"Does God exist?" is a scientific question that should be taught in science class.
Debate Rounds (3)
I think the question of "does God exist?" is a scientific question. The reason being is if God exists, this makes a profound difference in the way we view the universe. If God exists, this drastically changes what scientists should be looking for.
Therefore, the question of does God exist should be taught in science class. The approach should be logical, evidence based, and scientific as opposed to faith based and religious arguments. More precisely students should be taught the lack of evidence of God existing and that scientifically God does not exist. 
This may sound silly, but I think students who are taught both science and religion become confused in science class. "Gee, why aren't they teaching creationism?" I think the teacher should be required to tell the class that creationism is not scientific and instead is a faith based approach, ditto with intelligent design.
Same goes with the Big bang theory.  I know I was confused when I was taught the big bang theory, I was like "why aren't they teaching Adam and Even?" I'm sick of science classes paying too much respect to religion. Because, religion sure doesn't respect science.
As long as this issue isn't addressed, students will see science through a jaded eye. "Hahhaha the big bang theory is all wrong because God created the world differently." Religious students will not be able to take science seriously, and their grades will suffer. With grades suffering, so will the chances of scholarships, getting into better colleges, and desirable careers.
Thanks in advance to my opponent for accepting.
"While I understand what you're saying, I believe that science should only deal in facts and very well supported theories, not theological problems like the existence of God." WJKosacs
Here's the problem, you can add a religious or philosophical question to anything. If a religion sees frogs as holy, should we no longer be allowed to talk about frogs in biology class? The same goes for chairs, tables, rodents, and the human body. Imagine if we couldn't talk about how the heart worked because somebody made a religious claim. By making God taboo in science class we are allowing religion to gain some level of influence and respect over science. Impact, if religon and philosophy can impose upon science by claiming ordinary objects, animals, and people as religious, science can do the opposite, and claim the supernatural for science.
More importantly, this is a double standard. In the sense, we are respecting some religions in science class but not others. There are hundreds of religions out there. Many of which would view the moon, sun, and the Earth as Gods. Yet, we are allowed to talk freely about the existence of the moon. Nobody says "hey, don't talk about the moon leave that for religion!" Not only that but we talk about how scientifically the moon, sun, and Earth were formed. No, we don't respect those religions, instead we respect only a few mainly Christianity, Judaism, and Islam.
Therefore, in science we need to either respect every religion and completely abandon biology and astronomy or respect none.
"We can't experience God in any tangible way"
Again, which God and which religion? If we are talking about the sun as God, yes then we can experience God in a tangible way. Since the sun's ray warm out bodies and provide light to play Pokemon Go. By the very doubts you express you show commitment to an incorporeal God. Yet, not every religion's God(s) are incorporeal. This is exactly what I am talking about. Students are entering science classes with religious bias that interferes with their learning. Impact, my opponent has shown religious bias furthering my point that we need to let go of religious bias to be truly open to science.
Furthermore, we can use science to track the incorporeal like ghosts. There are entire fields devoted to tracking ghosts and ESP (extra sensory perception). We can use evidence like placing various measurement devices and cameras in a location renowned for ghosts and see what happens. Impact, just because we have little to no knowledge on a subject, doesn't mean we can't use the scientific lens and modality of thinking to approach the problem. Thanks for continuing the debate.
I agree we need to either respect every religion or respect none. Personally, I think that we shouldn't respect any of them.
When I said "God" I was referring mainly to mainstream religions, such as Christianity, Islam, and others of that kind. However, I cannot think of any religions that still exist today that worship tangible Gods. I would also like to mention that I have no religious bias. It is impossible for me to have it, because I'm an atheist.
Personally, I don't believe in ghosts, spirits, ESP, all that. The "science" behind that is all just so much woo. However, I do agree with the last point. Just because we don't know much about a subject doesn't mean we can't use the scientific method to learn more.
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.