite: presentism, and there are arguments for and against each point of view, but since eternalism is a philosophy, I cannot falsify it. Which would make the debate pointless. In regards to your cosmological argument, this one is even more philosophical. 1: If God exists, the universe is guaranteed to come into existence. 2: The universe wasn’t guaranteed to come into existence. C: God doesn’t exist. With regards to number 1, the premises are flawed. The second premise to be specific. Either the universe came into existence, or it didn’t. If it didn’t, it is because of eternalism. But eternalism is a philosophy of time. So by science, you can’t say that the universe didn’t come into existence. it is not necessarily true. It is based on the assumption that you know God’s nature. Theoretically, God created the universe at one point, so before that, there was no universe. God could have simply not created a universe, as he is outside of the universe. Therefore number 1 is illogical. But apart from being logical or not, it is based on philosophy. It assumes to know the nature of God. Therefore that entire argument is flawed. “If God exists, the universe is guaranteed to come into existence” this is definitely different from “either God wanted the universe to start, or else he is imperfect” “If we follow the laws of general relativity into the early universe, it entails that the earliest state of the universe was a singularity [7]. Within a singularity all of the laws of physics break down [8]. It is a completely inanimate state, devoid of order and completely unpredictable. This means there is no guarantee that the universe will come into being. The universe could have just as easily stayed a singularity or vanished entirely.” This statement is based on theoretical assumptions. The singularity is theoretical and has not been proven to have existed. You seem to be making an awful lot of assumptions based on theoretical, not observable or experimental premises. This is how you have defined science: The intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment. You are presupposing that time is eternal, you are holding to a certain philosophy, you are not taking this debate in the way that it should be, based on science. My arguments have been scientific, not philosophic. They are definitely observable and definitely testable. Your arguments on the other hand, are philosophical, tied together with logic, yes, but they are of philosophical nature. They are presupposing CERTAIN theoretical positions as true. Philosophy is the study of general and fundamental problems, such as those connected with reality, existence, knowledge, values, reason, mind and language Conclusion: My opponent has inserted philosophy into the equation. This debate was supposed to be an observation of the observable world, and see what it implied. However, because of the insertion of philosophy and presupposed, non-confirmed, theoretical characteristics of the world, me and my opponent cannot possibly debate on whether or not science implies the existence of God or not, simply because my opponent is basing his arguments on a hypothetical universe, where as I am basing my arguments on the current, observable, demonstratable characteristics of the universe and life. Therefore, debating on the premises he has set would be illogical, since his world is theoretical and different from mine. However, I am still keen on defending my opening statement in the next round, but if my opponent wants to cancel the debate, I would agree to it https://en.wikipedia.org...(philosophy_of_time) https://en.wikipedia.org... https://en.wikipedia.org...