SUCCESS in the SCIENTIFIC METHOD PROVES THAT GOD NECESSARILY EXISTS

Hello good sir it's my pleasure to debate this topic with you, but i'm hopping right into the thick of itWithout God (or something like God), nobody could successfully complete the scientific methodThat's not true, and that's a bit of a radical conclusion to jump to right off the bat, considering how simple the scientific method is to execute on paper, (varying per hypothesis) 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. The scientific method is a foolproof system when it comes to successfulness of it, when the experiments dont align with the hypothesis all you do is tweak some variables and try again, guaranteed success.There is nothing in existence other than God that could ensure constancy over time in any of the Laws of Nature, nor is there anything in existence other than God that could ensure any rational expectation of uniformity over time, anywhere in the universeExistence itself is ensured constancy, but i'm not sure if i would say the universe is entirely uniform, it just seems that way to us human beings because we can observe uniformity in a minute percentage of the universe as a whole.Both a rational expectation of constancy over time in the Laws of Nature and a rational expectation of uniformity over time in the universe would be required in order to successfully complete the scientific method and reach any rational scientific conclusions about the universe.That's not necessarily true either, once the laws of nature are established their very existence ensures their constancy, and the only thing that can change that is a practically apocalyptic to us. Logically if the scientific method is practicable once it will be consistently over the course of time due to simple existence, not a godIf God (or something like God) did not exist, then all of the Laws of Nature observed in the universe could change overnight, and all of the uniformity observed in the universe could also be lost forever, overnightI would be very careful with your wording here, because logically that makes no sense, if anything a sudden loss of uniformity and changing of the laws of nature suddenly would imply a higher power able to just change things to his own whim. The laws of nature are also just laws made by man to explain natural phenomenon, which is why it correlates to our world perfectlyThere is nothing in existence other than God that could ensure that the Laws of Nature won't change overnight, nor is there anything in existence other than God that could ensure any rational expectation of uniformity over time, anywhere in the universeAgain, I think the only logical conclusion here is that a god would be the only way something like the laws of nature could just change overnight, especially considering the science behind it. A change so major that the laws of nature changed (in a scientifically fathomable way) would be so catastrophic that you and I would no longer be here to witness the supposed "constancy and uniformity" of the universe, therefore your argument doesn't exist if a god DOES exist.Seeing as half of your argument was the same point nailed in over and over again i don't have much more to dispute. The "bonus material" basically says the exact same thing as your thesis did. Implying that the only other alternative to a god is "something like god" in itself is a logical fallacy, because if this:P3.1: If "something like God" exists in reality, then God necessarily exists in reality.is true than your main thesis is defeated by believing that there is no god, no "something like god" just existence.FINAL CONCLUSION: The laws of nature are constant because of existence as a whole, not because of a god, and the only rational way to explain how the laws of nature could reasonably scientifically shift overnight and humanity still be here to observe it is if a god could bend things to his whim. A point i forgot to add above is that the laws of nature are only relevant to our planet, and we haven't seen anywhere near even close to enough of the universe to say if that is false or not