The Instigator
Purushadasa
Pro (for)
The Contender
Sakushi
Con (against)

Without God (or something like God), There Could Be No Scientific Method

Do you like this debate?NoYes-2
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Debate Round Forfeited
Sakushi has forfeited round #1.
Our system has not yet updated this debate. Please check back in a few minutes for more options.
Time Remaining
00days00hours00minutes00seconds
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/15/2017 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 853 times Debate No: 103463
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (32)
Votes (0)

 

Purushadasa

Pro

Without God (or something like God) there could be no science:

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 -- both of which would be required in order to perform 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. Here's a short related video:

P1: 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).

P2: 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 perform the scientific method and reach any rational scientific conclusions about the universe.

P3: 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).

P4: Therefore 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).

P5: Therefore there is no entity in existence other than God that could possibly provide a rational basis for the scientific method to be conducted with any expectation of accuracy. (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: Therefore without God (or something like God), there could be no science. QED

Note: If "something like God" exists in reality, then God also necessarily exists in reality.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 1
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 2
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 3
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 4
32 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Purushadasa 1 year ago
Purushadasa
I won all of the debates in which I participated on this site, except for one (which I deliberately forfeited).
Posted by DrCereal 1 year ago
DrCereal
Lol, you've lost 11 debates.
Whatever you want to believe dude.
Posted by Purushadasa 1 year ago
Purushadasa
I won all of the debates in which I participated on this site, except for one (which I deliberately forfeited).
Posted by JediDude 1 year ago
JediDude
Once again, Purushadasa tries to debate the same topic, despite losing twice!
Posted by canis 1 year ago
canis
And you end up with..."You created a god..."
Your creation is all you have ...
Posted by Purushadasa 1 year ago
Purushadasa
According to the revealed scriptures, God is both anadi (existing without beginning) and ananta (exiting without end), so he does not require to be "created."

Because you are referring to some supposedly "created" entity, the following statements are true about your position:

1. You are referring to some entity other than God, and,

2. You are a Creationist.

You are an ignorant douchebag, and we are done here.
Posted by canis 1 year ago
canis
And you end up with..."You created a god..."
"Without God (or something like God), There Could Be No Scientific Method"
Posted by Purushadasa 1 year ago
Purushadasa
According to the revealed scriptures, God is both anadi (existing without beginning) and ananta (exiting without end), so he does not require to be "created."

Because you are referring to some supposedly "created" entity, the following statements are true about your position:

1. You are referring to some entity other than God, and,

2. You are a Creationist.
Posted by canis 1 year ago
canis
You created a god...
"Without God (or something like God), There Could Be No Scientific Method"
Posted by Purushadasa 1 year ago
Purushadasa
I didn't claim it did, so that is a straw man logical fallacy on your part.

Also, you are an ignorant moron.
This debate has 6 more rounds before the voting begins. If you want to receive email updates for this debate, click the Add to My Favorites link at the top of the page.