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: 3 years ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 1,155 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 11 through 20 records.
Posted by canis 3 years ago
canis
No scientific method involves the creation any god.
Posted by Purushadasa 3 years ago
Purushadasa
Someone wrote:

"Purushadasa's definition of an animal: "Human beings worship God; animals do not."'

I never claimed that to be a definition, so that isn a straw man logical fallacy on your part.

"No Purushadasa, you don't get to make up your own definitions like that."

I didn't. Also, without God, making up definitions could not be objectively wrong.

" You need to begin conforming with reality."

Without God, nobody could make an objective distinction between reality and illusion.

" Until then you will never be able to make a valid and sound argument."

Without God, nobody could make an objective distinction between arguments that are valid and sound and arguments that are invalid or unsound.
Posted by Purushadasa 3 years ago
Purushadasa
Someone wrote:

"This is just poor re-iteration of the Transcendental Argument for God."

No it isn't.
Posted by Masterful 3 years ago
Masterful
Purushadasa's definition of an animal: "Human beings worship God; animals do not."

No Purushadasa, you don't get to make up your own definitions like that. You need to begin conforming with reality. Until then you will never be able to make a valid and sound argument.
Posted by Surgeon 3 years ago
Surgeon
This is just poor re-iteration of the Transcendental Argument for God. Nice to see unpopular and thoroughly debunked arguments for the existence of God raise their head on occasion though.
Posted by Purushadasa 3 years ago
Purushadasa
Someone wrote:

"you're so set on scientific method not existing without a god"

I never made that statement, so that is a straw man logical fallacy on your part.
Posted by cakerman 3 years ago
cakerman
hey Purushadasa since you're so set on scientific method not existing without a god you should let everyone see the debate between us where you showcase how to be at the top of circular reasoning

http://www.debate.org...
Posted by Purushadasa 3 years ago
Purushadasa
Human beings worship God; animals do not.
Posted by DrCereal 3 years ago
DrCereal
@Puru
So I see you are unaware of what an animal is.
Not that surprising given the topic of the debate and how you are handling yourself.
Posted by Purushadasa 3 years ago
Purushadasa
No, some of us here are actually human beings.
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.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.