Science cannot disprove God

The final round is for the final rebuttal and closing statements. I would also ask the judges to reject, at their discretion, any sources or evidence that CON presents in the final round. Most judges would consider introducing evidence or sources in the final round bad form if not bad conduct since it would not permit me the ability to cross examine. FINAL REBUTTAL What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. CON affirms that we should negate the resolution due to lack of evidence. I have provided the necessary evidence that supports each premise and that demands that we hold the resolution true. This is a curious allegation by CON, as he has not presented a single shred of evidence to back the counter arguments. While I have the full burden of proof, CON"s counter arguments still need to be supported by adequate evidence. We are nearing the end of the final round; a four round debate. Yet, CON has only provided a single source for his arguments. A Google definition, in which he waited until the end of the third round to offer. Ironically, the definition matches the one I presented in the opening round. Con has not presented any arguments with substance. He continually claims that science can disprove closet monsters, gay pixies and God but hasn"t actually provided any evidence to support this claim. While this is not an adequate argument for my resolution, such would be ad ignorantiam, but it does beg that the judges ask themselves: isn"t this reason enough to dismiss the counter arguments instead? The intension of this debate is to examine the objective of science CON claims that, "Science does not have an intention, it"s a methodology. " However, my statement was misconstrued by CON. My statement was that this debate had an intention. Science is a methodology, and it has its limitations as such. These limitations were defined in the opening round, but CON defines them again for us in ROUND 3. Science is the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the PHYSICAL and NATURAL world through OBSERVATION and EXPERIMENT. How can science, limited to observing the natural world, study a supreme being that exists above and beyond nature? How can we study the evidence of non-existence? These are logical contradictions that are the basis of my argument; utilizing the definitions of "science" and "God" from my opening round. CON"s argument here begs the question, why did he wait until nearly the end of the debate to define such an important term? An even larger oddity: why did CON present the same definition, word for word, as I did in the opening round? Did CON not realize that his definition matched? Has he not paid attention to such a key component of this debate? I don"t know for sure, but this incident does create some incredulity on the part of CON"s counter arguments. What is the purpose of science and, specifically, when is science indifferent on a subject I did not state, as CON claims, that science had a personality. It does have a purpose and an objective. The purpose and objective are outlined in the very definition that CON and I presented: to study the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world. We can also, thereby, make the conclusion that science is not effective at understanding the supernatural world. We are concerning ourselves with one question: can science disprove God CON has misconstrued my statements here, as well. I have not claimed that we have no means to study God. In fact, I have no doubt that it is one of the most studied topics in human culture. It cannot, however, be studied by science. We use philosophy, specifically metaphysics or theology. Theology is the study of the concepts of religions and God-deitites. You can find philosophical arguments for and against the existence of God, but you will never find a scientific paper that disproves God. My opponent"s tactic so far has been to load his shotgun and shoot us with a canned version of your typical atheistic theological arguments against the existence of God To CON: I do apologize if you took offense to this statement. I believe that this resolution can be accepted by both atheists and theists. It does not take a stance on the existence or non-existence of God. It was not a subjective judgement; my comment was regarding the legitimacy of your arguments. I was merely conveying that, if there was an "Atheists Cookbook" of common arguments against the existence of God, that you had blindly copied the first five pages into your arguments. Your arguments have been aligned with proving or disproving gay pixies and the closet monster but have largely ignored the main topic, the limitations of science. My closet monster has special privilege CON claims that the realm of science is discovering truth and that you can apply scientific methodology to supernatural claims. While science"s objective is most definitely rooted in finding truth, it accomplishes this specifically with the intense scrutiny of evidence. Science, by both my and CON"s definition, is limited to the natural universe and as such cannot be applied to supernatural claims. Non-existence, by definition, demands that no evidence exists. It is, therefore, a contradiction to study non-existent evidence. Black Swan Fallacy My claim was not that the existence or non-existence of God is unknowable but that it is logically impossible to make such a conclusion through scientific study. The Black Swan Fallacy dictates that, "Every swan that I have ever seen is white; therefore; there are no black swans. " The fallacy is an appeal from ignorance; it asserts that a proposition is true because it has not yet been proven false. It ignores the possibility that there is insufficient information to prove the proposition either true or false. This fallacy cannot be applied to propositions that are logically true and require no investigation. For instance: the proposition that a logical statement cannot simultaneously be both true and false or the proposition that there are no three sides squares do not require any additional investigation or information. By the definition of true and false or the definition of a square, we can prove these propositions true without having to scour the universe. Similarly, there is a contradiction that is logically true in my resolution. We cannot study evidence of non-existence. God of the Gaps - Argument from Either Or The question you are referring to, between Ken Ham and Bill Nye, was whether or not creation is a viable model of origins in today"s modern scientific era. This question is completely outside the context of this resolution. Both Mr. Ham and Mr. Nye are debating historical occurrences in the natural world; occurrences within the realm of science. I"m not sure if you read my opening statement for this debate, but I actually mentioned this exact topic. "The realm of religion and the realm of science do sometimes overlap when religion takes a stance on an element of the natural world, such as the age of the earth, the origins of humanity, the relationship between the sun and earth, etc. " If you asked Mr. Nye what would change his mind on the existence of God, he would almost surely have the same answer: evidence. However, if you asked him instead why he didn"t believe in God, I have confidence that he would say: because the burden of proof lies on the simpler theory with fewer assertions. A universe absent of supernatural beings certainly is simpler. Mr. Nye would most definitely not say that he does not believe in God because science has proven that supernatural beings could not and do not exist. God of the Gaps and Argument from Either Or are the same arguments, with regard to this resolution, because they rely on the possibility that somewhere there exists information that is contradictory to the resolution in question. This is not true for this resolution because, if false, the resolution would contradict the very definitions we have included for God and science. It would be a contradiction to find evidence of non-existence. CON rejects the claim that God can exist without evidence. This is not surprising, since this very notion is critically damaging to every counter argument that he has presented. This, however, does not mean that "He can exist without existing, " as CON claims. Our definition states that God is supernatural and therefore, by definition, he is ABOVE NATURE. He is omnipotent and therefore can exist without evidence to us. CLOSING STATEMENTS My resolution only permits that you, the judges, use logic and it does not require that you abandon your belief or disbelief in God. Whether you hold the resolution true or not, we are not left with an answer on the existence or non-existence of God. We only need to consider the contradiction in terms to determine that this resolution is true and that there is no amount of information that could be gathered to prove otherwise. To study and scrutinize the evidence of absence is a contradiction. For the understanding of the structure and behavior of the natural world to also include the supernatural would be a contradiction.