Answer to "is there a god"
Debate Rounds (3)
In your opening you made five statements and ask two questions beyond the initial question "is there a god" which, I will attempt to adequately address.
"As we all should know there are many religions, with many different gods." The statement is not true as stated. If you were to state, we all should know there are many religions, claiming many different gods then, I would agree.
"The only 'evidence' given to us are believers stories and a book from many years ago." That statement is not true. There is other evidence. I hope to present that evidence in this debate.
"The reason science has not yet disproved god is because the answer to our creation is most likely the hardest problem to solve." The statement is open ended. The terms of "science" and "god" are unqualified being undefined. The word "likely" implies uncertainty. Either (it is) or (it is not" the "hardest problem to solve".
"We all put our faith in science, weather it be the glasses on your face, the roof over your head or the computer you reed this on." This statement is unqualified (science is not defined), and it is assumed, "We all put our faith in science". I do not put my faith in science therefore, to say "all put their faith in science" is an untrue statement. We all do not put our faith in science. To say so is a false statement.
"Science supplies you with all that you have, and either god or science supplies you with the platform in which you live life." Using the qualifier "all" in your statement makes your statement false. For since, you used "all" it only requires finding one person to whom "science" does not supply all to make your statement a false statement, and therefore, no proof. Science does not supply air for my blood, a heart to pump my blood and science does not enable me to think.
"So what makes one god more real than another?" Without qualifying what is meant by "god" it is not possible to adequately answer the question. First, qualify what you mean by "god" with a proper definition.
"So why bother split you faith and believe in a god?" Your second question draws upon your forth and fifth statements which, you assumed is true. Since the forth and fifth statements are proven to be a false statements, the second question is not a proof but merely an assuming and unqualified question. As already stated, I do not have faith in science, and therefore, I do not split my faith.
Look forward to your reply.
Statement #1 + Question #1
Just because you disagree with the way I wrote that sentence does not make it incorrect, in fact, you just changed my statement so that it went with your argument. Most people know about other religions, with other gods. So I ask the question, why is the god you believe in more likely to be correct than a god from another religion? Also, you asked for a definition of what I mean by god god, as a man of science I go by the definitions provided by academic sources, not definitions I make up.
I am looking forward to this 'evidence'. For many years have I watched and participated in these kind of 'religious' debates, never has someone presented any evidence that actually proves their point other than 'it is in the bible' or 'oh this miracle happened to me' (excluding the anomalies that science is yet to understand).
This has to do with the 'excluding the anomalies that science is yet to understand' (Statement #2). All the words I use are defined, look them up in a dictionary. Then you go on to mention 'The statement is open ended', because I put the word most in there, look at the word to the right of most, it is 'likely'. When most and likely are together, as seen, it means that the outcome of these events are probable. So I am saying, the explanation of our creation is probably the hardest problem to solve. The reason I use those words is because as a scientist I am open to the fact that there may be more to the world than what we know, and that we are willing to change our minds and not just immediately say that 'if we don't know than god must have done it '.
What you are saying is rubbish. For a small example, you press the keys on the computer to type this message, you see your message appear on the screen, you use your mouse to submit, then the internet service provided me with the knowledge that you want me to respond to you and as you are now reading this that is proof that you put your faith in science (to some degree). Also were you born in a hospital? If you were, then there is even more proof, you would have had a lower chance of being here today if it were not for medical science.
Depends what type of science you are talking about, maybe I should have specified. The study of science provides you with all technological advancements, however the nature of science provides you with the things that you listed, and much more("air for my blood, a heart to pump my blood and science does not enable me to think.").
My 4th and 5th statements are correct (seen above). That remark was intended as a cheeky rhetorical question, as I said it to almost conclude my argument.
Best of luck, and I hope you took no offense from what I said, I understand that my writing may sound aggressive, but I am not and mean no aggression, just passion.
AQuill forfeited this round.
UnhookedSchnook forfeited this round.
AQuill forfeited this round.
i do see why you did not finish the debate, but oh well.
No votes have been placed for this debate.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.