The Instigator
talacon1
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Christhulakhan
Pro (for)
Winning
3 Points

Can Science Explain The Theory of Everything?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 3 votes the winner is...
Christhulakhan
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/3/2015 Category: Science
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 299 times Debate No: 80489
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (0)
Votes (3)

 

talacon1

Con

I am against the idea that science can arrive at the answer to the Unified Field Theory or Theory of Everything because science is the study of the natural world. Scientists cannot solve all questions because they are limited to the natural world, and not everything. For one, they cannot explain their psyche or even their own status of living. If scientists could explain life, they would have already made a living creature from scratch. Science simply cannot explain what is beyond its scope of study.
Christhulakhan

Pro

The Theory of Everything is a scientific theory proposed in some form by any number of scientists. It doesn't require a scientist to explain it, however. The concept is simple, that there is a unified mathematical model that explains the entirety of the physical world. This includes reconciling quantum mechanics with general relativity.

I know that's not what you meant by the debate premise, but it had to be said. You claim that scientists cannot explain the natural world because of things such as the "psyche" and "life," and in saying this you imply that these things are unnatural. How could something unnatural be a product of a naturalistic reality? There's nothing special about life, the psyche, or what have you, simply because you our someone else hasn't fully understood it yet. Science isn't a rigid rule set, and with new data the world is understood better, keep that in mind.
Debate Round No. 1
talacon1

Con

talacon1 forfeited this round.
Christhulakhan

Pro

Being as you haven't posted a rebuttal, my argument remains the same.
Debate Round No. 2
talacon1

Con

talacon1 forfeited this round.
Christhulakhan

Pro

I assume you forfeit. Oh well that could've been fun.
Debate Round No. 3
No comments have been posted on this debate.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by U.n 12 months ago
U.n
talacon1ChristhulakhanTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: Multiple forfeited turns by Con.
Vote Placed by ZacGraphics 1 year ago
ZacGraphics
talacon1ChristhulakhanTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: FF
Vote Placed by lannan13 1 year ago
lannan13
talacon1ChristhulakhanTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeiture