The Instigator
talacon1
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Toxifrost
Con (against)
Winning
2 Points

Is Belief in God Scientific?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
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 1 vote the winner is...
Toxifrost
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/26/2015 Category: Science
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 907 times Debate No: 68983
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (15)
Votes (1)

 

talacon1

Pro

I believe that the belief in God is scientific. The reason is that even non-religious scientists, particularly well-known ones who are also the most skilled such as Einstein himself have held that God exists. The greatest puzzle of science is the Unified Field Theory, better known as the Theory of Everything. Einstein said that the Theory of Everything would enable scientists to peer into the very Mind of God. Stephen Hawking is another that, though not religious, believes in God in the search for the Unified Field Theory. I personally hold a belief that is similar, that the Unified Field Theory is what will lead mankind back to God, but will be both scientific and religious, but also neither, as neither can fully teach about God, but a unification is necessary which will bring forth the truth of all matters.
Toxifrost

Con

I'd like to thank pro for starting this debate. I will be arguing the antithesis that belief in god is unscientific
I will also be refuting pro's claims that both Stephen Hawking and Albert Einstein were religious and that the Unified Field Theory will NOT lead us back to "god".

I'd like to lay out my definitions as follows.
1. Scientific- Done in an organized way that agrees with the methods and principles of science.
2. Science- Knowledge about or study of the natural world based on facts learned through experiments and observations.
3. Religious- Believing in a god or group of gods and following the rules of a religion.
4. Religion- An organized system of beliefs, ceremonies, and rules used to worship a god or a group of gods.

I am looking forward to a constructive debate and good luck to pro.

Sources:
http://www.merriam-webster.com...
http://www.merriam-webster.com...
http://www.merriam-webster.com...
http://www.merriam-webster.com...
Debate Round No. 1
talacon1

Pro

One thing that I would like to point out is that religion may be belief in "god(s)" but belief in "god(s)" is not necessarily religion. When I said those things about Stephen Hawking and Albert Einstein, I did not mean that they were religious, but that they believed in God as more of a force and the origin of the universe.
Toxifrost

Con

Toxifrost forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
talacon1

Pro

talacon1 forfeited this round.
Toxifrost

Con

Toxifrost forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
talacon1

Pro

talacon1 forfeited this round.
Toxifrost

Con

Toxifrost forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
talacon1

Pro

talacon1 forfeited this round.
Toxifrost

Con

Sorry about rounds being forfetied. Got bored.
Debate Round No. 5
15 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Toxifrost 2 years ago
Toxifrost
@talacon1 If you could open up messages on your page I'd like to discuss another possible debate topic with you.
Posted by Toxifrost 2 years ago
Toxifrost
Tala if youd like to debate me on a similar topic please start a new debate cause I just got bored with this one.
Posted by UndeniableReality 2 years ago
UndeniableReality
@talacon1
I forgot all about this debate, whoops. I was just pointing out that a hypothesis needs to meet some additional requirements which you didn't include.
Posted by talacon1 2 years ago
talacon1
Sure. You just can't say anything because you know its right.
Posted by Toxifrost 2 years ago
Toxifrost
honestly I havent posted anything on this as I forgot about it and just got bored with the concept of the debate
Posted by talacon1 2 years ago
talacon1
How could you not see the relevance? I am saying that based upon the universe and existence itself, there has to be a source of all matter and energy. That source would be the God of the universe. I gave the example of how people think that Jesus is God to show that religion has nothing to do with science, however belief in the sense I am referring to is not religion. When scientists state their hypothesis', they do not bias themselves in saying something they want to think like religious individuals do, but rather, it is based upon what existing evidence shows. Thus a scientist may say something like "I believe based upon existing evidence that (such outcome) will occur."
Posted by UndeniableReality 2 years ago
UndeniableReality
@talacon1
I'm not sure if any of your last post was in response to what I said (hard for me to see the relevance). But I want to point out that what you stated is not a hypothesis in any scientific sense. It isn't falsifiable, nor is it clear that it and its negation are mutually exclusive or span the entire probability space. It also doesn't appear to be derived from data or evidence.
Posted by talacon1 2 years ago
talacon1
You are correct that some misuse the word belief for things they simply want to think, however that is religious thought- which is not what this is about. What this is about is not religions, which as far as I can tell would be misleading representations of God, but belief in general of the concept of God. For example, Christendom teaches that Jesus is God, but completely ignores that even the bible itself says that he was dead for three days. God as I believe is not Jesus, but is the source of the matter and energy in the universe. This is my hypothesis based on the existence of the universe, and every effect has a cause.
Posted by UndeniableReality 2 years ago
UndeniableReality
@talacon1
"As for the question if belief in general would be scientific or unscientific, the hypothesis is an educated guess, or belief, that something is or isn't."

That is incorrect. It doesn't describe a belief at all. A hypothesis is a falsifiable statement who's negation must be mutually exclusive with itself and together span the entire probability space. 'Educated guess' is what they teach in high school, though generally a hypothesis is suggested by some preliminary data.

Beliefs, on the other hand, don't need to satisfy any of the conditions above. You could argue that in some cases a hypothesis is like a belief with certain extra properties, but a scientist who holds a belief regarding the hypothesis that he/she is testing is usually considered a bad scientist. In those situations, they are supposed to disclose their belief and resign from the team involved in that experiment (not resign from their job, but not be involved in that experiment).
Posted by talacon1 2 years ago
talacon1
I am speaking about a general concept of God, but not necessarily a God of any particular religion. In other words, some believe, like I was saying about Einstein and Stephen Hawking, in a God from no organized religion. Rather, they simply believed in God as a force or energy- something that actually might be able to be studied scientifically in concept. As for the question if belief in general would be scientific or unscientific, the hypothesis is an educated guess, or belief, that something is or isn't. In other words, belief is actually the same as being a hypothesis. Now some may believe without trying to verify, but belief should be verified or refuted by means of facts for truth to come into one's mind. Just like a plea in court is not the answer, so belief alone cannot be verification.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by 9spaceking 2 years ago
9spaceking
talacon1ToxifrostTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:02 
Reasons for voting decision: pro used mere assertions without support, and con just didn't do anything at all. But, he did have sources, so he gets points for that.