The Instigator
ss11311086
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
SimpleObserverofThings
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

God can never be disproved officially and scientifically.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+3
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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/31/2013 Category: Religion
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,023 times Debate No: 39741
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (10)
Votes (0)

 

ss11311086

Pro

Why did 'God' exist in the dictionary and our conceptual consciousness? If God is to be disproved some time in the future, how will this be done?
SimpleObserverofThings

Con

I accept Pro's challenge.

I would kindly ask Pro to which God is he referring to as he isn't clear who this god, that can't be disproved, is.

Second, I would like to add that I will prove using logic and reason that god(s) are improbable to even exist and if they do I would like to add if my opponent agrees that if this being exists, is he/she/it is either supernatural, spirit form, or flesh and blood.
Debate Round No. 1
ss11311086

Pro

This God can be any God, for this topic is not limiting its subject to any entity or religion. for the sake of convenience though, let's say the God is the impersonal God that Einstein discussed about throughout his life.

first, we have to come to a consensus on if God is to be disproved, how is it to be done. I believe, if God is to be disproved, we (scientific community) need to propose an valid explanation to every single possible and logic question that can possibly be asked, and fully justify the explanation. This is what the scientific community has been pursuing i.e. the ultimate theory. not relativity, not quantum mechanics.

This might sounds achievable, but the statement itself (to propose an valid explanation to ...) is not illogical. this debate topic is to discuss how probable this is. the standpoint of pro is that, human and science will NEVER be able to explain every thing and find out every single truth/fact. therefore, God will forever (1000 year, 10000 year, so on) remain the only viable 'theory', if you like, to a lot of phenomenon e.g. randomness.
SimpleObserverofThings

Con

I'm sure this will be a healthy debate.

I will agree with Pro, Einstein did in fact not equate himself as being part of the atheist community, in fact he was open to the idea of a "higher mind". He admired the cosmos, looked at it with awe which brought him to come up to such conclusions regarding a deity. It is recorded in his journals though he didn't accept the Christian bible as being the inspired words of a all powerful being, even though he recognized the book as having some good aspects, but he believed it was primitive at best. I can provide sources in the comments section if anyone wants to know sources of what I finished describing regarding Einstein's position on a deity.

How can a supernatural being(s) be disproved using science? Well it hasn't been yet but lets look at what has been done so far, by science to disprove things attributed to a deity. Long before man had telescopes, most believed the world was the center of the universe, the stars were spirits of dead kings of old, and there was a giant creature or creatures supporting the earth. All of which was attributed to some form of a deity(s) of the time. Today we understand that these are fables that are incorrect in explaining those natural phenomena to which are adequately answered using natural explanations. We understand that our solar system is simply hanging at the very tail of our galaxy, which is in a giant pool of other such galaxies possibly containing infinite worlds, not that the earth is the center of the universe (not even close). We understand that most stars that we see in the sky are in fact dead, but not dead kings, but rather dead stars to which their light has finally reached earth. We understand that earth isn't supported by any deity or creature but rather gravity (which we don't fully understand yet either) which is the mechanism behind why earth simply doesn't float away from the sun into outer space.

Thunder was at one time attributed to Thor, bringing down the hammer of justice to their enemies, like the frost giants. Other cultures attributed thunder and lightening to Zeus, being either angry at humanity or fighting titans in the sky. We understand today that such fables are incorrect in explaining thunder and lightening. "Thunder....which is essentially a stream of electrons flowing between or within clouds, or between a cloud and the ground. The air surrounding the electron stream is heated to as hot as 50,000 degrees Fahrenheit, which is three times hotter than the surface of the sun." - Scientific American

Now what does this have to do with the notion that my opponent proposed you may ask? Simply that eventually science will be able to explain more things that turn out to be natural phenomena versus attributed to a deity. Reverting to his first comment in reference to Einstein, because Albert attributed such awe inspiring things to a deity of some kind, doesn't validate the belief that a deity of any kind in fact exist or not. Yet, just like scientists of old attributed certain phenomena's to a god when their understanding reached a certain limit but was eventually discovered that they are scientifically explained thus taking the "god" equation out (i.e.. Newton didn't understand how the moons of Jupiter and Saturn were able to orbit them while orbiting the sun thus attributed the notion to a higher being) means that eventually Yahweh, Jehovah, Jesus, Odin, Allah, Krishna, Horus, Thor, etc. will likely be presented as being nothing more than fables and that scientifically god isn't real or necessary for our universe.

Now my opponent may ask, well how does this explain the possibility that any of the aforementioned deities don't exist even if the phenomena attributed to them have natural explanations today? I will say, almost all the things attributed to them has been explained away using natural explanations and for one thing, anyone can visit Mt. Olympus and see that it's barren, no sign of any of the gods believed to exist there.

That is my position on the notion presented so far, look forward to my opponents response.
Debate Round No. 2
ss11311086

Pro

Thank you for your thoughtful comment. just to be safe, let me emphasize that the topic of this debate is about the probability for God being soundly and scientifically disproved, but not the probability for God being soundly and scientifically proved. I am not trying to say our promote that God exists, and I'm not saying that you said I said so, it's just to be safe and clear.

thunder, telescope, good examples. how ever, it's almost generally accepted by the scientific community that some things will never be able to be proved, no matter after 1000 years or 10000 years or whatever. here's a few example:

origin or universe: to understand what triggered it and what allowed it to happen, we need to understand and explain the physical status before it (when time didn't even exist, according to stephen hawking). if nothing is needed to trigger it (the big bang, let's say), why then? why is nothing needed to trigger it? do you think this is going to be explained ever? most scientists nowadays don't think so.

origin of randomness (if the world is not of determinism): probably principal of uncertainty and quantum fluctuation. but then, why is there quantum fluctuation? quantum fluctuation is so random no scientist currently is even attempting to explain why it happens.

how entity of the smallest scale (e.g. quarks) exist and function: to understand it, we have to get inside of it (meaning that to explore a scale even smaller than the quarks themselves). to a point, we reach planck length. let's say that the string theory is correct. the magnitude of a string is a planck length. then, there is no way to understand the inside property of a string (e.g. how it comes into existence), cuz there's no way to observe something smaller than planck length. science can get deeper and deeper, but to a point, it must stop.

Therefore, it is very safe to believe that science will never be able to solve everything. to disprove God, science needs to give explanation to every single logical, valid, factual based, non-subjective question that can be asked. it is safe to claim that this is not something science can possibly do. how safe is it? much safer than the claim that science can solve everything.
SimpleObserverofThings

Con

Agreed, science doesn't have the complete answers for now regarding the origin of the universe, as an example that my opponent chosen, but I will have to disagree that science will never be able to prove that god doesn't exist, it's not that science will have an experiment proving god is no longer part of our equation of explaining the unexplainable but rather the more we find out about our universe the more "god of the gaps" will close.

In 1769, was the first automobile to be invented, it was called the Cugnot Steam Trolley, invented by Jonathan Holguinisburg. It wasn't until Right Brothers invented the air plane where technology took off quickly, before you know it by 1969 we had a human being on the surface of the moon looking at earth, once believed only achievable by the gods. We've been able to achieve a wealth of advance technology not to mention understanding of our world in a short period of time. In the other hand, before all this achievement, people were living in the 'dark ages' not achieving anything close to what we've been able to achieve and discover thus far.

What is the purpose of me highlighting this? The purpose is that if we've been able to achieve these fetes in the short amount of time so far, can it really be said that it will be 1000 x 1000 x Infinite before we can ever have sufficient information that concludes that supernatural forces are nothing more than fables, rooted from human imagination? I will hold the position that sometime in the foreseeable future, likely way after I've passed away, and possibly any of whom reading this today, will come a time where we've been able to scientifically provide sufficient information that doesn't require the need to attribute any it, if not all of it, to any deity of any kind.

Scientists of Newton's day thought that it will be impossible to ever know the questions that we today know. The German scientist that argued against Albert regarding his theory of relativity fought foot and nail that his theory is incorrect, yet we have conclusive information proving it to be true. Not to mention before the Right Brothers, skeptics believed that it would be impossible for massive objects to be able to defy earth's gravity and fly across the sky without falling directly down. Yet, they are proved wrong everyday with air planes taking passengers across the globe.

In time science will be able to give a natural explanation for virtually every single logical, valid, factual based, non-subjective question that can be asked, just because we don't have sufficient understanding of them now, doesn't mean it won't be achievable later down the road, as our history has shown thus far.
Debate Round No. 3
ss11311086

Pro

The pro, I, can't emphasize enough that I'm not trying to prove God's existence (something God of the gaps attempts to do). I'm arguing that it is and will be impossible to disprove God. To prove something and to prove that something's undisprovable are different. There's such a difference between the two concepts: the subject (e.g.) can indeed be neither proved nor disproved forever. This discussion should only consider the 'disprove' side. whether you have done so before, please remember to keep this in mind the further discussion.

con: "it's not that science will have an experiment proving god is no longer part of our equation of explaining the unexplainable but rather the more we find out about our universe the more "god of the gaps" will close."

*to fully close the gaps (thus to disprove God), the unexplainable will has to be explained.* (important)

Unlike before (because of which you'll see why you can't use past event to rationalize your claim in the future), scientists actually have logical and scientific proof* (important) that something will remain unexplainable to science forever. Let's use the previous planck length example. planck length has a scientific meaning and definition that observation, measurement or anything that can add our knowledge regarding a magnitude smaller than planck length is impossible. therefore, it will be impossible to 'dissect' and learn about the fundamental property of a string as in string theory.

why is the speed of light 299,792,458 metres per second, but not 299,792,459 metres per second? the speed of light is actually calculated with vacuum permittivity and the vacuum permeability. but then how's vacuum permittivity and the vacuum permeability calculated? with formula that contain some constants. how are those constant calculated? if we keep on with this process, we will reach a point where the original constant is based on our observation of the universe, but has no explanation (and will very likely remain this way).

con: "In time science will be able to give a natural explanation for virtually every single logical, valid, factual based, non-subjective question that can be asked"

I can't say no to this. In the end of the day, no one can prove whether science will be able to explain every possible question. we can only wait till time to tell us the answer.

However, science can't disprove God by simply explaining everything; science must also settle 2 more things: 1. their 'everything' really is ultimately everything and 2. they must also prove*** their explanation to every single question that can be possibly asked. while it is not impossible that science can provide explanation to the origin of the universe, it will be extremely likely that science will not be able to prove their explanation. To prove their explanation, they will have to gain knowledge of the status before the universe, which is something humans live in and depend on. To prove their explanation, they will have to gain knowledge to the status before time existed, the very concept that enabled science. I hope this is understandable to you when I say that without time in consideration, everything a human brain, or the brain of something that lives in the universe's spacetime, can think of will make no sense at all.

con: "just because we don't have sufficient understanding of them now, doesn't mean it won't be achievable later down the road, as our history has shown thus far"

no one can prove whether it (full explanation and proof) will be achievable in the future. it's the likelihood that matters more. unlike what happened in the history, science nowadays has shown in scientific knowledge, logic and sense that something will never be able to be proved. you can say that science has come up with an explanation to why something will never be explained. see the above example.

No one can prove whether science can explain and prove everything in the future. we can only wait for time to tell us the answer. therefore, let's focus our discussion on the likelihood that science can do so in our further rounds.
SimpleObserverofThings

Con

I will go with James Randi Foundation on this one, his foundation is on the search to provide evidence whenever supernatural claims are real, testable, falsifiable, and thus can be concluded whether such a phenomena exist. With science, we can only test what's available in the natural world, to test something claimed to be of supernatural origin can not be tested, and I will admit to this.

Science will never be able to disprove god in that way, where they can test and falsify supernatural things (god being a supernatural thing in this case). Virtually everything can't be disproved or proved at a 100% certainty, because as history has shown when one hypothesis was shown to be true, down the line it's usually altered when new information is found regarding it.

Neil Degrausse Tyson mentioned in one lecture an interesting point, and I've heard it been repeated by other physicists like Lawrence Krauss, in that we can not disprove god seeing that he supposedly resides in the supernatural realm, to which as I've mentioned before. With that in mind, (understand this isn't your position, but for the sake of my argument) if god of the bible for instance exist, this will mean that every time he performed supernatural things in our physical realm, there should have been evidence left behind showing he had manipulated the physical laws. (to which we have none to test) My point on this is that, yes we can't ever disprove god at the 100th degree, but as you've agreed, eventually science will find explanations regarding important questions concerning our universe, and the idea of god will begin to fade away from our conscious thought.

If this being(s) exist, we may never know, especially if this being(s) resides in some other realm, universe, dimension, etc. it will never be known, we can only understand what we have available in this physical universe. Now in conclusion not that god will ever be disproved by science but rather as more information comes along, god (whoever it or they are) will be, not disproved, but rather covered over by a wealth of information that will be available down the line regarding our universe. Just like string theory, since its a fairly new theory, it isn't fully understood, eventually though in my opinion, it will be understood fully but never 100% seeing that with science everything isn't absolute, there is always room for change when new information arises.
Debate Round No. 4
ss11311086

Pro

I am glad that we reached consensus with regards to the topic of this debate and that the debate can be settled. There isn't much that I want to add on to the current information, except for one clarification.

Con: "With science, we can only test what's available in the natural world, to test something claimed to be of supernatural origin can not be tested, and I will admit to this."

I totally agree that "with science, we can only test what's available in the natural world". we could also replace the verb 'test' in this sentence with 'prove'.

However, I would like to point out that something can be out of the scope of our natural world, yet is not 'supernatural' too. for example, physical and quantum status of the universe before its beginning. this is obviously out of the natural world we have been talking about, yet it's a scientific topic and is nothing supernatural or spiritual. However, science will never be able to test or experiment on or prove anything regarding what's before the beginning of the universe, whatsoever.

Conclusion:

what does the 'Ph' in 'PhD' stand for? philosophy. we have PhD in Religion, we have PhD in Science. most academics effort human have made is the attempts to make sense of the universe we live in. Unfortunately (?), there will always be some issues or phenomenon or problems etc that science cannot fully test, explain, solve, justify, prove etc on its own in the rigorous scientific way. In other words, science has its own limit. In fact, the limit of science is set by science itself and its rigor. There are also areas (such as those beyond our universe i.e. prior to the beginning of the universe) that science wouldn't even attempt to solve. Still, human have the desire to make sense of the universe we live in, no matter what way it takes. Therefore, until the day that science provides a complete explanation and proof to every single fact that can possibly exist and proves that none of them is related to a God, God will remain human's only accessible explanation (correct or not) to certain areas (e.g. those mentioned above), and God will remain not disproved. However, as discussed about, there will always be something that Science can't full test, explain, solve, justify, prove etc. Whether this is 'unfortunate' or not, you decide.
SimpleObserverofThings

Con

In my conclusion, there isn't scientific evidence to disprove or prove the existence of god(s). My opponent's closing remarks "Therefore, until the day that science provides a complete explanation and proof to every single fact that can possibly exist and proves that none of them is related to a God, God will remain human's only accessible explanation (correct or not) to certain areas" I stand on the side that one day deities won't be a necessary explanation for phenomena that have an alternative natural explanation, and if they are, like those who used that explanation in the past who didn't know the answer at the time (i.e. Newton), those questions will be one day addressed by future scientists who are willing to find the answers. I'm hopeful that the points my opponent had made will be addressed, not by me, but rather future generations to come.

Like to thank my opponent's participation on this debate, and you the reader decide on whom you agree with.
Debate Round No. 5
10 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Dpowell 3 years ago
Dpowell
If he's talking about the well known god of christianity, catholism, etc. He has no true form he's an ultimate being.
Posted by SimpleObserverofThings 3 years ago
SimpleObserverofThings
I guess I'll debate you on this to see where your argument on this topic is going to lead or what your conclusion is. (out of curiosity)
Posted by ss11311086 3 years ago
ss11311086
Maybe I should initiate a debate topic about whether 'debate must have an indisputable, scientifically proved, universally accepted answer' and we can have a better talk about it? but i assure you, you are going to lose.
Posted by ss11311086 3 years ago
ss11311086
1. read the previous comment as well as this one.

2. Do you really think debate is about evidence and proofing and has to have one side to win indisputably? What is 'vote' for? What do you mean by 'going anywhere', guess what, I don't even want to know what you meant by that, cuz by definition, debate is not about going anywhere. if there is a goal or objective of debate, I would say it is the sharing of mentality, thoughts, and consciousness. Which ever debate topic that can fulfill this objective is a valid and good topic to me. I would be more than happy to see any 'philosophical answer'. cuz if I have to categorize this topic, I would say it's a philosophical debate topic. I seriously recommend you to get a better understanding and knowledge about debate itself before commenting on DEBATE.ORG .

3. want to reply? read point 1 before doing so.
Posted by SimpleObserverofThings 3 years ago
SimpleObserverofThings
The meaningfulness of my comment is to express how the debate, if it were accepted, will turn out to be the same as those debates you've seen online, which I've seen as well. They don't go anywhere, its usually a battle of words and nothing more. No real evidence is brought to the table except for philosophical answers, to which in my opinion doesn't constitute real proof for or against the notion of the existence of a supernatural entity. I as well as almost all atheists would accept if they are real evidence (worshiping the entity would be a whole different matter on it's own) to which there isn't any real sufficient evidence. As an example, Sam Harris vs William Craig debate is proof that all they did was battle over words and philosophical ideas, while Sam was trying to hone down to what Craig was trying to defend. Toward the end, the real truth of the debate came out, which is where I would love to debate if your question was more precise, that the God of the Christian-Judea bible is real. That is was all this nonsense boils down to, trying to prove his/her existence. I'll end my comment on this, Neil Degrausse Tyson presented a beautiful lecture in where he demonstrated that the usage of "god did it" is slowly fading away as science provides more of a natural explanation. We don't have the answers to what happened at the very next second after the big bang or before, but what they have so far, like what Stephen Hawking has been writing along with Lawrence Krauss, is the best answer so far. As science continues to make strides our understanding of the universe continues and the more naturalistic explanations used in place of "well god did it".
Posted by ss11311086 3 years ago
ss11311086
This topic is not about faith. The subject 'God' is not pointing toward any specific religion. If you have any knowledge of debate, would you mind telling me is it true that a debate must have a right or wrong or solid or absolute answer? have you personally seen or heard of any debate that ended or was destined to end with no confirmed answer? I have seen and heard of a lot. In fact, most debates that I know were like this.

Maybe you are right that "you can't prove god(s) exists and con won't be able to prove that he/she or they don't exists", but equally, one cannot prove that God is absolutely unable to be disproved. Debate is not about proving things. Debate is the sharing or mentality, thoughts, and consciousness.

so, afterall, what is the point of your comment? if you don't have anything meaningful to say, yea.....
Posted by SimpleObserverofThings 3 years ago
SimpleObserverofThings
correction * you can't prove god(s) exists and con won't be able to prove that he/she or they don't exists
Posted by SimpleObserverofThings 3 years ago
SimpleObserverofThings
Do I need to justify the existence of Leprechauns? No I don't, I would simply have faith that they are real, because rainbows are evidently real. I'm just trying to be consistent with the faith in god. Science cannot disprove or prove that the god(s) of the bible, quran, bhagavad gita, or the holy cook book the consists the good words of the flying spaghetti monster are real. Nor for any god that has been worshiped by ancient civilizations, which is why this debate isn't going no where, it will remain neutral because you can't prove god(s) exists and con won't be able to prove that he/she or they exist.
Posted by ss11311086 3 years ago
ss11311086
Your statement is based on a lot of assumption that you haven't justified. Your example is not comparable with this debate topic. There is a chance that the pro (me) can be wrong. this is if science one day determined the origin of the universe and every single fact before the origin, at the origin and after the origin, and fully justified their finding. Your can't deny this possibility. the underlying debate of this topic is, what is the limit of science?
Posted by SimpleObserverofThings 3 years ago
SimpleObserverofThings
Can't disprove a negative, we can give you that, just like you can't disprove that leprechauns aren't waiting at the end of each rainbow, and when you get close they disappear or that at this very moment there is a tea cup orbiting our planet.
No votes have been placed for this debate.