Does the idea of the Christian God contradict science?
Debate Rounds (3)
By "The Christian God", I mean a personal being that governs the entire universe, loves humanity, and became man in order to pay for the sins of mankind so that all souls would have the opportunity for salvation from sin.
I hold that belief in any god is not based on empirical evidence, but is basic in the same way that belief in time moving forward or a belief in other conscious beings besides ourselves is. Therefore there can be no empirical evidence for or against a god. It is simply a belief one chooses to have, to not have, to continue to have, or stop having. The Christian God, as defined above, however, adds a few assertions to the basic idea of a god, specifically involving the nature of sin and the necessity of needing a savior. However, these too cannot be measured empirically and thus do not lend themselves to empirical evidence for or against.
I look forward to an opponent who will take up the challenge of finding ways in which the God I described contradicts the discoveries of science or indeed, if there be any. Please note that I am not arguing for the existence of God, but am merely refuting claims of contradiction between science and God. One might be able to do this with the Flying Spaghetti Monster or the Celestial Teacup as well. My interest lies exclusively in whether or not there exists someone who thinks they can find evidence against it. Cheers.
I would also inform you that the BOP is mostly on you, because you are taking the negative on the negative, you are taking the positive.
Until you can show evidence that the Christian God exists, my argument stands at "There is no scientific, repeatable way to show that the Christian God exists."
I must point out, however, that contradiction is not the kind of negative that couples with another negative to make a positive. A simple example: someone says "It's raining outside. This contradicts the notion that it's Friday." I respond "How silly of you to say so. There's no reason to think that it can't rain on Friday. The fact that it is raining does not contradict the notion that it's Friday." By responding this way, I am not actually arguing that it's Friday. I could be responding that way on Monday, and still be perfectly correct. I am simply refuting the silly notion that the rain somehow makes the idea that it is Friday implausible. In formal terms, if I respond to A -> ~B with ~(A->~B), I am not arguing B. Just so, if you have a series of facts, observations and logic that you say makes the existence of the Christian God implausible, I will take those facts, observations and logic and show that it does no such thing. I will not be arguing for the existence of the Christian God. The topic of this debate is not "Does the Christian God exist?", but "Does the idea of the Christian God contradict Science?". If your argument is no more than "There is no scientific, repeatable way to show that the Christian God exists", you're in the wrong debate.
Throughout the Bible, the Christian God's followers through the Christian God do many acts that contradict laws of thermodynamics. Mostly creating objects out of nothing. To do most of the acts the Christian God is credited for he would have to exist outside of the Physical World. Science deals in the physical world. You can also say science assumes there is nothing beyond the physical world. So yes science thinks everything is bound by the same laws of physics, therefore any claim of something defying those laws (The Bible) would be assumed that the person making the claim is lying or being deceived.
The first point I'd like to address is a question that wasn't necessarily made by my opponent, but is a frequent one. It is a question of wether or not miracles are just a cop out response to the fact that there is no scientific explanation for the described events. On the contrary, however. If the Christian God exists, then one would EXPECT miracles to be performed. A god is by definition a supernatural being. The Christian God would be a god, and therefore would be a supernatural being. This means that if the Christian God exists, it would not only have the ability to live outside of the natural world, but would by necessity have to live outside of the natural world. The natural world is synonymous with the physical world, therefore if the Christian God exists, it must live outside the physical world. Now, given the definition of the Christian God I supplied: a personal being that governs the entire universe, loves humanity, and became man in order to pay for the sins of mankind so that all souls would have the opportunity for salvation from sin, we can expect some confirmation from the man that he is God incarnate. Since the Christian God wants to give all the souls the opportunity to be saved from sin, one would expect him to gain the trust of souls. What better way to gain that trust, to show that one is supernatural than by performing supernatural act?. If the Christian God existed, one would expect the performance of miracles.
Secondly, miracles do not contradict the discoveries of science, which is to say, they do not set up expectations which scientific discoveries lower. Rather, they provide mysteries from a certain time and place the explanation of which scientific study is insufficient to provide. To illustrate this distinction, imagine you're running in a race and all of a sudden a car drives up next to you and then zooms right past you. Well, you never expected to compete with the car, because you are running on legs (science) and the car is running on an engine (miracle). The engine doesn't set up expectations that are lowered by the accomplishments of your legs. You expect to just keep running. Nevertheless, the car's existence is perfectly plausible. No one who wasn't at the race would call you a liar for claiming that the car existed and drove by at an incredible speed.
The next miracle: The day the sun stood still. Now the funny part about this is that it seems the supernatural has missed the Earth's rotation. This suggests that the people writing this were not working in divine inspiration or the divine inspiration did not reveal to them the astronomy that was advanced at the time. Either way Newtons laws, specifically the "object will remain in motion until acted on by an outside source" (first law) would mean that a huge amount of force would be used to stop the Earth's rotation and then used to start it back up again afterwords. Since this has never happened and doesn't look like it will ever happen in any computer models, a natural phenomena is a very unlikely explanation. Once again, until the supernatural world is known, and in that world you can establish laws of physics for them, and use this to loophole the apparent lack of conservation of energy here, I would conclude that this never happened and I would add that the source is unreliable saying that it didn't even know the Earth was rotated.
The next miracle: The account of creation. Science has its own origins story, and the Christian story looks nothing like this. I think you could say "The Christian Origin Story does contradict Science." Furthermore, if the Christian God were infallible, he could easily provide the exact origin story, and science would agree perfectly.
The next miracle: Noah's Ark. Most people who believe this happened put it at 4400 years ago. The pyramids were built at about 2400 BC. Which gives them a calm 0 years to get off the boat and complete the massive project. Of course the date could be wrong, so lets look at the claim itself. Now we have a ton of species, approximately 8.7 million. Now you could always say, kind means something like dog kind or cat kind, but that would make it so rapid evolution would be needed. ~4400 years to take 5320 families to 8.7 million species of animal. Thats 5 new species a day. Then you have species diaspora but I believe I have already done an adequate job of showing that this could not have happened.
The final miracle I will review: A baby from a virgin. Ha, this might sound a bit weird, but a baby can not be born without fertilization. It is basic biology. Unless you could say that God fertilized the egg. Once again, until that supernatural world is discovered, I think it is much more likely that Mary is in fact not a virgin.
Throughout these 5 miracles reviewed, I hope to have conveyed the message that it is much more likely that these miracles never happened or weren't the result of divine influence. I think people looking at the Bible need to actually review what happens, rather than just taking it all as fact, because, as you can see, even in the slightest critical thinking application, these miracles don't hold up to natural laws [science]. Thank you for reading.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by KroneckerDelta 1 year ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||0|
Reasons for voting decision: I am tempted to give arguments to PRO because they stated in Round 2: "...the Christian God do many acts that contradict laws of thermodynamics." But PRO gives no specifics until the final round where CON cannot refute and thus I see PROs round 3 as introducing new arguments. Further CON refutes PROs argument: "If the Christian God exists, then one would EXPECT miracles to be performed." But I don't see that PRO directly refuted that argument nor do I see that CON met the BoP by admitting that science cannot explain miracles. Thus this debate is a tie for me because I don't see that PRO refuted CONs arguments nor do I see that CON refuted PROs.
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.