The Instigator
Con (against)
6 Points
The Contender
Pro (for)
0 Points

Can any Abrahamic religion be supported scientifically?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
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 2 votes the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/3/2014 Category: Religion
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 834 times Debate No: 58539
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (11)
Votes (2)




This is a very controversial topic, and I am thoroughly willing to discuss it with anyone who would like to argue this topic. Whoever agrees to debate shall choose which religion they want to discuss, and that shall be the discussed religion therehence. Since the topic appears very broad, I'd like to define some things:

1. The Abrahamic religions are Judaism, Christianity/Catholicism, and Islam, and their teachings as defined by their supreme texts, that is, The Torah/Old Testament, The Bible/New Testament, and the Muslim Qur'an.
2. Please, no arguments about how a religion's certain sect aren't REAL followers of that religion. That is opinionated, and this is a rational debate.
3. Nothing about how faith is essential. This is based on hard evidence only. If "just needing faith" is put out as your sole argument, then... that would essentially mean you agree with me, which would make the debate pointless.

Lastly, this is not a ground for religious hatred and mud-slinging. I'm trying to make civilized discourse. Thanks!


I personally believe that religion was introduced to bring peace within societies. To bring a new sense of order and an art of living life. Abrahamic religions can be supported scientifically. It is the bigots who actually misinterpreted religion and misguided people against other religions, it was this confusion and rift which paved way to atheism and agnosticism. Science plays a major role in today's world in our lives. But we seem to be forgetting the origins of Science. It originated from the four Elements of the world Fire,Earth,Air and Water. When Britishers came to India, they read the vedic and islamic scriptures and declared that they had an unscientific thought behind it and they were merely non sensual poetic bluff. Laws of Gravitation were given by the Ancient Scriptures first in the Rigvedas and Issac Newton adopted it. The Abrahamic Saints said that Each and every thing in this universe is made up of tiny particles. John Dalton then made the "discovery" of atoms and molecules. Religion had taught us many things but didn't choose to propagate it. Hinduism was the first religion and all other religions evolved from it. I know my argument is vague, insignificant and out of topic. This site supports my argument
Being a Hindu I do not possess sound knowledge about the Abrahamic religions. So if you take this into Kind consideration let us just include Hinduism as a valid argument too, since this is not my cup of tea .
Debate Round No. 1


Ummm... the argument calls specifically for the Abrahamic religions. Anyway, as a former Hindu- turned Atheist, I have realized that "Hinduism" is indeed a collection of similar beliefs on the Indian subcontinent formed into a religion that varies greatly by location in India, with some worshipping one god, others many gods, and many who insist these are all representative of a supreme god. I will ignore your misreading of the title and argue over Hinduism anyway, but I only ask that you define your particular viewpoints on the topic for both my and the audience's understanding.
In any case, since this is now about Hinduism, a religion that does allows for looser interpretations, let me define some terms:

Hinduism: The collection of thousands of beliefs in India that have evolved over thousands of years. As for its scientific understandings, I want to discuss the viability of God (as it pertain to your religion), and any other argument you want to bring up.

As for your arguments, I'd first like to state that your statement about the British bigotry is opinionated, but I sympathize because they indeed thought it a lesser religion to their own. However, that isn't factual or scientific. Fire, Earth, Air and Water are not the four elements of the world, as you state they are, because they do not form everything in the world. It may be a metaphor, but the elements of the world are atoms with differing amounts of protons, neutrons, and electrons. Please elaborate.

As for your claim of Gravity being described in the ancient scriptures, that is wrong. You found it on a Rig Veda site, I presume, but the first scholar to truly describe gravity was Bhaskara II, who described that the same force that made objects fall made the earth orbit around the sun. However, this was in the 12th century AD. (1). While the heliocentric system and basic thoughts about it were conceived before that, none of them go farther than the 8th century BC, while the Rig Veda is dated to 1500 BC. While the scholars may have been ahead of their time, the Hindu religion certainly had nothing to do with it. That too, the first Indian to describe the atom was Kanada in 2nd century BC, a thousand years after the Hindu texts were written.

Having argued this, I have some points to make:

1. God cannot be scientifically supported in any religion. While it is true that it cannot be disproven (if you ignore the sacred texts, that is), that is not a case for believing in it. Fairies and unicorns that live on a planet hundreds of light-years away cannot be disproven. Therefore, without proof, I cannot accept such an argument.

2. Argument by supernatural explanation is seriously flawed. While I admit that science doesn't answer everything at the moment, it should not be explained by god as a placeholder. The fossil record and carbon dating acknowledge Darwinian evolution, and although I know that Hinduism doesn't disallow the theory, it does advocate that the creator god Brahma created all living things. Not true. The first organisms on planet Earth were Archaea, which evolved to bacteria, and then protists and so forth. This can be seen by comparing structures, and fossils again.

3. If you take the Rig Veda literally, you will find that Hinduism advocates that the universe is 155 trillion years old, because of how many yuga and cycles of Yugas have passed. This is a horrendously inaccurate number, as modern astronomy has proved that the universe is some 13.8 billion years old. While the estimate for the Earth's age is more accurate, how can such an enormous error be justified... unless it is only a metaphor, which brings me to my last point-

4. If you insist that that is only supposed to be taken metaphorically and non-literally,, then what do you justify that opinion on? Where does it say that it shouldn't be taken literally? To describe it as non-literal is to take an apologist's position, and avoid answering the question. What would make you say such a thing? You haven't argued as such yet, but I really don't have the patience for those who insist on this wishy-washy approach.

I look forward to your reply.


Well said... Though you might have noticed that this is my first debate and it will be a difficult one for me and I am sure to lose this one.As you mentioned I have made some fatal errors. Allow me to justify myself. Hinduism might be the only religion (I do not wish to promote bigot ism and do not wish to mud-sling on other religions) which promotes scientific knowledge and discoveries. Although the teachers in our school have forced us to learn about Galileo and Newton. We have known the people of the Indian subcontinent have discovered this a long time ago.
Hinduism IS scientifically proven and let me note down some of the greatest discoveries.

Cosmology & psychology

According to India's ancient texts, around 3000 BCE sage Kapil founded both cosmology and psychology. He shed light on the Soul, the subtle elements of matter and creation. His main idea was that essential nature (prakrti) comes from the eternal (purusha) to develop all of creation. No deeper a view of the cosmos has ever been developed. Further, his philosophy of Sankhya philosophy also covered the secret levels of the psyche, including mind, intellect and ego, and how they relate to the Soul or Atma.

Medicine (Ayurveda), Aviation

Around 800 BCE Sage Bharadwaj, was both the father of modern medicine, teaching Ayurveda, and also the developer of aviation technology. He wrote the Yantra Sarvasva, which covers astonishing discoveries in aviation and space sciences, and flying machines - well before Leonardo DaVinci's time. Some of his flying machines were reported to fly around the earth, from the earth to other planets, and between universes. His designs and descriptions have left a huge impression on modern-day aviation engineers. He also discussed how to make these flying machines invisible by using sun and wind force. There are much more fascinating insights discovered by sage Bharadwaj.

Medicine, Surgery, paediatrics, gynaecology. anatomy, physiology, pharmacology, embryology, blood circulation

Around this era and through 400 BCE many great developments occurred. In the field of medicine (Ayurveda), sage Divodasa Dhanwantari developed the school of surgery; Rishi Kashyap developed the specialized fields of paediatrics and gynaecology. Lord Atreya, author of the one of the main Ayurvedic texts, the Charak Samhita, classified the principles of anatomy, physiology, pharmacology, embryology, blood circulation and more. He discussed how to heal thousands of diseases, many of which modern science still has no answer. Along with herbs, diet and lifestyle, Atreya showed a correlation between mind, body, spirit and ethics. He outlined a charter of ethics centuries before the Hippocratic oath.

Rhinoplasty, amputation, caesarean and cranial surgeries, anesthesia, antibiotic herbs

While Lord Atreya is recognized for his contribution to medicine, sage Sushrut is known as the "Father of surgery". Even modern science recognizes India as the first country to develop and use rhinoplasty (developed by Sushrut). He also practiced amputation, caesarean and cranial surgeries, and developed 125 surgical instruments including scalpels, lancets, and needles.

Lord Atreya - author of Charak Samhita. Circa 8th - 6th century BCE. Perhaps the most referred to Rishi/physician today The Charak Samhita was the first compilation of all aspects of ayurvedic medicine including diagnoses, cures, anatomy, embryology, pharmacology, and blood circulation (excluding surgery).

He wrote about causes and cures for diabetes, TB, and heart diseases. At that time, European medicine had no idea of these ideas. In fact, even today many of these disease causes and cures are still unknown to modern allopathic medicine.

Other unique quality of Ayurveda is that it uncovers and cures the root cause of illness, it is safe, gentle and inexpensive, it sees 6 stages of disease development (where modern medicine only sees the last two stages), it treats people in a personalized manner according to their dosha or constitution and not in any generic manner.

Further, Ayurveda being the science of 'life', Atrea was quick to emphasize, proper nutrition according to dosha, and perhaps above all else, that there was a mind/body/soul relationship and that the root cause of all diseases and the best medicine for all conditions is spiritual and ethical life.

Rishi Sushrut is known as the father of surgery & author of Sushrut Samhita. Circa 5 - 4th century BCE. He is credited with performing the world's first rhinoplasty, using anesthesia and plastic surgery. He used surgical instruments - many of them look similar to instruments used today; and discussed more than 300 types of surgical operations. One of the Ayurvedic surgical practices being used today in India involves dipping sutures into antibiotic herbs so when sewed into the person, the scar heals quicker and prevent infection. The modern surgical world owes a great debt to this great surgical sage.

Atomic theory

Sage Kanad (circa 600 BCE) is recognized as the founder of atomic theory, and classified all the objects of creation into nine elements (earth, water, light or fire, wind, ether, time, space, mind and soul). He stated that every object in creation is made of atoms that in turn connect with each other to form molecules .
Indians have actually invented half of the world technological stuff, although they are the rudiments and they are the most important since they pave way for further discoveries . This ignorance is an ubiquity amongst people and they still choose to trust the Europeans and the Americans.
Debate Round No. 2


I would like to thank my opponent for his meticulous explanations.

Before I begin with my rebuttals, I'd like to clarify something that I'm afraid I may not have properly defined. I am not arguing over the science of Hindus, but of the feasibility of the Hindu God and the validity of the Hindu scriptures. I will not at all deny that the scholars of ancient India were centuries ahead of their Western counterparts, I in fact take great pride in this as an Indian. The point I want to make is that these scientific reports that were published by these great scholars DO NOT represent Hinduism. A similar argument would be that Louis Pasteur, the famous scientist who revolutionized pathology who was also a Catholic, crossed great strides in his field, and therefore Catholicism is scientific. My argument is that the scientists you mentioned were Hindus, but their research had nothing to do with Hinduism per se. That Hinduism is more accepting of science is not an unarguable opinion, that has nothing to do with how science influences the religion itself, for example its divine beliefs, how it thinks the Earth was formed, etc.

To conclude the above, the scientific discoveries of men of a certain religion that are independent of that religion do not necessarily offer scientific soundness to that religion.

Regardless, I will move on to the evidence you provided-
While you offer scientists for credibility, it can only be credible if their teachings are true. You mentioned the great philosopher Kapil. However, his ideas on the belief of an inner soul, which is expressed within Hinduism's teachings, are scientifically unfounded. There is no evidence whatsoever for a soul, unless this is supposed to be some sort of metaphor. I will discount this because of the time period in which he lived.

The scientists that discovered the foundations for modern surgery and science were indeed intelligent, but it has nothing to do with Hinduism. Ayurveda is often not backed by science, many of its 'cures' fail to work. As states, (1) Ayurvedic products have been untested, (2) They result in mercury and lead poisoning in some products, and though some may have use as therapeutic products for cancer research, (3) only some promise has been shown for cancer-treating products to actually be effective. In fact, Ayurveda believes that the cause of may diseases is misalignment of the spirit and the body, something long disproved by modern medicine.

I'd like to mention that you failed to answer my arguments about the Hindu idea of the age of the universe as well as your supporting thoughts on a supernatural being.

I again look forward to your reply.


Well argued... Religion is quite deep. To understand it you need to contemplate a lot to truly understand it. What you are saying is that the Hindu people who discovered these scientific beliefs do not represent Hinduism a whole community . Let me clarify something if Abraham had discovered something, they would call Christianity scientific, if Jesus were a scientist then Christianity would have scientifically supported (I am not mud-slinging or mocking, please try and understand). I had a chronic asthma problem and Ayurvedic treatments actually saved me. Hinduism is not reduced to a single caste or community it is extremely diverse. There are 33 million Hindu Gods. Actually they have a scientific approach , although it is represented through hymns. Our sages and saints can be somewhat related to "prophets" to clarify your doubt. (By the way from which part of India are you from? :D I am a Bengali ). As a Bengali the "gotres" play an important role in our beliefs. (I expostulate against astrology and I just believe it is a blind man's bluff, I am not talking about gotres in the astrological point of view). The gotres (sages) show from which line of descendants are you from . (The Brahmins) Bharadwaj muni (Pardon me for using the Sanskrit terms, muni again means sage). relates to the highest tier of Bengali Brahmins.
So therefore, The Hindu saints truly represent Hinduism.... I know my argument is vague and extremely oblique but I hope you may understand
Debate Round No. 3


I'd like to note that my questions still have not been answered, so if you could please answer them in the final round. And I'm from Bangalore (Kannada is the best!)

We will never know what would have happened if jesus was a scientist, so please don't make that assumption so readily. If it was true then maybe some Christians would believe that, however that wouldn't counteract the logical fallacy. That adds nothing to an argument that Hinduism is scientific... but I'm glad to hear that Ayurveda actually helped your problem. Not all ayurvedic medications are harmful or ineffective, but a vast number of them are unpredictable, and/or harmful.

You seem to be making the argument that the great scientists/sages represent Hinduism. They don't. By that argument, any great Hindu scholar could be a sage who truly represents Hinduism. What represents Hinduism is the beliefs of the religion, its holy book, and its customs, because that IS Hinduism. I also know that sages are not considered prophets at all, although they were sometimes rumoured to speak to the gods. Again, this has nothing to do with science at all. They could be lying, for all anyone knows. I'm not sure how hymns represent a scientific process, as they only sing praises of the gods. I have a general feeling of what you're trying to say, but I fear you are mistaken. You haven't mentioned much scientific proof.

To conclude my arguments before the voting round, I have argued that no proof exists for the Hindu god (or any god, for that matter.) There are scientific errors within the Hindu beliefs, there are logical fallacies within those beliefs, and that the great men (scientists, etc.) who are also of a religion do not offer great credibility, scientific or otherwise, to a religion because they are not a part of the core beliefs.

I'd like to thank my opponent for a very philosophical, well-mannered and intellectual debate. I leave any judgements to the voters.


Firstly, I would like to thank my meticulous opponent for his excellent instigating skills, (I am from Kolkata by the way.... Kings of sweets!!!). This was my first debate and thanks to my opponent's intellect it was quite intense. In this last round I will decide to be more straightforward than giving oblique answers. I personally have no proof about the existence of God. But, I believe that it is healthy to believe that there is some superior being above you . So, that you stay in your limits and true believers in God (I am certainly not speaking about bigots) can develop an excellent Samaritan society.I am not trying to hurt anyone's atheistic beliefs but I believe in a course of time with atheism, you tend to stay out of your limits and distrust everything around you. You will not be able to sustain relationships with your friends. A good atheist means a person who doesn't snub other sentimental beliefs until someone provokes him. But, I believe that although you are an atheist you are interested in religion. One day you will find peace and solace in the hands of the Almighty. I would like to leave the decision in the hands of the voters. Nobody wins their first debate... :)
Debate Round No. 4
11 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Sagey 2 years ago
I have a 150 year old Medicine Book that is 8 inches thick, which has cures for almost everything known to man at the time.
Most are homeopathic and extremely deadly for anybody to attempt to perform.
That book likely killed more people than Hitler and Stalin combined.
Posted by Sagey 2 years ago
Well it seems very much like early Hindu medicine is likely the source of Homeopathy that spread to Europe a couple of centuries ago, that killed more than it cured. In fact it is still practiced in some places, killing more people. Blood letting, uses of lead and mercury, etc.....

Though I find it funny how Homeopathy became accepted, as in those times it was like being conned by Psychics. The rule is if a psychic gets over 25% of their predictions correct, they will be considered by their clients as accurate, because clients are desperately seeking Positive Results and they usually reject or forget 3 negative results if the psychic can deliver on the 4th result.
Homeopathy became popular with the same Forer/Barnum Effect.
One person receiving Homeopathy recovered from their disease, although several receiving the same treatment may have died, but because there was One Success, all the failures were dismissed and not recorded.
Even though that success was likely due to natural recovery and nothing to do with the Homeopathic treatment.
They never conducted double blind tests in those days, word of mouth was the only test for treatments.
Thus bad treatments like Homeopathy and snake oil became popular and killed many.
Posted by ShadowKingStudios 2 years ago
Well, this premise: Scientific evidence that the religion itself is scientifically valid--CAN NOT be logically won. Any supporting argument will be based on opinions, and opinions don't win debates. So you'll win. If you argue the Hindu religion, you will shoot yourself in the foot with the judges, since right now--a favorable vote leans in your direction because Pro has introduced a proposition not compatible with your premise. But it's your debate, do as you wish, I'm go silent till voting period.
Posted by shootingstarmie 2 years ago
To respond to Mr. ShadowKingStudios:

By scientifically supported I meant both #1 and #2, but since the Hindu text is taken in a non-literal sense, I can argue only for #1.

I wasn't really planning to argue Hinduism since it can be interpreted in so many ways, but please hear out both sides... Thanks
Posted by ShadowKingStudios 2 years ago
Forewarning Politicallion, you will lose. Not only for not adhering to the premise "Abrahamic religions" but also for admitting you gave vague info without sources to interpret them.
Posted by dsjpk5 2 years ago
But which side gets to determine the proper interpretation of the holy texts? For example, as a Catholic, I don't take a fundamentalist approach to the Bible. So I wouldn't take a literalistic approach. Would you insist that we take such an approach in this debate?
Posted by ShadowKingStudios 2 years ago
If Con's premise conforms to this definition: Scientific evidence that the religion's chief text has textual statements scientifically valid, then Pro can win if Pro knows his facts.
Posted by ShadowKingStudios 2 years ago
There is actual scientific proof that we are made from dust.
Posted by Blade-of-Truth 2 years ago
No Abrahamic religion has made it through the scientific method, lol.

This is a guaranteed loss for Pro.
Posted by Berend 2 years ago
It is a flat out no. Until the books are proven true through scientific means and prove we come from dirt, no. Science actually go's the other side in things like, Carbon Atoms, 4.56 billions years, etc.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Sagey 2 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Since it moved to Hindu scripture, one wonders at first why Hindu culture is not the most scientifically advanced culture on Earth, but then from Con's arguments, we realize that the scientific knowledge Pro attributed to Hinduism was never realized and in medicine, it would likely kill more than it cures as homeopathic treatments prevail.
Vote Placed by bladerunner060 2 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro did not really address the motion. He first shifted the focus away from Con's original one of Abrahamic religion to that of the Hindu religion, which Con chose to allow, and then failed to support the Hundu religion scientifically. He supported, as Con noted, the idea that those in the Hindu religion had scientific knowledge, but the point of this debate was to support the religious tenets scientifically, and Pro admits he has no proof. Arguments to Con. Welcome to the site, Pro! As always, happy to clarify this RFD.