The Instigator
ebg
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
newreaper
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

God's existence

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
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: 8/21/2012 Category: Religion
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 37,748 times Debate No: 25216
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (3)
Votes (0)

 

ebg

Pro

Premise: That a nonexistent God argued by scientific fact is doubtful because:

First point (science is not applied to the intangible): I've never walked into a college chemistry class and was told "If you believe in God, get out!" Neither have I had to have a secular viewpoint as a prerequisite for a physics class. Why? Because any scientific endeavour trying to prove or disprove God, is of course a pseudo science ...such as Creationism. Speaking as a Theologian....I would say science cannot prove or disprove God because God as a superior being cannot be the subject of man's scrutiny; but, speaking as a Scholar... I would say science cannot prove or disprove God because the process of science is only applied to that part of nature's phenomena that can only be observed and measured. Science is not in the business of establishing the intangible.

Second point (scientific fact can be fallible): Is scientific observation and measurement perfect? Is not scientific procedures subject to mistakes. Can not a scientific hypothesis be a misconstrued explanation? Also, if Science is the observation and measurement of nature's phenomena, then math itself is the explanation of that observation and measurement. Though Mathematical theorems may be absolutes in concept, the process of mathematics is not. There is a constant need for repetitious review upon mathematical explanation of scientific fact because of the inherent complexity of mathematical theorems and the possibility of procedural error.

Third point (scientific knowledge is temporal, and is forever changing): Is science to be accepted in blind faith? Am I to replace my Biblical God with the Gods of Academia? Is skepticism upon scientific "truths" scholastic heresy? Am I to be tortured on the "rack" if I doubt the mathematical formulas of a scientific genius? There is a difference of accepting science and questioning science. I can't deny the benefits of pharmaceutical medicines, but I can question scientific speculations on chemical reactions being the origin of life. I can't deny the power of nuclear energy, but I can question the theory that nothing travels across the Universe faster than light. I can't deny the adaptation of animal species by evolution process, but I can question the participation of human beings within that evolution process. If science and the application of mathematical explanations was not infallible, then all that was going to be known, would have already been discovered. Every generation claims to be on the frontier of "closing the book on science", yet knowledge is expanded, theories are revised, measurements are re-evaluated, and explanations are corrected. If any premise upon science was to be given, it would be that: There are no truth in science, just answers agreed upon to be the best solution for the moment.

Forth point (justification of a person's believes and ego influences scientific arguments): So why does science contradicts theology? Why doesn't scientific knowledge and theological knowledge exist has a coherent universal thought? Is it because science disproves the existence of God? Or, has biblical scripture revealed the necessary complex instructions upon the true workings of physical & biological laws. The answer is no in either case. The correct answer is that scientific knowledge and theological knowledge are not at odds, only the people that apply "idealism" to scientific facts and biblical scriptures are at odds. Can it be absolutely guaranteed that people do not wrongly apply, misuse, misquote, or superficially study both scientific & theological doctrine in order to justify their own believes and egos. For example: The "Big Bang" concept was not theorized to prove atheism. Yet, Atheists will use the "Big Bang" concept to try to show conclusive evidence upon a non-theological origin of matter and life. On the other hand, Creationists will try to use biblical genealogy to disprove the "Big Bang", but because "light" was created at least twice in Genesis, a finite beginning of celestial time is indefinable in the Bible (light created the first time in Genesis, is not necessarily in reference to light energy released from the"Big Bang").

Fifth point (scientific facts does not dismiss the unknown): Is it reasonable to think that science, then, only disproves the Unknown...that metaphysics itself is a collection of pseudo ideals contrary to scientific fact? No, because scientific procedure is only applied to the known. For example: 1000 years ago levitation off the ground by hot gases was a metaphysics of science, yet today we understand the physics of a hot air balloon. 500 years ago flying like a bird was a metaphysics of science, yet today we understand the properties of flight. 100 years ago levitation by magnetism was a metaphysics of science, yet today levitation by magnetism is accomplished. So what's next? For example: If UFOs do exist, then wouldn't a UFO's levitation be a metaphysics onto us? Or are we justified to dismiss the possibility because we fail to understand. Is it an absolute assurance that Scientific facts have been correctly verified in their proves of the impossibility of interstellar travel? Do we dismiss the thousands of sightings as "just a bunch of crazy people" based upon the limits of our scientific knowledge. Are we so sure of our conclusions and logic that we dismiss the unknown has the impossible. If the answer is No, then how do we dismiss Jesus Christ walking on water as an impossibility, instead of being a metaphysics of science yet to be discovered?

(Hopefully, I can respond to the second round...I am realizing that 12 hours to respond is not enough given the other things in life I need to get done. However, I would like to read any arguments opposing the existence of God in this debate, even if I might have to forfeit the debate in the second & third rounds because of time.)
newreaper

Con

1.) No you wouldn't be told to get out, science accepts every viewpoint no matter how ridiculed it will be. Also it doesn't discriminate others beliefs so would still respect them. By saying that science cannot prove or disprove God is equally as valid me saying a Christi couldn't, the reason that the idea of God as a being is so powerful is because it is so difficult to disprove. How do you disprove something that outlives existence, or that you cannot see and has no observable affect on the universe? You cannot, it is sciences business to figure out the intangible the world would never have any understanding otherwise. Example, until someone questioned it the Earth was defined as a giant turtle. We could never observe that with the technology they had and people genuinely believed it, but it was mysterious and unknown so we used science to find a way to figure out what it actually was.

2.) Science is a big waffle of ideas, but just because fewer people understand them does not mean they are not correct. The idea that something is wrong, can result in the phrasing of something being changed slightly or the idea could be scrapped al together. The reason science is reviewed is too be proven more accurate, more correct. As technology improves so will our understanding. So yes there will be miss calculations, but they will be so minute it would be impossible to be more that 1% out. Maths is not the result of the observation of nature, it is a universal way to give value too it. If you were too have a pineapple and another pineapple how many would you have? Although simple this isn't calculating nature it is counting. Maths is a response to the counting, it groups together. Measuring nature can be flawed, but in this day and age it's negligible especially in this case.

3.) Scientists spend year's even lifetimes arguing one fact, maybe the value of a number, maybe a whole idea. Science is not the acceptance of blind faith it takes more people to see what you've written and go okay lets take this idea further, than the months you would have spent on it. Science works on a question and answer basis. Nothing moves faster than the speed of light, this isn't simple and with 8000 characters given would not be enough to educate you on the matter. The same premise applies to your logic as well what made God, what evidence is there for a God. By simply saying 'I can question these facts' shows no favour. The idea of science would be to figure them out. Nope I'm afraid no generation can a' we're closing the book of science' not even close to it, whoever you have heard this of is very mistaken. Like I said everything is revised to make sure we are right and more accurate.

4.) simple fact being the 'big bang' doesn't defend either case, but by resulting in saying 'there's no proof it must be God' instead of trying to figure it out is blind faith at its finest. Also the bible is flawed almost the entire way through, both scientifically and morally. Using it to defend an argument is a double edged sword and you're holding the sharp end.

5.) what you are saying here is that science can only understand what can be experimented with. The problem being that through wanting to discover we discovered almost everything we could that was testable on Earth. Finance stops the discoveries of such simple things because they will not benefit society and therefor deemed useless. So if hypothetical UFO were to land we would study it because we could learn from it, but a meteorite we cannot learn from. First of had Jesus (over 2000 yes ago) discovered some form of water walking physics, without a doubt it would be uses today, second things that cannot be explained need to have an explanation if you accept something as impossible that is what it will become. However there is no evidence Jesus walked on water, brought the dead back to life, existed, and the fact that it is written in a book that has been translated poorly more than 2 times a lot of what in it is most likely more inaccurate.
Debate Round No. 1
ebg

Pro

1.) Lets not confuse science as an absolute study with the Institution of Science. You said "science accepts every viewpoint no matter how ridiculed it will be." I can't be accepted and ridiculed at the same time. Ridiculing someone or something is the practice of sarcasm which is a form of psychological attack. {an example that shows justification of a person's believes and ego influences scientific arguments}.

You go on to state: "that science cannot prove or disprove God is equally as valid me saying a Christi (I assume you wanted to spell Christianity) couldn't...." I agree, because Christian doctrine does not insist that God performs a duty. Christianity is a relationship, not a physics problem or biological study. For example: Do you demand from your friends that they perform some sort of " physical act" before you trust them? No. Wouldn't you feel indignant if your friends asked you to perform a physical act to show your trustworthiness? However, you demand that God exploits power to prove to you his physical presence? Well, what did Herod Antipas told Jesus, "turn my water into wine, and I'll let you go..." How could God the Son be subject to a command? {an example that shows science is not applied to the intangible (the abstract of "what is trust?")}

You go on to state: "it is science business to figure out the intangibles the world...." Well, contemplation and reason are concepts of philosophy, and are not limited to aspects of scientific definitions. Scientific theory is not a "rulebook" upon understanding, scientific theory is a supplement upon understanding. It follows, that you try to support your claim of science being in in the business of the intangible by the use of a presumed abstract example of "someone questioning if the Earth was defined as a giant turtle?" However, the example is nothing but derived from tangible observations: Earth (a real planetary object) is its Geometric (Geo= Earth + metric=measuring) shape like that of a turtle (a real species)? Where is the abstract in that example? There is a difference between a profound question and an abstract question. {an example that shows science is not applied to the intangible}

2.) You state: "Science is a big waffle of ideas, but just because fewer people understand them does not mean they are not correct." Let us reiterate upon the notion of what is meant by "Mathematical errors". For example: at the University level of education, would we be looking for mathematical error in the form of correct addition, subtraction, multiplication, division? No, because it is expected that at the University level little common forgetful procedural mistakes have already been filter out. At the University level, we would be looking for "mathematical error" in the form of deductive characteristics. For example: we may ask "are different mathematical theorem not applicable as to explain the same scientific experiment? "Is a mathematical theorem that is applicable omitted has so as to not invalidate the explanation by producing an exception? {an example that shows scientific fact can be fallible}

You go on and misquote me as: "Maths is not the result of the observation of nature...", yet afterwards restate my reasoning as your own logic by: "it is a universal way to give value too it". My statement was "if science is the observation and measurement of nature's phenomena, then math itself is the explanation of that observation and measurement." {an example that shows justification of a person's believes and ego influences scientific arguments}

You go on to state: "math is a response to counting, it groups together." But, even Mathematicians cannot agree upon the definition of "Math". Is it defined only by the quantitative? Is it a concept, an abstract, is it art?
You go on to state: "Measuring nature can be flawed, but in this day and age it's negligible especially in this case." In what case? {an example that shows justification of a person's believes and ego influences scientific arguments}

(3) You state: "Scientists spend year's even lifetimes arguing one fact, maybe the value of a number, maybe a whole idea. Science is not the acceptance of blind faith it takes more people to see what you've written and go okay lets take this idea further,..." So basically, scientific data can be disputed, hypothesis are not always accepted, and that the truth can be sometimes compromised for the sake of advancing scientific projects for the moment. A Science by committee approach. This correlates with my previous statement: "There are no truths in Science, just answers agreed upon to be the best solution for the moment. {an example that shows scientific knowledge is temporal, and is forever changing}

You go on to state: "Nothing moves faster than the speed of light, this isn't simple and with 8000 characters given would not be enough to educate you on the matter." I've never written in this debate as to the extent of my scholastic studies upon space-time physics. I've never indicated any classes I've taken, or grades I have achieved. You have no idea as to if I completely understand the postulations of space-time mathematics, or are completely ignorant of the theory of special relativity. {an example that shows justification of a person's believes and ego influences scientific arguments}

You go on to state: "By simply saying 'I can question these facts' shows no favour." However, questioning science shows that science is not finite in its answers, That as a prove for or against the existence of God, and unequivocal infinite amount of questions in science are raised? {an example that shows that scientific knowledge is temporal, and is forever changing}

You go on to state: "Nope I'm afraid no generation can a' we're closing the book of science' not even close to it, whoever you have heard this of is very mistaken. Like I said everything is revised to make sure we are right and more accurate." What about the Higgs particle, nicknamed "the God Particle"? What about the "theory of everything?" Are you telling me that the top physicists in the world right now are wrong in thinking that they are at the forefront of explaining everything about energy and matter? Is that not a contradicting notion on your part? {an example that shows that scientific knowledge is temporal, and is forever changing}

4.) You go on to state: "Also the bible is flawed almost the entire way through, both scientifically and morally" However, are we through debating on the issue of Scientific Knowledge & Theologian knowledge? Are we beginning the debate on "why God allows human suffering?" Am willing to debate that now.

5.) You state: "The problem being that through wanting to discover we discovered almost everything we could that was testable on Earth." So, basically your saying "the book of Earth Studies" is just about complete, even thought your earlier statement of "Nope I'm afraid no generation can a' we're closing the book of science' not even close to it...." is a contradiction. {an example that shows that scientific knowledge is temporal, and is forever changing}

You go on to state: "Finance stops the discoveries of such simple things because they will not benefit society and therefore deemed useless". However, lack of finance also stops many important scientific endeavours because of military and corporate funding desires. The politics of research grants, book deals, fellowships are not always motivated by the desire to find the "truth" in science? Can you assure me the complete virtuality of the Scientific, Academia, and Business Community in their pursuit of finding "scientific truths?" {an example that shows justification of a person's believes and ego influences scientific arguments}
newreaper

Con

yes you can be ridiculed and accepted simultaneously, 'Science' itself does not believe in religion, but accepts it as part of the world.

So you're saying because you 'think' God exists therefor it is. 'Do you demand from your friends that they perform some sort of "physical act" before you trust them?' Yes that is how social standings work. Would you befriend someone that did misdeeds to you, or is talking and learning who they are not classed as a physical act. You cannot trust someone unless you know who they are. This learning of a person would be no different to learning who God is. I never bought up trust, having a friend that you accept trust of comes from a foundation of understanding, you could not possibly gain that trust from a being that is non-existent.

'God exploits power to prove to you his physical presence? ' - nope I'm not saying that , first of all you are now implying that this 'power' has a conscious and that it has found the human race somewhat significant. Second he certainly isn't exploiting his power because there is nothing there to detect.

' Scientific theory is not a "rulebook" ' of course it isn't it's a book of rules. Theories are Ideas set into minds of people that are trying to write a rule book. Example: when you drop a rock on Earth it falls towards the centre, this is a rule it is fact you cannot change it. Things that we cannot test we make theories; we then try to prove those theories to put them in this rule book. Science is the confirmation of fact, doing everything in our power to do so. By telling the world that science should stop looking is like me telling you to stop believing. Also what would your response be if science were to prove the existence of God? What would your reaction to that scenario be?

'However, the example is nothing but derived from tangible observations ' So you are saying that if you were to climb up on a hill and look over you would be able to tell that the world was round, in similar respects the Earth was also referred to as a flat disc for hundreds of years. The point being made is that without observation there cannot be confirmation. Saying that looking for God is wrong and impossible is not scientific, that is religious accepting what cannot be seen 'blind faith'. We must improve our search if we are too find proof, instead of 'stop looking we believe it's there.'

You seem to agree here, science is a big waffle of ideas they cannot all be correct.

You have read this statement wrong; you read it as nature maths is limited by nature. In fact maths can predict nature, it can give it definition. Result of observation of nature would mean that math would not be self-sufficient. Science is the translation of math into the workings of nature, the two definitions are interchangeable.

'is it art?' no maths agrees that math is math it stands on its own it is its own definition. It's abstractness is the bits that need to be figured out, which is what is happening.
In this case being that if anything were to cause such a phenomena than there would be traces left, something that would have needed that magnitude to create anything (especially after the universe had been created and interfered with to create Earth) would leave evidence. By being wrong at a level of about 10 ^-100 would leave an accurate representation of what we are looking at.

'...completely ignorant of the theory of special relativity' (whole part intended) no I never assumed your intellect. I'm saying that it is fact, something that has been proven. By asking an abstract question like 'does God exists?' or 'how long is a piece of string?' you will only ever get the same response of I don't know. Measure it to make it fact, or at least a close representation to the answer.

That is the beauty of science, by finding things out we ask more questions. It is infinite yes, a cycle of Q and A sometimes the answers will be wrong, but when they are right we make sure they are, and yes I as a human can ask questions, but as a scientist I would try to figure them out. There is a difference between saying 'is there really a universal speed limit?' and finding out.

'nicknamed "the God Particle"? ' 1.) not proven, very very probable it exists. 2.) named God particle because it gives everything substance it is the reason things have mass. 3.) no relation to a supernatural being at all

'theory of everything' this is not close to being finished, it is a speculative idea come up by the people that are at the front line of physics that think it is possible it could exists. Plus it would not stop science if this theory is found out

No I do not wish for a moral debate on Gods existence, the reason being that the first part denies evolution, and has been disproven at high school level science. Also the fact that you are willing to admit that science changes it's point of view shows the incompetence of religion keeping to a set view.

'So, basically your saying "the book of Earth Studies...' No I'm saying that Earth has a lot left unknown, but most surface things that you could question in everyday life will have an answer now

Yes by finding out facts we prevent ignorance, the virtuity of science is dependent on how you look at it. The disproof of God may already exist, but for ethical reasons and to preserve the belief of millions it has not been published.

You only use Christian examples, what proof is it that this God is the God. Similarly: why would the human race be given any significance in a universe. By saying that an unknown is impossible to figure out and therefor the conclusion to this must mean God is like saying 'I have no idea where this carpet was made, God did it.'

God is an idea based on the insecurity that life has no overall purpose other than to die, what you do your life will/can be memorable, but the human set back is that we want more importance than what we have therefor giving us a purpose to work for after death.
By asking a loose question about something that has little evidence will get a loose answer without much evidence. Abstract questions may seem like they help your argument, but if in 100 years' time a GCSE student can explain special relativity he abstract questions will become more abstract and what you say now will appear less informed. People used to question gravity it doesn't happen anymore, it is apparent that it is. So yes science hasn't gotten as far as your questions yet, but it will do, and more people in your position will ask similar more abstract/complex questions, and scientists will need to answer them.

So don't you think that if a question like 'does God exist?' lasts so long and still has no evidence that it's not that scientists can't find it, but religion is closing it's ears and just saying science you're wrong
Finally why is it that you question sciences strive to find it and that lack of evidence states that it probably doesn't exist. Yet you can be determined by your own beliefs so much that you do not even need evidence?
Debate Round No. 2
ebg

Pro

You state: "'Do you demand from your friends that they perform some sort of "physical act" before you trust them?' Yes that is how social standings work." However, I think you mean that having observed your friends interacting within society over many years, you've come to evaluate their character. Evaluation of one's character is different from a demand that a person do a particular thing at a particular time to prove character. For example: if your trustworthy friend told you he or she could open any school locker, and came to you to borrow your math book...would you demand that before you lend them your math book, he or she must first open up your school locker in order to prove to you what they said was true! Again, No, you wouldn't demand that from your friends. However, isn't it demanded of God...such in the particular case of Herod Antipas demanding Jesus Christ to "turn my water into wine, before I let you go."?

Then, you go on to state: "Scientific theory is not a "rulebook" ' of course it isn't it's a book of rules." Which is just one more example of your contradicting statements through out the debate. And, you go on to say: "things that we cannot test we make theories; we then try to prove those theories to put them in this rule book." Again, another contradicting statement. How can we prove scientific theory, if we can't test its associated hypothesis?

Let's not confuse the idea a philosophy upon life with the idea of scientific theory. A philosophy upon life goes beyond the rigid formula's of scientific methods. It may include inductive reasoning derived from scientific theories, but a philosophy of life also is derived form social experiences, personnel experiences, secular or theological doctrine, academia, and other human endeavours.

It's very hard to argue that a Philosophy against the existence of God is correct solely based upon scientific theory. 1.) scientific theory is not the the limits of knowledge. 2.) Scientific theory is subject to mistakes. 3.) People attribute ideas to scientific theory, when in fact those ideas were never derived from scientific methods. 4.) People interject there personnel belief in the Institution of the Science as being scientific hypothesis. 5.) People fail to different between what is scientific thinking and what is derived from philosophical contemplation.

Science, then, is insufficient by itself to know if God exists or not. I never said that scientific knowledge is wrong. What I am saying is that the expanse of knowledge as to God's existence is more diverse then that we alone are taught by science.
newreaper

Con

You say that you never have to meet requirements to have friends, to prove that they are your friend; no you have made the assessment prior to allowing them to be your friend. So if that means testing them on their ability to open any locker in the school (which is rather immoral) and then stating that they are your friend after the task has been complete. So you would demand it to show that trust can exist between the two of you. Demands are made prior to acceptance. It is ironic, however that some are perfectly willing to follow Gods demand under the same premise, does that mean God does not have faith in your trust?

No science proven fact goes in the 'rule book' scientific theory goes into writing it. Rules of the universe exist, patterns caused by nature crop up everywhere like they're following a set code. Scientific theory is a book of rules, but they are rules that can be broken. Theory designed so that one day it can be experimented without it we would never have anything to experiment on. If a theory cannot be tested we will find a way to test it, just not right now. Theory is made on the untestable at that present point, not eternity.

This is an example of giving a human life more meaning to the universe than what it does, what affect any human have on the outcome of the universe. What does the universe owe us? Nothing is the answer. It is because of this the human race feels that we need more importance and by saying 'we are the people of God' adds significance both to their life and even death, a psychological reaction to insignificance that is all.

'scientific theory is not the limits of knowledge' of course it isn't there are other forms of understanding in this world hence why the 'theory of everything' will not stop science and why we haven't even nearly closed the book to understanding everything

'Scientific theory is subject to mistakes' that's why it's theory and not in the 'rule book' , theory does not equal fact theory is the idea that will hopefully (being the operative word) lead to fact

'People attribute ideas to scientific theory, when in fact those ideas were never derived from scientific methods' 1.) Scientists do not do this; math will be used or prior facts. Theory will not be accepted without a smidgen of plausible scientific evidence. 2.) This comes from media such as star wars, star treck or other sci-fi media. People assume that something can happen because it can be thought up.

'People interject there personnel belief in the Institution of the Science as being scientific hypothesis' - this happens pro religion as well, the person who originally prophesised the big bang was Christian. He refused to publish is work, grounds on his belief. This probably halted scientific discovery for some time, not only he lost a lot of credit for withdrawing his ideas and theories; might I add that those theories are widely accepted today.

'People fail to different between what is scientific thinking and what is derived from philosophical contemplation' people define theoretical physics as the philosophy of the universe. It takes ideas and a new ways of thinking to come up with answers question as obscure as your own. So yes philosophy is very intertwined with science, just instead of stopping and accepting they carry on questioning.

'God's existence is more diverse then that we alone are taught by science' have you ever heard of achems razor, the idea is that the more assumptions that are made the less feasible the idea. Well what science says that the chances are that a big floaty man made the universe, then came into that creation to make Earth then made humans, not only did that then left without leaving a trace, who still watches us and expects us to follow his will; makes a lot of assumptions. Whereas saying that there was an event that created the universe, probably an explosion (that wasn't an explosion!) of some kind makes very few. An even better filter would be, religion was invented by higher ups to make people less rebellious and more submissive to the higher ups (just an idea I don't believe this). Which sounds a lot more convenient.
So no it is not more diverse it is an illogical response to fear, diversity comes in many fashions why would the nature of a being, that wished to be worshipped remain hidden, especially when so few are worshipping it's power. Diversity in this case is null void, an existence made out of hope is sad and desperate not diverse

Why is it that people wish to diminish the beauty of nature and chaos with the invention of a higher power. Because they are frightened of what they cannot control.

Why do people create a being of authority? They need a true and just leader of will always be morally correct, people are not always thinkers. The weaker thinkers are followers' people who accept nature for what it is, they lose the ability to think critically and rely on a power that isn't there to guide them because they feel they cannot do it alone.

Why do people have a moral leader? Criminals looking for repentance (or an excuse) will turn to religion for guidance again under the impression it is a truly good thing to do, a way of following the sheep. Again by 'the creator' being all loving it adds faith and trust to this power.

Why do bad things happen? 'The most common response being God is testing you' - don't kid yourself, God was testing the Jews, all those people that died in Haiti, Twin towers, cancer. That's one nasty person to test you by taking away what you hold most dear. It's a way of taking chaos and giving it meaning

Why heaven and hell? Heaven and hell are for two reasons. One it's a punishment system good people in life go too heaven bad people hell, an eternity of suffering sounds pretty unpleasant so is a good deterrent from being bad, but it's also to gain that fundamental hope that there is more to life than eventually dying.

So your claim is that science cannot prove or disprove God, I'm against this because we cannot at this present time. In response neither can a believer of God and although science has a lack of evidence disproving there is less chance of religion finding some, the convenience that only the human psyche is so complex, that only we can conceive such an idea that shows the insecurity and fear we as a species have of life. We are no different to animals, animals don't have religion, and they don't have a God. They live they die... just like humans
Debate Round No. 3
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by stubs 2 years ago
stubs
I was gonna say, why does this debate have so many views haha
Posted by nate.DDOqa 2 years ago
nate.DDOqa
For reference when I started the count was ~100 views.
Posted by nate.DDOqa 2 years ago
nate.DDOqa
I caused the extremely high view count here. I am testing something that will have no effect on the voting of this debate.
No votes have been placed for this debate.