Science has rendered theism unreasonable
To win, Pro must show that modern scientific knowledge provides overwhelming evidence that there does not exist a god.
To win, Con must be able to reasonably address all arguments made by Pro.
god: a superhuman being or spirit with supernatural power over nature or human fortunes.
theism: belief in the existence of a god or gods, especially belief in one god as creator of the universe.
unreasonable: not guided by or based on good sense.
Round 1: Debate definition by Con and opening arguments by Pro.
Round 2: Rebuttal to round 1 by Con and response/optional further arguments by Pro.
Round 3: Rebuttal to round 2 by Con and statement "no round as agreed" by Pro.
Judges will require 2500 Elo and a "select winner" option will be used.
Much of what I am going to argue is the attributes that Pro has argued in Theism are not compatible with what we know about science. Moreover, that the universe is what it would appear if it spontaneously arose naturally.
Note the definition of theism I am arguing against.
The underlined portions will constitute my case, especially the creator aspect, as that is one of the principle beliefs of theists today. I will make 2 cases which are well-supported by science:
Either of these will render theism untenable as defined.
The Universe Lacks A Cause
To argue that God created the universe also argues that the universe itself is caused by God (with God himself being the Efficient Arestolian Cause), however this runs into significant problems as causes can only occur if tensed facts exist. However such tensed facts can only occur within the A-Series of time (Presentism etc. being subsets), moreover science provides significant evidence against the A-Series of time, and significant evidence in favour of the B-Series off time (which is tenseless). To formulate:
P1. The universe is caused if and only if tensed facts exist
P2. Tensed facts do not exist
C. The universe is uncaused
Hence if the universe is uncaused, the clearly God couldn’t have caused it either. Premise 1 is uncontroversial in among time theorists, including cosmological argument proponents such as William Lane Craig, who affirms:
“From start to finish, the Kalam cosmological argument is predicated upon the A-Theory of time. On a B-Theory of time, the universe does not in fact come into being or become actual at the Big Bang; it just exists tenselessly as a four-dimensional space-time block that is finitely extended in the earlier than direction. If time is tenseless, then the universe never really comes into being, and, therefore, the quest for a cause of its coming into being is misconceived."
So, the only point in contention is P2, which science affirms in earnest. The theory of relativity describes the universe in a four-dimensional ontology, with time itself being another axis in a four-dimensional plane. Affects we see such as length contraction and time dilation result from time being a tangable dimension, with sequential events approaching in a manner which violates the A-Series of time.
Moreover, these assumptions of relativity (that the speed of light is constant, and the laws of physics are the same everywhere, which is well-supported by observation) lead to successful predictions made by Quantum Mechanics & Quantum Electrodynamics, which have also been astonishingly successful (which would most likely have been impossible if the A-Series of time was true).
With this in hand, the universe itself never had a ‘beginning’ per say, but only a first-moment in time. The universe just exists as-is, with the past present & future all existing simultaneously, and hence cannot have been created.
Moreover, observations in quantum mechanics necessarily entail the existence of the future (and hence the falsehood of the A-Series of time), which I can formulate:
P1) If the A-Series of time is true, then retrocausality is impossible
P2) Retrocausality is true
C) The A-Series of time is false
P1 is uncontroversial, since Presentism literally requires only the ‘present’ to ever exist, by definition, to deny this is to deny the law of identity. P2 we know is true from results in delayed-choice in quantum mechanics. Moreover the predictions made by assuming retrocausality are fulfilled with tremendous accuracy so long as information is not transmitted.
Quantum Eternity Theorum
The Quantum Eternity theorem is the result of plugging in energy values into the putative Hamiltonion of the universe, it finds that if the universe has a net positive amount of energy, that the universe itself must be eternal. As stated by Sean Carrol:
“Quantum Eternity Theorem” (QET) — under conventional quantum mechanics, any universe with a non-zero energy and a time-independent Hamiltonian will necessarily last forever toward both the past and the future”
Moreover, if the net energy of the universe is zero, then time itself is emergent (and hence the A-series of time is false).
Here I can make a horned dilemma based on the Quantum Field Theory
P1) Either the total energy of the universe is 0, or >0
P2) If the total energy of the universe is >0, then the universe is eternal (and hence uncreated)
P3) If the total energy of the universe is 0, then time is emergent (and hence uncaused)
C) In either case God did not create the universe
Universe Does Not Require God
Here I can made a modal argument for the redundancy of God, and further exemplify the relevant points as to why it’s more representative of a universe that arises naturally.
P1. If God is necessary, then spontaneous natural creation of the universe is impossible
P2. Spontaneous natural creation of the universe is possible
C. God is unnecessary
P1 is as sound as 2+2=4 if we assume ‘natural’ literally means ‘Non-Intelligently Caused’, and is the the modal formulation:
NG -> ~P~G
Axiom 1 & 2.
So the only room for debate is premise 2, which is increasingly affirmed by what we know of science. As I already affirmed in the quantum eternity theorem, the only way the universe could not be eternal is if the energy content of the universe is zero, this has the direct implication that the universe on average, contains zero energy, zero matter, and zero particles, and hence according the the laws of physics (quantum mechanics and thermodynamics), the universe that we see today could only have arisen naturally from a state of “zero energy, zero matter, and zero particles” if there is no ‘net energy’ in the universe today. Moreover such a universe can only exist if and only if the geometry of the universe is spacially flat.
That is exactly what we find when studying the cosmic microwave background, NASA scientists found that the universe is flat to within 0.4% error with most recent measurements, down from 15% in 2001.
Furthermore, we know that empty space (absent of any energy, particles, photons) itself is instable, and spontaneously according the laws of quantum mechanics yields a bubbling brew of particles & anti-particles which annihilate on short-timescales (according to Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle) which when gravity is applied, leads to particles of impunity. In other words, if you take empty space, and leave it, particles that persist will arise, which can easily account for the ‘stuff’ of the universe.[6,7]
Furthermore, space and time itself are likely describable in quantum mechanics (quantum gravity) given that time is likely another dimension, given this to be the case the laws of quantum mechanics allow for ‘spaces’ and ‘times’ to bubble and spontaneously appear. We know under these physics that such bubbles would almost instantly collapse (transient), and hence cannot yield our universe, unless these bubbles ‘inflated’, only then will these ‘bubbles’ of spacetime be long-lived enough to give rise to the universe today.
The CMB itself is tremendous evidence that inflation actually happened, the ‘blotches’ observed are naturally and readily explained by quantum fluxuations ‘blown up’ into large proportions and ‘froze out’ with a rapidly inflating universe, moreover the ‘flatness’ of the universe is very naturally explained by inflation (since the surface of a sufficiently large sphere appears flat).
Such evidence has lead to most physicists summizing that the universe is self-contained, and hence does not require an external cause of any shape of form.
So, entirely by the laws of quantum mechanics, and gravity, a universe sans time, space, particles and energy can arise from a state that lacks them. Moreover the mechanisms by which they occur are spontaneous, and not intelligent, which is clear-cut not a God. Here I will summarize with three points.
Hence, theism in light of the evidence is untenable.
I) The Universe Lacks A Cause
My first contention is with Pro's claim that causes can only exist in B-Theory. There are both causes and effects in B-Theory. If there were not, we would not have a scientific method. Pro needs to clarify this statement as it is pivotal to the entire argument that the universe is uncaused.
Pro claims that the quote came from William Lane Craig in his source citation. However, the source doesn't contain anything about the Kalam Cosmological argument. The real source of the quote isn't given by Pro. It actually comes from debunkingchristianity.blogspot.com which doesn't even mention Craig . In reality, Craig is a huge supporter of the Kalam Cosmological Argument . Pro's source shows Craig's support for B-Theory (see last paragraph).
Furthermore, Pro claims, "Furthermore, space and time itself are likely describable in quantum mechanics (quantum gravity) given that time is likely another dimension, given this to be the case the laws of quantum mechanics allow for "spaces" and "times" to bubble and spontaneously appear." By doing so, Pro claims that there may be causes external to our space-time continuum that caused our universe to come into existence. If there are unknown causes for the creation of universes, then it stands to reason that the cause may be an intelligent supernatural being that meets the requirements for theism. The idea that such natural exist is speculative, thus whether they are natural or super natural is also unknown. The theist is just as reasonable to assume that these causes are supernatural as the naturalist is to assume these causes are natural.
II) Quantum Eternity Theorem
It isn't agreed upon that an infinitely old universe cannot be created. Thomas Aquinas conjectured how it could be done by the creatio continuans doctrine . Thus there is no logical contradiction. If time is an emergent property, then it is by the law of nature that time emerges. It is generally believed by theists that G-d created the laws of nature. If this were not the case, then the fine tuning argument (which I am not presenting as a positive case for G-d) wouldn't exist . Furthermore, if time is an emergent property, then what must exist for time to emerge, and how did such come into existence?
III) G-d can not Interact with the Universe
Pro claims, "G-d, being immaterial would not be able to interact with the universe as he will intrinsically lack these force-carriers." Pro made a mistake in citing source 10 which doesn't exist. Source 1 exists, but doesn't support his claim. I'm left with no backing sources to the claim that G-d, having super natural power over nature, would lack force-carriers. There is an assertion of opinion, but no real argument.
Basically, the assertion Pro is making is that G-d would be incapable of causing miracles, because G-d has no force-carriers. A miracle can be defined as, "A surprising event that is not explicable by natural or scientific laws and is therefore considered to be the work of a divine agency." By that definition (from Google search: define miracle ), G-d would not require a force-carrier to act inside of nature, because a miracle is not bound by the natural law that requires force-carriers. Pro has not shown that miracles are impossible. John Lennox, a professor of mathematics at the University of Oxford and world renown philosopher, has a lot to say about the possibility of miracles, especially in response to modern science [7, 8, 9, 10].
IV) Universe Does Not Require G-d
I will agree that the universe does not require G-d, but I disagree that this indicate that G-d does not exist. I do not require a car to get to work, but I have been able to get to work by riding my bike. The fact that the universe does not require a G-d to create it is evidence that atheism is reasonable. It is not evidence that theism is unreasonable. A similar logical progression used by Pro can be turned on its head and used against atheism.
P1. Supernatural creation of the universe is possible
P2. If supernatural creation is possible, then the universe might have come from supernatural causes
C. The universe might have come from supernatural causes
Premise 1 is easy to prove. The super natural is not bound by the laws of nature, thus literally anything is possible including the universe in which we live. Premise 2 is obviously true. Many of the most well known scientists were deists [11, 12].
Although Pro has solid science and cosmology, the philosophical arguments given by Pro don't stand to the exhaustive reason given by theists for their beliefs. Specifically, Pro has not given any reason to believe that G-d cannot affect nature/human fortunes, and Pro has not given overwhelming evidence that there was not a G-d involved in the creation of the universe. These were the two claims on which Pro built a case. I have maintained the resolution that science has not rendered theism unreasonable.
Agnosticism is the logical default to a claim for which there is not yet evidence. As previously stated, I did not intend to build a case to show theism is reasonable in light of modern science, because I need not do so to show that it is not unreasonable. Pro continues to have the BoP.
Because I have extra space, I thought it would be fun to point out that Pro claims that time came into existence at the Big Bang. The atheistic scientist he quotes, Sean Carroll, claims that this is not definitely the case [13, 14]. There was a debate between Sean Carroll and William Lane Craig on the topic of cosmology where William Lane Craig provided rational reasons for the possibility of a creator . Sean Carroll attempted to disagree with Craig on the grounds that the universe is eternal .
6) http://lmgtfy.com...) https://www.youtube.com...
Rendering Theism ‘Unreasonable’
In this debate I am here to demonstrate one or both of the following:
I do not have to demonstrate each and every possible way that God could have created the universe is impossible in order to demonstrate belief that God did them is unreasonable, which seems to be the tac that Con is taking in this debate.
Even if I demonstrate agnosticism, it still renders theism unreasonable (as it’s a posivie belief)
Universe Does Not Require God
This is where the argument provides an enormous advantage in affirming atheism over theism, because the P1 for my modal argument is very likely to be true, because:
Both are important because:
“Natural creation is metaphysically possible if and only if natural processes that allow for it actually exist”
The exact same consideration applies to theism
“Supernatural creation is metaphysically possible if and only if supernatural processes (God) that allow for it actually exist”
Now the problem is very obvious, while science readily affirms the former (and hence supports my premise), it clearly does not support the latter (and thus Pro’s P1 is unsound).
Ergo the premise:
“P2. Spontaneous natural creation of the universe is possible”
Is significantly more likely to be true than:
“P1. Supernatural creation of the universe is possible”
And in fact is the only one that is and can be supported by science.
To give an everyday example, if I drop a pen, it will fall. There are 2 possibilities (for sake of argument) for the causation of this falling pen:
If we were in ignorance of gravity’s existence, perhaps is would be somewhat reasonable to consider the second option, but we so know gravity objectively exists, and provides the effects that we observe and measure. Therefore to postulate the redundant explanation without good reason to think it objectively exists is unreasonable. For similar reasons we cannot reasonably attribute lightning, and tsunamis etc. to supernatural explanations especially now that we have natural explanations for these, although we used to hold such beliefs. This speaks nothing to whether or not belief in supernatural explanations I reasonable in the first place.
Furthermore, Con concedes both premises of my argument, and hence the conclusion logically follows:
“C. God is unnecessary”
The Universe Lacks A Cause
I think Con muddles up A-Theory of time with B-Theory of time, indeed it is A-Theory of time that must be true in order for the universe to be caused, in any case I think Con’s points are the same regardless so no credit is lost either way. I apologise for giving the wrong reference for the WLC quote. I quoted WLC because he readily concedes this point despite being one of the most major proponents of the related cosmological argument. I already gave the justification within the quote which Con has not responded to (despite the source of the quote, the points within it stand on their own merits). If the A-Theory of time is false then that precludes the universe having a cause, and in fact renders such a question meaningless, since the universe would necessarily be contained by time, and time contained by the universe, they are synonymous.
The universe would be entirely self-contained, and would have never ‘come into existence’, since it exists fully developed as a tenseless four-dimensional block-universe, there would be nothing to explain about the universe anymore as it ‘just is’, for similar arguments that theists posit for God ‘just being’, with no beginning or end so much as a football has a beginning or end. At not point did the universe ever ‘not exist’.
Pro objection that this precludes all causes is false, because it doesn’t conclude what happens within the universe is uncaused, indeed we have both time and entropy, the two things we need to make meaningful statements about causation within the universe, but we don’t have those conditions ‘outside’ the universe.
“If the universe exists as a tenseless four-dimensional block then God could not (and therefore did not) create it.”
Pro has not objected to my refutation of the A-Series of time in any way, nor has he challenged the conclusion of the state of the universe hence at the very least the uncaused universe has been established in this debate.
Note that when I state the laws of QM allow for “spaces” and “times” to bubble and spontaneously appear, however this objection comes from the limitations of the language used to describe what is ‘happening’. In the ‘quantum vacuum’, there exists a multitude of ‘possibilities’ before observation which collapses onto a single possibility after. There are several interpretations of what is happening, the simplistic Copenhagen Interpretation and the Many-Worlds/Everett Interpretation. Sean Carroll explains:
“..in quantum mechanics, they’re (the possible worlds) right here, but in different possibility spaces (i.e. different parts of Hilbert space, if you want to get technical).“
There is no ‘causal force’ or ‘influencing factor’ which causes these bubbles to appear, the bubbles just ‘exist’ as-is in the quantum vacuum (as ‘false vacuum’ pockets), uncreated, and only resolved once observed, as all possibilities ‘exist’ in a sense, especially in the many worlds interpretation.
Con seems to claim this demonstrates that space-time is caused by this underlying stuff, and hence is compatible with theism, but this is just false. Given that the quantum vacuum is not contingent on time, it itself is eternal, it was never caused, and very arguably negates any necessary being ‘causing the universe because:
Logically conceivable worlds that are entirely self-contained are imaginable. Despite them not being our world they demonstrate that such worlds can exist without requirement of any external causation, and they ‘just are’.
If Pro is affirming that God created the laws of nature (which is dubious, because we have no reason to believe they are not fundamental), then he concedes this debate, since he concedes that God did not create the universe, as it’s by the laws of physics, and not God that everything in the universe came to be. Moreover the laws of physics, and especially quantum mechanics are indeterminate, and don’t produce determined results (such as THIS universe), hence this defence is a case of Con shooting himself in the foot, since the act of God creating the universe heavily implies a determined outcome. While it is taken out of context, the spirit of Einstein’s Quote is the same:
“God does not play dice with the universe” – Albert Einstein
To assert that God (a being with free will) created a mechanism which randomly popped out a rather random universe, in terms of its attributes, sublaws, etc is prima facie absurd. Yet that is exactly what our physics appears to show us.
Moreover Pro asserts some creatio continuans doctrine but doesn’t actually provide an argument, the only thing I find on this is that God is some ‘sustaining’ role in the universe, which is irrelevant to the creation of the universe (which is what I am arguing against in theism).
Con pretty much ignored this argument, the standard model mandates force carriers in order for particles to interact, its for similar reasons why substance dualism is rejected by philosophers of mind, in order for anything to happen they must interact. From painstaking observation of the natural world we have comprehensively found the required mechanism by which things interact, and that is via. force carriers.
This model-building would be impossible were supernatural interaction possible, and was actually occurring, since we would have unexplained anomalies all over the place appearing in our particle accelerators, and the data would not fit the standard model at all. The theistic claim is that God interacts with nature somehow, yet our physics shows he cannot. To formalize:
P1. If non-natural interaction occurs, then fully natural models would never fully explain particle accelerator observations
P2. Fully natural models explain particle accelerator observations
C. Non-natural interaction does not occur
One good reason to accept P2 is that when searching for the Higg’s boson, it was only possible because we have modelled the interactions of particles, and what forms at certain energies with first-principle physics so well, that we were looking for a million-in-one discrepancy to fit the Higg’s boson, and we found exactly that.
For P1, we would always have interference from supernatural stuff (whether it be God or something else non-natural), and would ironically be an effective method by which God would let us know of his existence if we did observe these anomalies spontaneously/intermittently appearing etc.
I thank Jellon for an most interesting debate, I really wish we had another round, ah well. Best of luck in the voting!
Round 1 quote: "unreasonable: not guided by or based on good sense."
Pro's first objection is that I misunderstood modal logic. The basis for this debate does not require or imply modal logic. Pro seems to be confused between the difference between unreasonable and logically disproven. Reasonable, by the definition of unreasonable agreed to in round 1, does not require absolute proof. Furthermore, most theists agree that there is an element of faith to belief in a deity, even if that faith is based on reason. For example, a person may have faith in a friend that they will accomplish a task promised to be done by that friend. That belief does not require formal proof, but it is based on good sense given a history of dependability shown by that friend. Pro seems to require absolute proof for theism in order to deem it reasonable.
Pro claims to have proven that the known physical laws will produce the observed universe. This is an enormous claim. In order to make this claim, one would need to be able to prove all general observations of the known universe can be explained by science, a task which Pro has not done here. Pro would not indeed have enough space to do so within the limits of DDO. Voters are encouraged by DDO not to let their bias influence their decisions, rather it should be based on the debate itself. In context of this debate, Pro has not begun to address the myriad of topics required to make this statement.
Pro also took contention with the premise that G-d exists, stating that super natural creation is only metaphysically possible if this premise is proven. However, Pro fails to prove this premise has been falsified by science.
Pro attempted to frame theism as a G-d of the Gaps belief by using the example given of gravity either being a natural force or a super natural force. The reason I appreciate this example is that Sir Isaac Newton was the one who is said to have discovered gravity, and Sir Isaac Newton believed in G-d . In fact, there were a host of outstanding scientists who believed in science, because of their faith in G-d. John Lennox writes 
Indeed, it was belief in an intelligent Creator that convinced the great pioneers, Galileo, Kepler, Newton, Clerk Maxwell, Babbage and many others that science could be done. C. S. Lewis put it this way: 'Men became scientific because they expected law in nature and they expected law in nature because they believed in a lawgiver."
John Lennox, would have us believe that even Sir Issac Newton himself would have attributed gravity to natural forces he believed to be put in place by G-d, not to super natural forces as Pro claims. I continue to agree that G-d is unnecessary for creation, although it isn't proven beyond a doubt. Even though this may be the case, that does not mean that G-d wasn't a causal agent in creation, which is also unproven. In short, Pro has given us reason why we don't need to believe in G-d but not a reason to affirm the non-existence of G-d. Thus, this claim does not render theism as being unreasonable.
Because there appears to be a misunderstanding between me and Pro, I will try to restate my position on the universe without a cause. Pro and I agree on one thing here, there must be an uncaused cause. Pro maintains that the universe itself was uncaused, while many theists maintain that G-d is uncaused. When we speculate about cause an effect, though, we do so from within the constraints of the universe around us, but not the constraints of what is beyond our universe, assuming there is such a thing. Pro's arguments seem to suggest that science supports the idea of existence outside our universe.
Furthermore, space and time itself are likely describable in quantum mechanics (quantum gravity) given that time is likely another dimension, given this to be the case the laws of quantum mechanics allow for "spaces" and "times" to bubble and spontaneously appear. We know under these physics that such bubbles would almost instantly collapse (transient), and hence cannot yield our universe, unless these bubbles "inflated", only then will these "bubbles" of spacetime be long-lived enough to give rise to the universe today.
Pro asserts that these bubbles exist outside of any external time which is used to further his idea that they are uncaused. However, Pro gave us no reason to believe this assertion. It is left as a philosophically biased assertion. It is reasonable that if indeed other universes bubble up into existence, then there is existence in these other universes outside of our own. If these is some reality outside of our universe, then that reality may include cause and effect events, which is also implicit in the above quote from Pro. In fact, the multiverse is often used as a counter argument to the Fine-Tuning Argument that the Laws of Nature are fine tuned for the ability of life to exist [18, 19]. In other words, if some of the universal constants (strength of gravity for example) were changed even slightly, either atoms wouldn't form, or planets wouldn't form, etc, such that no life could exist. One author puts it, "The multiverse theory seeks to replace the appearance of design by the hand of chance. " So, it is possible for there to be causes in some reality outside of our universe. If this is the case, neither an A-Series or B-Series of time prevents a causal agent from creating our universe, whether intelligent (e.g. G-d) or unintelligent (natural forces).
Another way of looking at it is as follows. We know that cause and effect can only happen within the constraints of time. If there exist other realities outside of our universe that have cause and effect, then they too much have their own time independent of our universe's time. If they have their own time independent of our universe's time, then Pro's assertion that our universe cannot have a cause fails. The statement, "At not point did the universe ever "not exist"" is in reference to the time associated with our universe, but not the time associated with other universes/realities. Pro claims we do not have time and entropy outside the universe, but in fact we do not know what, if anything, is outside our universe. Pro did not give us reason to believe that there is no entropy outside our universe. Although I addressed this in my last rebuttal, Pro did not see the correlation to WLC's quote. Here I have expounded upon it several ways.
I agree that believing anything (redundant or not) without reason is unreasonable by definition. However, Pro has not claimed that there is no reason to believe in G-d, and as I have spent my efforts addressing Pro's arguments, I have not put forth a positive case for the existence of G-d. There are, in fact, reasons to believe in G-d. The atheist tends to not find them sufficient for faith. The fact that G-d cannot be proven does not invalidate the fact that there is reason to believe. In an American court, the jury is to determine if someone is guilty only if they believe there is no reasonable doubt. That does not mean that there is no reason at all to believe the person is guilty, or that belief in guilt is unreasonable. It only implies that it is not well proven, and there is a difference.
Renown atheist, Richard Dawkins, puts it this way :
Now one might be forgiven for not realising this, as Dawkins is quite dismissive of the fine-tuning argument. He states the problem correctly: "Physicists have calculated that, if the laws and constants of physics had been even slightly different, the universe would have developed in such a way that life would have been impossible."... Dawkins concludes, "As ever, the theist"s answer is deeply unsatisfying, because it leaves the existence of God unexplained. A God capable of calculating the Goldilocks values " would have to be at least as improbable as the finely tuned combination of numbers itself, and that is very improbable indeed." He is left marvelling at the number of people, who seem genuinely satisfied by the "Divine Knob-Twiddler" argument, as he crudely puts it.
Dawkins himself affirms that Christians, at the least, have given reasons to believe in a G-d, even if they leave room for reasonable doubt.
I honestly don't follow Pro's logic in asserting that G-d creating the laws of nature is a contradiction. Pro has affirmed that the laws of nature, not G-d, created the universe. Under a belief in deism, which was commonly held by many great minds including Albert Einstein, G-d created the universe and its laws which set the universe in motion. Pro didn't prove that the law of nature could have created EVERYTHING we observe, thus his statement is an assertion of bias, not fact. There was no statement that G-d created a random universe, as Pro claims.
Finally, Pro continues to assert absurd claims by stating that if the super natural interacted with the natural, we wouldn't be able to do science because of the interference. In this, Pro is also claiming that the super natural WOULD interfere in science experiments if it COULD do so. Science is based on repeatable experiments. If a super natural agent did influence our universe, we would not be able to go rerun the experiment. In fact, when someone dies, we use forensic science to determine how, and that is based on logic and reasoning. It isn't perfect science. Science can show how the natural interacts with itself, not how the super natural interacts with the natural.
|Who won the debate:||-|
|Who won the debate:||-|
|Who won the debate:||-|