Can science and religion co-exist in the manner that one is not contradicted by the other?
Debate Rounds (3)
Here comes science. Admitted, back then people have made some huge SCIENTIFIC (although I don't really classify this as 'scientific') mistakes. Example: rocks slow down because they are tired, or the earth is flat, disk-shaped, egg shaped (it's not an egg, the spherical shape is different), and many more. Here's the fun part: science at most times, is not stubborn, it changes since there will always be more ignorance than knowledge. Science changes because of demands for knowledge, curiosity, and improvement in technology which allows us to observe where we've gone wrong. Religion on the other hand is stubborn to the extreme. Given set religion, preferably one that is most common and referred to: Christianity, the bible did not change a bit, in fact its translations to other languages are extremely accurate, BUT, they as science begins to contradict many *cough* Noah's ark *cough* things in the bible, people begin to change interpretations of quotes like, "it said, in Isaiah 40:22: "God stretches out the heavens like a curtain." - PROOF, PROOF THAT WE KNEW THE UNIVERSE WAS EXPANDING FIRST, AND SCIENCE ONLY KNOWS IT NOW, TAKE THAT SCIENCE!" Religion is dying, and science is making sure of it, more and more observations show that the earth is not as 'young' as a puny 6000 years, but billions of years old. And that a magical sky-daddy aka: God, created the earth in 6 days, rested his ___ on the 7th and was like *Bam* Here we are: Heavens + earth + man + garden of Eden + woman + serpent that talks to the woman to make her sin (sexist) oh and the beloved: tree of knowledge. Now, tell me, do you not see that obvious contradiction? If god truly wanted Adam/ Eve not to disobey him, why would he make that delicious apple on a nearby tree where a snake could just tell Adam and Eve it is good and you won't die? well technically they didn't die and in my opinion knowledge is good, but clearly the bible failed there, god was mad that the humans: Adam and Eve now have knowledge, what's bad about that? This just sickens me to think that people actually believe this, and I actually have a bible for reference you know... There is scientific evidence like fossils, carbon 14 dating, cosmological red-shift and many more ways scientists can assert: the universe and the earth are not 6000 years of age. If you took your time to read this I probably made mistakes, but thank you, now if anyone would like to challenge my arguments, feel free! As always, thanks for reading! Cheers!
I have found a few flaws in the opening logic.
1. Religion was not merely a tool to keep people in line. Look back to the early days of Christianity- in the Roman Empire. During this time, Christians were severely oppressed because they would put God before anything. So much for keeping people in line, huh? But wait, there's more. When Jesus performed miracles, died, etc., then people must have seen it? We do, after all, have records. Now, people may argue that the people who wrote the Bible falsified these accounts. But let's look at their lives. 11 of the 12 apostles were executed and the last one died in exile. All they had to do to live was confess that they had lied. Not one of them did.
2. Scientific facts do go along with religious beliefs. Excuse me for relying a lot on Christianity, but I am most familiar with it. Now there are several things that the Bible said that science confirmed hundreds of years later including:
The world is round
Ocean currents exist
The universe expanded like the Big Bang
One should wash their hands in running water and soap
One should not wear mixed cloths (These have a tendency to conduct lots of static electricity and be uncomfortable)
People may then argue that evolution does not agree with religion, to which I reply: is there any more evidence for evolution? There is actually far less evidence for evolution than God; therefore this theory must be reexamined. In addition to this, it is not mainstream beliefs that the Earth is only 6000 years old. Most of us believe it is much older.
3. You mentioned how science contradicts Noah's ark. Can you elaborate on this?
4. The creation story has nothing that science contradicts. Just because it may seem unlikely does not make it incompatible with science. You also bring up how God is sexist. Why is that?
5. God planted the Tree in the Garden and allowed in evil to allow free will. Can we be free if we have no choices?
6. The problem with Adam and Eve attaining knowledge was not bad in and of itself. What was bad was that they disobeyed God, giving sin to the world. Also, there would have been no bad if Adam and Eve did not know the difference between good and evil- if they always did what God said, there would be no evil for them to do.
7. Once again, I would like to say that most people do not believe the Earth is 6000 years old. That is not the mainstream.
Also, this was to be a debate on scientific compatibility with religion, not on the validity of religion itself. Nowhere in any of your arguments besides the "earth being 6000 years old" deal do you assert that science is incompatible with religion. The burden of proof rests on you to prove that science is incompatible with religion but as of now you have not.
Ray314 forfeited this round.
GMan7112 forfeited this round.
Ray314 forfeited this round.
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.