The Instigator
Purushadasa
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
cakerman
Con (against)
Winning
11 Points

SUCCESS in the SCIENTIFIC METHOD PROVES THAT GOD NECESSARILY EXISTS

Do you like this debate?NoYes-3
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 2 votes the winner is...
cakerman
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/9/2017 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 11 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 821 times Debate No: 103466
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (25)
Votes (2)

 

Purushadasa

Pro

Preamble:

Without God, there could be no science:

Without God, the believer in atheist Dogma could have no rational expectation of constancy over time in any of the Laws of Nature, nor could he have any rational expectation of uniformity over time, anywhere in the universe -- both of which would be required in order to successfully complete the scientific method and reach any rational scientific conclusions about the universe. If 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, overnight. The only rational explanation for the fact that such changes in the Laws of Nature and in the uniformity of the universe cannot and do not occur is that God is personally upholding all of the Laws of Nature, and God is also personally upholding all of the uniformity that we observe throughout the entire universe.

Section 1 (Preliminary Proof):

Preliminary Premise A: Without God (or something like God), nobody could successfully complete the scientific method.*

Preliminary Premise B: We can successfully complete the scientific method.

Preliminary Conclusion: Therefore, either God or something like God exists in reality.

*(See Section 2, below, for Proof of Preliminary Premise A).

Section 2 -- Supplementary Proof (Proof for Preliminary Premise A):

PA1: Without God (or something like God), the believer in atheist Dogma could have no rational expectation of constancy over time in any of the Laws of Nature, nor could he have any rational expectation of uniformity over time, anywhere in the universe.

(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 universe. The only way to successfully refute this Premise would be to posit some entity other than God that could somehow ensure constancy over time in the Laws of Nature, and could also ensure a rational expectation of uniformity over time in the universe -- and then demonstrate that such a posited entity actually does ensure constancy over time in the Laws of Nature, and that it also ensures a rational expectation of uniformity over time in the universe).

PA2: 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.

PA3: If 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, overnight.

(There 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 universe. The only way to successfully refute this Premise would be to posit some entity other than God that could somehow ensure that the Laws of Nature won't change overnight, and that could also ensure a rational expectation of uniformity over time in the universe -- and then demonstrate that such a posited entity actually does ensure that the Laws of Nature won't change overnight, and that it also ensures a rational expectation of uniformity over time in the universe).

PA4: Therefore the only rational explanation for the fact that such changes in the Laws of Nature and in the uniformity of the universe cannot and do not occur is that God (or something like God) is personally upholding all of the Laws of Nature, and God (or something like God) is also personally upholding all of the uniformity that we observe throughout the entire universe.

(The only way to successfully refute this Premise would be to posit some entity other than God that could possibly uphold all of the Laws of Nature, and that could also uphold all of the uniformity that we observe throughout the entire universe -- and then demonstrate that the posited entity is actually upholding all of the Laws of Nature, and also upholding all of the uniformity that we observe throughout the entire universe).

PA5: Therefore there is no entity in existence other than God that could possibly provide a rational basis for the scientific method to be completed with any rational expectation of success. (See P2).

(The only way to successfully refute this Premise would be to posit some entity other than God that could possibly provide a rational basis for the scientific method to be conducted with any expectation of accuracy -- and then demonstrate that the posited entity is actually providing a rational basis for the scientific method to be conducted with an expectation of accuracy).

Conclusion to Supplementary Proof: Therefore without God (or something like God), nobody could successfully complete the scientific method.

Bonus Material: Supplementary Video (Included for Clarification of Argument in Section 2): https://www.youtube.com...

Section 3 (The Clincher):

P3.1: If "something like God" exists in reality, then God necessarily exists in reality.

(In order for any real entity to be actually "like God," God would also have to be real " otherwise the entity in question would necessarily be "unlike God" by dint of one being real and the other being unreal).

P3.2: "Something like God" exists in reality. (See Preliminary Proof in Section 1, above, for Proof of this Premise).

FINAL CONCLUSION: Therefore, God necessarily exists in reality.

Setup for QED -- please note the following three facts:

1. Section 3, which proves the FINAL CONCLUSION to this entire Argument, rests on Section 1.
2. Section 1 rests on Section 2.
3. Section 2 rests entirely on its own merit (neither on Section 1 nor on Section 3).

FINAL CONCLUSION (deliberately repeated, for clarity):

Therefore, God necessarily exists in reality.

QED
cakerman

Con

Hello good sir it's my pleasure to debate this topic with you, but i'm hopping right into the thick of it

Without God (or something like God), nobody could successfully complete the scientific method

That'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 universe

Existence 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 god

If 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, overnight

I 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 perfectly

There 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 universe

Again, 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


Debate Round No. 1
Purushadasa

Pro

My opponent wrote:

"Without God (or something like God), nobody could successfully complete the scientific method

That's not true"

Yes it is.

, "and that's a bit of a radical conclusion to jump to right off the bat,"

No it isn't.

" 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.

"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 universe

Existence itself is ensured constancy,"

Who or what supposedly "ensures" this constancy? God, of course: You have offered nothing other than God (or something like God) as an explanation for this constancy, so I won the debate.

" but i'm not sure if i would say the universe is entirely uniform,"

If it isn't, then we cannot expect an accurate or successful result from scientific method anywhere in the universe.

"it just seems that way to us human beings because we can observe uniformity in a minute percentage of the universe as a whole."

Without God, nobody could make an objective distinction between uniformity and a lack thereof.

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"

Yes it is.

, "once the laws of nature are established"

Who or what established them? God, of course: You have offered nothing other than God (or something like God) as an explanation for this act of establishment, so I won the debate.

" their very existence ensures their constancy"

No, the Laws of Nature do not and cannot ensure their own constancy. If you could say that without evidence, then I could say that "the truth of the statement "God exists" ensures the constancy of itself," and therefore its truth is necessarily constant, and thereby prove that God exists. However, I am not making such a claim because both claims are logical fallacies, and in fact, none of the Laws of Nature are even stated to ensure their own constancy (none of them even address the issue of their own constancy at all), so you are just making that up anyway and have grossly misrepresented the Laws of Nature.

" Logically if the scientific method is practicable once it will be consistently over the course of time due to simple existence,"

That statement is patently false and has no evidence in its favor.

"If 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, overnight

I would be very careful with your wording here, because logically that makes no sense"

Actually, it makes perfect logical 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"

That 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 debate. If you are interested, you can see that argument of mine at the following video:

https://www.youtube.com...

I'm glad that you and I agree on the conclusion of that particular argument (That God necessarily exists). However, that other argument is a side-issue to this present debate.

". 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.

" to explain natural phenomenon,"

Okay, so your semantic point is well taken: By "Laws of Nature, I was referring to what you call "natural phenomenon [sic], which if stated with grammatical correctness would actually be "natural phenomena:" This debate, however, is on the actual issue, not on the semantics of my OP, so please address "natural phenomena" where I state "Laws of Nature," because our respective definitions of those two terms are semantically equivalent.

"There 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 universe

Again, 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,"

Again, I agree with you there, and that is a different proof for God altogether. Please address the proof of God from my OP in this present debate instead of that one, or you risk committing straw man logical fallacy. I am glad, however, that you accept the existence of God based on the changes that have been observed in the Laws of Nature: It's good to know that you and I both accept God's factual existence! =)

Still, please try to stick to the argument I actually made in this debate instead of addressing that other argument, okay?

" especially considering the science behind it"

Without God, there could be no science.

"therefore your argument doesn't exist if a god DOES exist."

Actually, both God and my argument definitely exist.

"Implying that the only other alternative to a god is "something like god" in itself is a logical fallacy,"

I never made that claim, though, so that is just another straw man logical fallacy on your part.

"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."

That statement is constructed with such poor grammar that I honestly have no idea what your point may be: Please re-phrase it with some modicum of intelligible grammar.

BTW, if you are claiming that "just existence" is responsible for the observed constancy in the Laws of Nature, then you have posited "something like God," and you have chosen to call God "just existence." Therefore, if you are correct in that claim, then God necessarily exists. (I don't know if that is what you are claiming because your grammar is so horrendous, so please forgive me if you actually meant something else).

"FINAL CONCLUSION: The laws of nature are constant because of existence as a whole"

No they aren't, and you have failed to provide evidence for that claim: It is merely your own personal faith-based religious belief, posited without any support. Also, if it were true, then you have actually posited God (or something like God), and you have chosen to refer to God as "existence as a whole."

Incidentally, many of God's revealed scriptures also refer to God as "existence as a whole," in different languages and different semantic constructions, so you are actually echoing God's very own conclusions when you make that statement: I am beginning to suspect that you are arguing in favor of God's factual existence, not against it! LOL =)

"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"

That is true, and I am glad that you and I agree on that point. However, that is not my argument in this debate, so even though you are right, and you have proven God's existence with that argument, I did not make that argument in this debate, so it is technically a straw man logical fallacy on your part. I will allow it, however, because you prove that God necessarily exists by that argument. =)

Both a change in the Laws of Nature and constancy in Laws of Nature would require explanations, and you have admitted that God is the only rational explanation for their changes. Thank you for proving God's existence in that way. My argument in this debate, however, is that God is the only rational explanation for their constancy, and because you failed to posit any entity other than God (or something like God) to explain their constancy, I won this debate.

in fact, the only thing that you posited for the constancy of the Laws of Nature is something like God, so actually, if we are to accept your position as true, then God necessarily exists.

. "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"

If you haven't seen, then that part of your argument commits the fallacy known as "argument from ignorance."

in short, I won this debate quite handily and easily (and with a good amount of assistance from you): Thanks for your time! =)
cakerman

Con

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 god

That 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 debate

Im 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

Debate Round No. 2
Purushadasa

Pro

My opponent wrote:

"I would strongly urge you to not be so arrogant in a debate of which you're using logic to the tune of "

Without God, arrogance could not be objectively wrong.

Without God, nobody could make an objective distinction between the logical and the illogical.

"Preliminary Premise A: Without God (or something like God), nobody could successfully complete the scientific method.*

That is true.

"The main issue I have with your argument now is your failure to realize that I deconstructed your points, plain and simple."

No you didn't: Merely saying that you did is not the same as actually doing it.

"You say that a God is behind the constancy of the universe 100%, without a shadow of a doubt,"

I never made that statement, so that is a straw man logical fallacy on your part.

" God is the only thing that can screw up the constancy of the universe to such an extent."

Again, we agree that that is proof of God (and I am happy that you agree with the fact that God exists), but that is a subject for a different debate: Please try to stay on my actual argument during this present debate, if you possibly can: I have not made that argument during this debate.

". 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.

"there is 0 constancy to gravity"

Actually, gravity remains constant every day, without any change whatsoever, over time.

"There is no constancy to the laws of physics"

Yes there is: They do not change one iota from day to day, as time passes: They remain 100% constant.

"Show me some legitimate evidence that science just *cannot* exist without a god"

I never made such a claim, so that is another straw man logical fallacy on your part.

You offered no valid arguments and no valid refutations to my argument, only a slew of straw man logical fallacies, whereas I provided air-tight evidence for all of my statements.

Therefore I won this debate: Thanks for your time! =)
cakerman

Con

I'm beginning to think that you started this debate up for joke purposes, you take me out of context time and time again and refute the same points with the same sentences repeatedly. You call everything I do a straw man because i'm not sure you know of any other logical fallacies so let me introduce to you the one that your entire debate is based on commiting

Circular Reasoning: a logical fallacy in which one begins arguing in the wrong end of a premise that indicates some regularity and tries to move in the opposite direction, from an assumption or observation that verifies a consequent.

Your adamancy to the point that science cannot exist without a god (even though you said you never claimed that) and that the scientific method cannot be completed without god is circular reasoning in the way that you are presenting it. your Preliminary Premise(s) A and B hold a good example of this fallacy in action

Preliminary Premise A: Without God (or something like God), nobody could successfully complete the scientific method.*

Preliminary Premise B: We can successfully complete the scientific method.

Preliminary Conclusion: Therefore, either God or something like God exists in reality.

It is virtually impossible to say that these set of premises and the conclusion are not circular reasoning, but just to be safe let's break it down. Your evidences for your "Preliminary Premise A" are as follows:

Without God (or something like God), the believer in atheist Dogma could have no rational expectation of constancy over time in any of the Laws of Nature, nor could he have any rational expectation of uniformity over time, anywhere in the universe.

(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 universe. The only way to successfully refute this Premise would be to posit some entity other than God that could somehow ensure constancy over time in the Laws of Nature, and could also ensure a rational expectation of uniformity over time in the universe -- and then demonstrate that such a posited entity actually does ensure constancy over time in the Laws of Nature, and that it also ensures a rational expectation of uniformity over time in the universe).

Oh, okay, so what we are saying here is that atheists (like myself, not entirely certain as to why you keep assuming I believe in God) cannot have a rational expectation of constancy, and that a God is the only logical way to have a rational expectation of constancy (implied in the line "There is nothing in existence other than God that could ensure constancy over time in any of the Laws of Nature"). That's a good groundwork thesis i suppose, But that doesn't mention the direct statement that the scientific method can't be completed without a god, only the laws of nature. Either way I can't wait to look at all of the links you've provided me backing it up... oh wait... Maybe the next couple of sections will verify things for me


PA2: 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.

PA3: If 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, overnight.

Hmmm, well, this is where the circular reasoning starts. For PA1 we know that "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 universe.", but then the circular reasoning starts at PA2-3, when we learn that you need to have a rational expectation of constancy over time and a rational expectation of uniformity to complete the scientific method successfully. And to that, I ask:

Says who?

What source material are you getting your parameters for completion of the scientific method and reasonable constancy/uniformity from? saying that "constancy doesn't exist without god, but the scientific method doesn't work successfully without constancy, therefore I win" isn't going to work here. I will not continue to examine the rest of PA3 and PA4


*part of PA3* (There 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 universe. The only way to successfully refute this Premise would be to posit some entity other than God that could somehow ensure that the Laws of Nature won't change overnight, and that could also ensure a rational expectation of uniformity over time in the universe -- and then demonstrate that such a posited entity actually does ensure that the Laws of Nature won't change overnight, and that it also ensures a rational expectation of uniformity over time in the universe).

PA4: Therefore the only rational explanation for the fact that such changes in the Laws of Nature and in the uniformity of the universe cannot and do not occur is that God (or something like God) is personally upholding all of the Laws of Nature, and God (or something like God) is also personally upholding all of the uniformity that we observe throughout the entire universe.

Okay, so the rest of PA3 is basically the same paragraph from PA1 *refer to analysis above* except you're saying now that god is the only thing that makes sure that the laws of nature stay constant all the time, 3/4ths of this paragraph are copy/pasted. PA4's main thesis pretty much sums up what the result of previous circular reasoning would allude to. Next.

*part of PA4* (The only way to successfully refute this Premise would be to posit some entity other than God that could possibly uphold all of the Laws of Nature, and that could also uphold all of the uniformity that we observe throughout the entire universe -- and then demonstrate that the posited entity is actually upholding all of the Laws of Nature, and also upholding all of the uniformity that we observe throughout the entire universe).

PA5: Therefore there is no entity in existence other than God that could possibly provide a rational basis for the scientific method to be completed with any rational expectation of success. (See P2).

(The only way to successfully refute this Premise would be to posit some entity other than God that could possibly provide a rational basis for the scientific method to be conducted with any expectation of accuracy -- and then demonstrate that the posited entity is actually providing a rational basis for the scientific method to be conducted with an expectation of accuracy).

The rest of PA4 is just the exact same, strict guidlines for refuting what you say just worded different. PA5 is just PA4 except used to say that god is the only way you can have a rational basis for the scientific method to be completed with an expectation of success. Kind of like PA2 except a few words and the premise have changed. Next we come to this:

Conclusion to Supplementary Proof: Therefore without God (or something like God), nobody could successfully complete the scientific method.

There is PA5 and PA2 summed up in one short sentence, now since you were cherry picking grammatical errors in round 2 I want to ask, why do you use the word "supplementary" when you haven't put anything out there aside from your main thesis reworded a couple of times, and said in a tone of certainty so you're automatically right. Even your "supplementary video" is just 6 minutes of scrolling text with dramatic music that says what you said. We next come to this interesting quote

P3.1: If "something like God" exists in reality, then God necessarily exists in reality.

(In order for any real entity to be actually "like God," God would also have to be real " otherwise the entity in question would necessarily be "unlike God" by dint of one being real and the other being unreal).

P3.2: "Something like God" exists in reality. (See Preliminary Proof in Section 1, above, for Proof of this Premise).

Not only is this argument feeding off of the circular reasoning you used prior, it's also a logically incoherent idea. Your tone implies that there is without a shadow of a doubt a God, or God-like entity controlling our universe, neglecting to think about the lack of evidence for a creator or a god, let alone that this god is making sure that the laws of nature don't change, it's a silly idea in every way. Implying a god beyond certainty like you are automatically assumes a burden of proof you have yet to acknowledge, let alone fulfill, which is why I haven't supplemented my thesis with any sort of links or sources, but that's the nail in the coffin. If God is the reason that we have science you would think that scientifically we could test the existence of a god, but surprisingly (not really) it hasn't been done, and it won't be done. Round 4 will tell if your argument can hold up and reverse the logical fallacy you cursed yourself with, if you'd like to get a seperate debate on the existence of a god going i'm fine with that.

Round 3 Conclusions: Purushadasa has dug him/herself into a hold of which was dug by circular reasoning, and repeated numerous times purely to exaggerate the substance and length of your argument. The burden of proof that comes with implying a god beyond certainty was not fulfilled, and therefore I have no reason to post any sources, which as I explained above there isn't really any sources that are scientific and not opinionated.
Debate Round No. 3
Purushadasa

Pro

My opponent wrote:

"Circular Reasoning"

Without God, circular reasoning could not be objectively wrong.

"Your adamancy to the point that science cannot exist without a god"

I never made that statement, so that is a straw man logical fallacy on your part.

"Preliminary Premise A: Without God (or something like God), nobody could successfully complete the scientific method.*

Preliminary Premise B: We can successfully complete the scientific method.

Preliminary Conclusion: Therefore, either God or something like God exists in reality."

That is true.

Your evidences for your "Preliminary Premise A" are as follows:

"Without God (or something like God), the believer in atheist Dogma could have no rational expectation of constancy over time in any of the Laws of Nature, nor could he have any rational expectation of uniformity over time, anywhere in the universe."

That is true.

"(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 universe. The only way to successfully refute this Premise would be to posit some entity other than God that could somehow ensure constancy over time in the Laws of Nature, and could also ensure a rational expectation of uniformity over time in the universe -- and then demonstrate that such a posited entity actually does ensure constancy over time in the Laws of Nature, and that it also ensures a rational expectation of uniformity over time in the universe)."

That is true.

"Oh, okay, so what we are saying here is that atheists"

I did not make any statement about "atheists" in my argument, so that is a straw man logical fallacy on your part. Actually, there is no such thing as an atheist.

"I believe in God"

I know you do -- you stated that the changes in the Laws of Nature are proof that God exists.

"and that a God is the only logical way to have a rational expectation of constancy"

I never made that statement, so that is another straw man logical fallacy on your part.

"There is nothing in existence other than God that could ensure constancy over time in any of the Laws of Nature")."

That is true.

"PA2: 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 is true.

"PA3: If 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, overnight."

That is true.

"Hmmm, well, this is where the circular reasoning starts."

The only circular reasoning is yours. Also, without God, circular reasoning could not be objectively wrong.

" "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 universe.", but then the circular reasoning starts at PA2-3, when we learn that you need to have a rational expectation of constancy over time and a rational expectation of uniformity to complete the scientific method successfully. "

That is all true, yes.

""constancy doesn't exist without god, but the scientific method doesn't work successfully without constancy, therefore I win""

I never made that statement, so that is a straw man logical fallacy on your part.

"(There 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 universe. The only way to successfully refute this Premise would be to posit some entity other than God that could somehow ensure that the Laws of Nature won't change overnight, and that could also ensure a rational expectation of uniformity over time in the universe -- and then demonstrate that such a posited entity actually does ensure that the Laws of Nature won't change overnight, and that it also ensures a rational expectation of uniformity over time in the universe)."

That is all true.

"PA4: Therefore the only rational explanation for the fact that such changes in the Laws of Nature and in the uniformity of the universe cannot and do not occur is that God (or something like God) is personally upholding all of the Laws of Nature, and God (or something like God) is also personally upholding all of the uniformity that we observe throughout the entire universe."

That is all true.

"you're saying now that god is the only thing that makes sure that the laws of nature stay constant all the time"

I never made that statement, so that is yet another straw man logical fallacy on your part.

" of previous circular reasoning would allude to"

The only circular reasoning here is yours. Also, without God, circular reasoning could not be objectively wrong.

"(The only way to successfully refute this Premise would be to posit some entity other than God that could possibly uphold all of the Laws of Nature, and that could also uphold all of the uniformity that we observe throughout the entire universe -- and then demonstrate that the posited entity is actually upholding all of the Laws of Nature, and also upholding all of the uniformity that we observe throughout the entire universe)."

That is true, yes!

" Therefore there is no entity in existence other than God that could possibly provide a rational basis for the scientific method to be completed with any rational expectation of success."

That is also true.

"(The only way to successfully refute this Premise would be to posit some entity other than God that could possibly provide a rational basis for the scientific method to be conducted with any expectation of accuracy -- and then demonstrate that the posited entity is actually providing a rational basis for the scientific method to be conducted with an expectation of accuracy)."

That is true.

"The rest of PA4 is just the exact same, strict guidlines for refuting what you say just worded different."

No it isn't.

"PA5 is just PA4"

No it isn't.

" except used to say that god is the only way you can have a rational basis for the scientific method to be completed with an expectation of success."

I never made that statement, so that is yet another straw man logical fallacy on your part.

"Conclusion to Supplementary Proof: Therefore without God (or something like God), nobody could successfully complete the scientific method."

That is true.

"you were cherry picking grammatical errors:

No I wasn't.

"why do you use the word "supplementary""

Because it is supplementary. Why do you use the word "word?"

"P3.1: If "something like God" exists in reality, then God necessarily exists in reality."

That is true.

"(In order for any real entity to be actually "like God," God would also have to be real " otherwise the entity in question would necessarily be "unlike God" by dint of one being real and the other being unreal)."

That is also true.

"P3.2: "Something like God" exists in reality. (See Preliminary Proof in Section 1, above, for Proof of this Premise)."

That is also true.

"Not only is this argument feeding off of the circular reasoning"

No it isn't, and I didn't commit any circular reasoning -- only you did that. Also, without God, circular reasoning could not be objectively wrong.

" it's also a logically incoherent idea."

No it isn't.

" Your tone implies that there is without a shadow of a doubt a God,"

No it doesn't.

"evidence for a creator"

I did not mention the word "creator" anywhere in my entire argument, so that is another straw man logical fallacy on your part.

"it's a silly idea in every way."

No it isn't.

"Purushadasa has dug him/herself into a hold of which was dug by circular reasoning"

No I haven't -- I didn't commit any circular reasoning, and you didn't point out any circular reasoning on my part. You are the only one that has committed circular reasoning in this debate. Also, without God, circular reasoning could not be objectively wrong anyway.

You utterly failed to even address my argument, setting up about 10 or 12 straw men and arguing against those. Therefore I won this debate: Thanks for your time! =)
cakerman

Con

Your argument is nil, saying "that is true" or "that is a strawman fallacy" doesn't prove or disprove a thing you say. You have taken me out of context yet again, to the voters, have you noticed how 99% of his entire round 4 debate was him putting quotes of things that he said and saying "yup that's true".

"Your adamancy to the point that science cannot exist without a god"

I never made that statement, so that is a straw man logical fallacy on your part.

But if we take a quick peek at Round 2 arguments we have

" especially considering the science behind it"

Without God, there could be no science.

therefore that rebuttal of yours is nil, voters, just refer to this:

"P3.1: If "something like God" exists in reality, then God necessarily exists in reality."

That is true.

"(In order for any real entity to be actually "like God," God would also have to be real " otherwise the entity in question would necessarily be "unlike God" by dint of one being real and the other being unreal)."

That is also true.

"P3.2: "Something like God" exists in reality. (See Preliminary Proof in Section 1, above, for Proof of this Premise)."

That is also true.

"Not only is this argument feeding off of the circular reasoning"

No it isn't, and I didn't commit any circular reasoning -- only you did that. Also, without God, circular reasoning could not be objectively wrong.

" it's also a logically incoherent idea."

No it isn't.

" Your tone implies that there is without a shadow of a doubt a God,"

No it doesn't.

and try to tell me that a coherent or logical argument has been made on his side in any way shape or form. He has taken me out of context and has again assumed that I believe *I don't, for the second time* in a god.

No I haven't -- I didn't commit any circular reasoning, and you didn't point out any circular reasoning on my part. You are the only one that has committed circular reasoning in this debate. Also, without God, circular reasoning could not be objectively wrong anyway.

what kind of rebuttal is this? You know that religion doesn't always reign supreme in a debate, you can't just say "that's true because without god it wouldn't be" and win, you have LOST this debate, there is no arguing against it. I pointed out your circular reasoning, you have taken me very obviously out of context multiple times, and provide nothing new to say with your arguments. Good luck in the voting, you'll need it

Debate Round No. 4
25 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Purushadasa 11 months ago
Purushadasa
NDECD1441 wrote:

"Thanks though, God has indeed blessed me. =)"

That is true.
Posted by NDECD1441 11 months ago
NDECD1441
He clearly hasnt done the same to you though =)
Posted by NDECD1441 11 months ago
NDECD1441
Yes and you want to know the reason? You =). Thanks though, god has indeed blessed me. =)
Posted by Purushadasa 11 months ago
Purushadasa
Yes, the bias was indeed made against me: Thanks for your agreement and support, and God bless you!
Posted by NDECD1441 11 months ago
NDECD1441
The "bias" was made against you by your @$$holic attitude
Posted by Purushadasa 11 months ago
Purushadasa
Without God, committing logical fallacies could not be objectively wrong.

There's absolutely no structure in place, in this site's so-called "voting" process, to ensure even a modicum of integrity or honesty or qualification to even understand what debate is.

I won this debate no matter how anyone votes, because the voters are biased and there is no structure in place to prevent the voters from being biased: The entire "voting" system on this site is nothing but a ridiculous sham and an exercise in atheistic bias.
Posted by NDECD1441 11 months ago
NDECD1441
A douchebag wrote:
"Also, without God, committing logical fallacies could not be objectively wrong."
No they could, you have no idea what objective is.

"There's absolutely no structure in place to ensure even a modicum of integrity or honesty or qualification to even understand what debate is"
Apparently you have the same condition. LOL SMH =)

CAKERMAN won this debate BECAUSE IT DOES matter how anyone votes, because the voters NOT are biased and there is A structure in place to prevent the voters from being biased: The entire "voting" system on this site is NOT a ridiculous sham and PURUSHADASA IS nothing but a joke. LOL
Posted by Purushadasa 11 months ago
Purushadasa
To Cakerman:

I don't have a religion -- you do.

"...clearly, there IS a God. You just proved it...."

You are correct about that: Thank you for your agreement and support, and God bless you! =)

so you do belong to a religion?"

No, I do not, but you do.

"atheism is not an active belief system,"

My OP says nothing about atheism. However, the belief in atheist Dogma (which is your religion) is indeed a belief system.

" but the lack of one,"

The belief in atheist Dogma is a belief system, not a lack of belief.
Posted by cakerman 11 months ago
cakerman
" You know that religion doesn't always reign supreme in a debate"

I don't have a religion -- you do.

do you have any idea just how much this doesn't make sense?

You first claim that human beings worship god, animals do not. Does this mean that you are indeed an animal?

"...clearly, there IS a God. You just proved it...."

You are correct about that: Thank you for your agreement and support, and God bless you! =)

so you do belong to a religion? It is impossible to be atheistic and believe in a god because atheism is not an active belief system, but the lack of one, lack of theism to be specific. (theism is the belief in the existence of a god or gods, especially belief in one god as creator of the universe, intervening in it and sustaining a personal relation to his creatures)
Posted by Purushadasa 11 months ago
Purushadasa
Someone wrote:

"...clearly, there IS a God. You just proved it...."

You are correct about that: Thank you for your agreement and support, and God bless you! =)

"You won the debate and everything."

That is also correct, but not as important as your previous admission: Thank you for admitting both facts.

"The objective of a debate is to drain all bias from an argument."

No it isn't.

" Fallacies are tools of bias, thus using logical fallacies is objectively wrong in a debate."

Without God, using logical fallacies could not be objectively wrong (as you just admitted, above).

Thank you for admitting in two different paragraphs the fact that God exists in reality.

Believers in atheist Dogma seem to think that insulting me will hurt my feelings, but it does not. That is because none of this is actually about me: This is all about God.

Whereas for Theological Realists, everything is "all about God," believers in atheist Dogma are so very easily angered by personal insults, because for them, everything is "all about me." That is a very vulnerable and unintelligent position to hold, and my position is much safer.

Now that you have clearly and intelligently admitted the fact that God exists in reality, you now have the opportunity to experience my safer position as well. Congratulations! =)

In any case, I am perfectly happy with the outcome of this conversation simply because you admitted the fact that God exists in reality and that the belief in atheist Dogma is therefore a false belief system. Thanks for your time, and God bless you! =)
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Phenenas 11 months ago
Phenenas
PurushadasacakermanTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: Anyone who isn't Purushadasa deserves to win.
Vote Placed by JimShady 11 months ago
JimShady
PurushadasacakermanTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: To begin with, I was divided on if the success of the scientific method proves God's existence at the start of the debate. Since Purushadasa is the one making the claim and has not proved it, I am siding with cakerman. Spelling and grammar is a tie, there were a few mishaps but nothing point-gaining-worthy. Sources are also tied, as videos will not do it for me. A point for conduct goes to cakerman. Pro, as in his other debates, has a tendency to ignore points made by the opponent and just restate his thesis, call bogus straw man fallacies (many times the "straw man" is a simple rewording and not the actual fallacy) and saying he won the debate prematurely. Ad hominem was on both sides, but con was on the defense. Now, 3 points to cakerman for convincing arguments... Pro asserts that without God, there is no order to the universe and thus the S. Method can't work. He does not support this claim other than with circular reasoning as Con points out. Continued RVD in comments...