The Instigator
joel.burgers
Pro (for)
Losing
10 Points
The Contender
Fruitytree
Con (against)
Winning
12 Points

Does Science Refute God?

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 4 votes the winner is...
Fruitytree
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/19/2013 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,882 times Debate No: 33873
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (23)
Votes (4)

 

joel.burgers

Pro

The advancements of modern science have rendered the concept of God superfluous. All phenomena we experience can in principle be explained with reference solely to materialistic or naturalistic causes. This makes it unnecessary to postulate a Creator if we conform to Occam's Razor. Another reason is that a Creator has no explanatory power. Because the Creator is the very kind of thing that requires an explanation.
Fruitytree

Con

As Con I will have to rebute the arguments of Pro and further prove that: up to now, science has been unceccessful to refute god, and sientists can at most be weak atheists.


As my oponent didn't make specific rules , I can start debating from this round.


PRO: "The advancements of modern science have rendered the concept of God superfluous. All phenomena we experience can in principle be explained with reference solely to materialistic or naturalistic causes"



CON: My Oponent suggests that because we have science to explain how things happen, that there is no more need to postulate a creator, although he knows that if he finds a machine in his garden, he will be able to count on science to tell him what is it made of and how it would function, but not who made it !


and with that machine He will be between two options : No one made it , Someone made it.


It is the same thing with universe It either came to existance spontaneously ( which science can't tell) , or It was created by an entity who gave it all its rules and functions, that we study in the name of science!


Science is the tool that help us to understand how the universe works , it studies matter and energy, and for it to prove that there is no creator , it needs to prove that a universe can pop spontaneously without a causer, or that life can spring from non-living elements spontaneously too without a causer. Isn't it enough surprising for my oponenent that so far , scientiset try very hard to CAUSE life and Bigbang ? so the starting is contradictory , they try to cause things to happen so when they happen they will say , well these things can happen ! but they won't be able to say these things can happen without a causer.


So in conclusion , science is not a substitute for "a Creator".

Debate Round No. 1
joel.burgers

Pro

If I find a watch or some other artifact in the wilderness I have every right to infer to an intelligent agent because we have experience of such agents (namely ourselves) or making such things. We have no experience of a supernatural agent that can cause a universe.

Let me try and show you what appears to be your fallacy. We come across a beaver building a dam. And we say 'Whoa cool'. Then we carry on walking until we see a mountain and you assert 'Whoa cool, the beaver that made that must have been huge.'

The truth is we need to look for different sorts causes and forces in places where they're demanded. The Universe could have always existed or spontaneously emerged a god could have made it or anything, we don't know. But to assert that a Creator is neccessary simply begs the question and compounds the problem. So whatever it is that caused the universe it is least likely that God made it.

I fully concede that there are deep mysterious still to be discovered. That's why I was careful to say that science can 'in principle' explain everything in the natural world.
Fruitytree

Con

I Need to remind Pro , that he has the burden of proof . ie He needs to defend that science refutes God, which he is not doing.

And he cannot do it because science really does not refute God.

So my oponent got one more round to make a good argument that I can rebute.
Debate Round No. 2
joel.burgers

Pro

I'm aware I have the burden of proof. My proposition is 'Science refutes God'. What I need to do is show that God is in principle uneccessary to explain anything. If God is uneccesary to explain anything, then science refutes God.

Not disproves God, that's impossible. But refutes God. That is, nothing in the universe requires the hypothesis 'God did it'. Therefore science refutes God. That is, following Occam's Razor, Science in principle removes the need to invoke supernatural agency. If everthing can be accounted for with refrence only to materialistic or natural causes then the inference to a Creator is not needed.

The second part of the arguement is that the Creator himself is something that needs to be explained. He is a mystery. And to invoke him introduces a bigger mystery than you've solved.

The third part of my arguement I will introduce here. Belief in God can be explained by neurology, psychology etc. Why believe in God any more than you believe in the workings of your own imagination?

The fourth part of my arguement is that a being who has all knowledge and free will can't exist. It is self-contradictory. If he knows what he's going to do tommorow, then he has no way of changing it.

The final part of the arguement is that God, if he existed, would violate all the known laws of nature. An eternal, immaterial being contratdicts the very definition of all the beings we know. That is they are material and finite.

These five reasons provide strong reasons to affirm the propostion, 'Science refutes God.'
Fruitytree

Con

PRO:"I'm aware I have the burden of proof. My proposition is 'Science refutes God'. What I need to do is show that God is in principle uneccessary to explain anything. If God is uneccesary to explain anything, then science refutes God.

Not disproves God, that's impossible. But refutes God. That is, nothing in the universe requires the hypothesis 'God did it'. Therefore science refutes God. That is, following Occam's Razor, Science in principle removes the need to invoke supernatural agency. If everthing can be accounted for with refrence only to materialistic or natural causes then the inference to a Creator is not needed."


CON: For science to claim it refutes God it needs to have an explanation to everything, including:

Origin of life --which it doesn't have yet: http://www.livescience.com...

Origin of water on earth-- which is not known yet: http://en.wikipedia.org...


But as there are plenty of things not yet explained by science, and even part of the things explained not proven yet, your argument falls apart, and science have a hard work to do.

PRO: "The second part of the arguement is that the Creator himself is something that needs to be explained. He is a mystery. And to invoke him introduces a bigger mystery than you've solved."

CON: this is not an argument for science refutes God!


PRO:"The third part of my arguement I will introduce here. Belief in God can be explained by neurology, psychology etc. Why believe in God any more than you believe in the workings of your own imagination?"


CON: Belief is not equal to imagination! you can imagine things and know it. you can believe things and not imagine them! and again this is not an argument for science refutes God!


PRO:"The fourth part of my arguement is that a being who has all knowledge and free will can't exist. It is self-contradictory. If he knows what he's going to do tommorow, then he has no way of changing it."


CON: this is not an argument for science refutes God, I will therefore not answer this lapsus.


PRO: "The final part of the arguement is that God, if he existed, would violate all the known laws of nature. An eternal, immaterial being contratdicts the very definition of all the beings we know. That is they are material and finite."

CON: the laws of nature are true inside the universe , we don't know for what is outside the universe, therefore as God is outside the universe , your argument doesn't stand.


But still if God is able of everything, then even in the universe wouldn't matter.



All in All , my oponenet failed to prove that science refutes God.

In order for science to refute God, it needs to prove that life on earth came spontaneously, Water came spontaneously, and the Big Bang happened spontaneously with no causer, amongst other things ! and science did not prove any of those things , therefore science does not refute God.
Debate Round No. 3
23 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by makhdoom5 3 years ago
makhdoom5
if vote would be open i would have given to con.
Posted by makhdoom5 3 years ago
makhdoom5
great job by tutyfruty.
Posted by bladerunner060 3 years ago
bladerunner060
Goldangit, I was literally filling out my RFD when the voting period ended. That's what I get for not paying attention!

I would have voted for Con anyway: Pro might have been able to defend a weakened version of this proposition, but he failed to show a complete refutation of the concept of God.
Posted by Fruitytree 3 years ago
Fruitytree
Not so quickly, not because evolution exists that creationism is wrong! the unproven point is still the Common Descent, and that's exactly the point creationists refute.

And for Bigbang I'm not arguing that it did not happen, it is even mentioned in a scripture! I'm saying that it still is not explained, and how did chaotic explosion result in an organized environment!
Posted by Wolfram 3 years ago
Wolfram
According to origin of dogs and the microorganism' immunity against antibiotics - the evolution has been observed through by eyes. Despite the "gaps" in science and evolution, but it is still valid enough to disregard creationism as false.

But even if important ones such as the origin of life, universe formation and big bang cannot be sensed with at least one of the five senses by scientific research shouldn't be automatically disregarded as false. Extrasensory, for instance. The directional vectors of stars, gases and galaxies presented as an evidence for the theory of big bang.
For example, the fired bullet doesn't implied the killer, because the scientific research through by normal sensory would affirmed the simple projectile fired from weapon, nothing more or less. However, the extrasensory such as security camera differed otherwise...

Am I only one here conceded the evolution had been proven and well enough to refute god's involvement in creationism?
Posted by Fruitytree 3 years ago
Fruitytree
"The things that "God did make it" or "God's involvement with this" have been refuted by science"

That's false it was not refuted, it just is not considered , because it can't be observed anyways. but in parallel, sill a lot of gaps persist in science, and evolution ( CD more specifically) are not yes proven and can end up being dismissed . the most important ones are origin of life, origin of water, the universe formation (mater formation) , the bigbang, all of those things we have only theories for up to now, have been claimed by God (in the Abrahamic religions scriptures) , explaining how they happened is all we expect form science, but still it doesn't know.
Posted by Wolfram 3 years ago
Wolfram
"it cannot claim there is no God, that's the point of the debate." -Fruitytree

No. That is assertion. The role of god have been, indeed, refuted by science. God is being not included by science because the role of god is already deemed as an unnecessary and a nonsense. Look at the theory of evolution vs. creationism, for instance.

I had this typical defensive arguments from claimer for example:
Dan: Look at this glassy rock! It's forged by fairies! Even your science can't disprove the existence of fairy!
Wolf: Uh, It's igneous rock. That glassy rock is formed by melted rocks in hot environment later cooled.. It's been observed and proved by scientific study of geology. I'm sorry to refute your, uh, fairies' involvement with this glassy rock..
Dan: .... You can't disprove the nonexistence! It's faith!

The things that "God did make it" or "God's involvement with this" have been refuted by science. Therefore, the existence of god had been refuted through by that similar analogy... You see, any form of superstitious explanation regard the role of god as being "builder" has been refuted by science.
Posted by Fruitytree 3 years ago
Fruitytree
Because science doesn't have an answer to everything, it cannot claim there is no God, that's the point of the debate. it is as simple. so science does not refute God.
Posted by Wolfram 3 years ago
Wolfram
"You did not understand the point from the debate. it's whether or not science refutes God, meaning did science come to the conclusion the there is not need for a God." - Fruitytree

If you mean the role of god is for practitioners of religion to maintain their own peace of mind and the purpose of life? True, it's something that science can't substitute that role, because it's practitioners' OWN faith and choice.

Nevertheless, the role of god is NOW included for sake of this argument. The one might ask - Which the merits of science or the role of god would explain the purpose of life more effectively? I'd say science because of the merits of psychology. The study of psychology, psychiatry and the understanding of oneself would effectively maintain the peace of life, the purpose of life and development of ethics without the role of god.

It is apparent that science does not hold the answer for everything, but science is still developing. Although the role of god does not hold an answer more conventional than science. I think this debate had proven that humanity truly don't need the role of god to explain the understanding of universe. In order to explain the universe with deeper understanding, so thence the science and the role of god goes in conflict - Winner would be science. However, the purpose of science doesn't imply it would take over the throne of god and demand humanity for obedience. Okay?
Posted by Fruitytree 3 years ago
Fruitytree
The point is science did not answer all questions yet! theories are not truths, they don't know the answer yet.
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by medic0506 3 years ago
medic0506
joel.burgersFruitytreeTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: Countering obvious VB. Vulpes is using rules that were not put in place by the debaters. In addition, he gave Pro the source vote even though Pro used no sources. Even though 1 of Con's links doesn't work, he still should win the source point. I have no problem with his thinking that Pro won the argument or spelling points, but the other categories seem to just be an attempt to rack up extra points for Pro. If Vulpes will change his vote to make it more reasonable and not an obvious VB, I will adjust mine accordingly. Con won the debate because he showed that science can't answer any questions regarding origins. That is enough to refute Pro's claims that science can "in principle", answer questions through natural means, and that God has no explanatory power. Pro made those claims but provided nothing to support them. In showing those unanswerable questions, Con refuted Pro's attempt to use Occam's Razor, showing its use to be premature.
Vote Placed by Vulpes_Inculta 3 years ago
Vulpes_Inculta
joel.burgersFruitytreeTied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Reasons for voting decision: RFD in comments. Please don't complain about VB until you've read it. Update: I'm a theist, so please be careful if you're going to accuse.
Vote Placed by jh1234l 3 years ago
jh1234l
joel.burgersFruitytreeTied
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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:23 
Reasons for voting decision: Con had better arguments and pro has failed to meet his burden of proof. However, con's sources do not say that science does not explain those, but in fact they provide many explanations. Con has utterly misrepresented his sources. He has accidentally added the word "the" into the first url, by the way.
Vote Placed by danielawesome12 3 years ago
danielawesome12
joel.burgersFruitytreeTied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:12 
Reasons for voting decision: Science does refute god, but I don't think your argument was better, since Con posted a link he win sources. However, Con had terrible spelling "unceccessful to refute god, and sientists can at most be weak atheists. As my oponent didn't make specific rules , I can start debating from this round. " Pro if you wanted to win you could have said the bible says the world is a flat circle. Science has now proved to us that this is wrong http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20091021121500AAv7oFl It's describes it as a "circle". Not a "sphere"...a circle. Meaning flat and round...like a pancake. Theists like to point to Isaiah 40:22, which says: "It is he who sits above the circle of the earth". In Job, the shape of the Earth is a little more specific, when it says that the "Earth takes shape like clay under a seal." Have you seen what clay seals look like? Flat, and a circle, like a pancake. See here: http://zionism-israel.com/Zedekia.jpg Poor debate all aroun