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: 1,149 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 21 through 30 records.
Posted by DrCereal 3 years ago
DrCereal
"two-legged animals"
Is that supposed to be an insult? That's exactly what everyone here is. :/
Posted by Masterful 3 years ago
Masterful
+1 EnchantedPlatinum. You forced him to withdraw from making any further arguments. Seeing as no longer wanting to talk is a sign of backing down.
Posted by Purushadasa 3 years ago
Purushadasa
I don't make it a practice to engage with two-legged animals that post comments under my debates.
Posted by EnchantedPlatinum 3 years ago
EnchantedPlatinum
Except you did. Do you just not understand what Irony is?
Posted by Purushadasa 3 years ago
Purushadasa
I don't make it a practice to engage with two-legged animals that post comments under my debates.
Posted by FanboyMctroll 3 years ago
FanboyMctroll
This guy says the same thing in all his replies, he just told me the same reply word for word in another one of his rambling debates.

Congratulations on posting you 100'th debate topic and still being 0-100!!
Posted by Purushadasa 3 years ago
Purushadasa
EnchantedPlatinum:

I don't read comments posted by two-legged animals under my debates.
Posted by EnchantedPlatinum 3 years ago
EnchantedPlatinum
No. You lose. You made unfounded statements, failed to provide evidence, and made claims which not only did you not explain but also provided no reasoning or logic that could form a case available to people who don't follow the same beliefs as you. I understand that a person as self-obsessed and close minded as you has no chance of understanding this, but you don't make the rules, nor does your opinion hold some kind of authority over that of others. I would ask you to respect the rules and etiquette of this website, and debate in general, or leave to converse with those who are already of the same persuasion as yourself.
Posted by Purushadasa 3 years ago
Purushadasa
Jesus Christ, man -- how dumb can you be? LOL SMH =)
Posted by Purushadasa 3 years ago
Purushadasa
My OP consists of five Premises and a Conclusion, dumbass -- in the field of Logic, that means it's an Argument.

Definition of CONCLUSION, excerpted from www.dictionary.com:

"6. Logic. a proposition concluded or inferred from the PREMISES of an ARGUMENT."

[caps added for emphasis]
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.