Is There Any Scientific Evidence That Points To Gods Existence ?
Debate Rounds (4)
I Personally Thank You For This Opportunity. (Note, The Pro Side Believes That Evidence Exists)
God As Defined By The Merriam-Webster's Dictionary Is An Incorporeal Supreme Being That Has Power Over The Universe And The Lives Of Humans. Science As Defined By The Same Dictionary Is Knowledge About The Natural World Gained Through Observation Or Experimentation. Because Of The Experiment Portion Of The Definition It May Seem That The Concept Of God Is Not Very Scientific. You Must Not, However Forget The Observation Portion. Once You Look At Proven Facts About Our Universe You Will See That Gods Existence Is More Probable Than Improbable.
First You Must Look At The Size Of Our Universe Itself. If Our Universe Was Much Smaller Than It Is, There Wouldn't Have Been Enough Mass For Nuclear Fusion To Have Taken Place Immediately After The Big Bang.
The Amount Of Helium Necessary For The Formation Of Heavy Metals Would Never Have Existed. Which Means Rock Planets Like The Earth Could Never Have Formed. If The Universe Was Expanding Much Faster Galaxies Wouldn't Even Form.
These Are Just A Few Of The Observable Evidence For A Degree Of Fine-Tuning In Our Universe.
Though Pure Coincidence Is Possible It Seems Much More Probable For A Designer.
For example and under similar logic, we currently do not know how exactly thunder forms in clouds. Therefore, using your statement, I can believe that it is Thor throwing his hammer down on the world. I can make this claim, but is it scientific? No. There is most certainly a scientific FACTUAL explanation for why thunder occurs we just have not found an explanation as of yet. Just because there is a lack of evidence in a scientific topic again does not provide ANY form of DIRECT EVIDENCE of a God. Long ago people believed that the stars within the sky were holes for God/Gods to look down upon them. However, we have indeed proven that those bright things in the sky are stars just like our sun. So, this is just an example of how humans have wrongly thought that a lack of evidence provided an existence of God.
Using your defined definitions science is essentially the study of dealing with facts and understanding the operation of natural laws. Unfortunately, God has never scientifically, factually proven he has existed otherwise we would not be having this debate. If he was scientifically proven you could find numerous scientific evidences and scientific experiments that God does in fact exist.
You state: "Though Pure Coincidence Is Possible It Seems Much More Probable For A Designer."
Where is your scientific evidence claiming there is a designer? Again, you are coming to the conclusion that because you do not know something that it automatically must be God which is scientifically inaccurate. This is just your own mythical/spiritual explanation of the world with no scientific evidence to back it up.
In A Sense This Is True, All Cultures Have Primitive Myths For Things They (At The Time) Could Not Comphrehend.
Which Makes Perfect Sense, Ask Yourself, Why Matter Exists At All ?
As I Have Preveiously Stated, Our Universe Points To A Certain Degree Of Fine-Tuning And I Also Said That Its Possible That Fine-Tuning Could Be One Big Coincidence. However Until Concrete Undisputable Scientific Data Emerges Our Best Option Is The Supernatrual Because Humans Cannot Understand The Reason Behind Our Universe.
Again, you are stating that just because we do not know everything about the universe, there must be a God. This is not scientific thinking as you do not have evidence to support this claim. Now, if there was scientific evidence of God we would not be having this debate and would instead be studying God through a scientific lens and experiments.
"Why does Matter Exists At All ?"
-Matter exists because of the Big Bang that resulted from a singularity. This led to a rapid expansion of the universe which led to galaxies, which led to stars, which led to life as we know it.
"However Until Concrete Undisputable Scientific Data Emerges Our Best Option Is The Supernatural Because Humans Cannot Understand The Reason Behind Our Universe."
Again, this is a very illogical unscientific conclusion. Where is the SCIENTIFIC evidence that shows the universe came about supernaturally under a God. Just because you think there might be a Godly "touch" to the universe does not mean that you have evidence of God, that is purely your own opinion.
You Did However Avoid The Question Behind My Statement, Obliviously Matter Arose After The Big Bang But What Caused It ?
To Answer My Own Question That Spawned This Debate There Is No Scientific Evidence For God That Cannot Be Put Off As Pure Coincidence. The Sole Exception To This Is Areas That Do Not And May Never Have Scientific Evidence Such As What Caused The Big Bang To Happen. In Such Areas The Only Viable Explanation Is The Supernatural.
I Personally Thank My Opponent For Such An Enlightening Debate No Matter What The Voters Decide.
As Such, I Rest My Case.
Science is in fact slowly making progress into how matter arose using quantum mechanics and physical relativity. In fact, some theories are already being produced by the some of the world's top scientists such as Stephen Hawking in order to answer this question.
"In such areas, the only viable explanation is the supernatural"
Again, just because we do not know something scientifically yet, does not mean it is automatically supernatural and SCIENTIFICALLY, FACTUALLY proven. Some believed that Gods lived on top of the tallest mountains in the world, yet, we have obviously proven first hand and scientifically that this is not true. Some people believed that stars were used as a method for the Gods to look down upon us. In each case, we have ultimately come up with scientific conclusions that prove these views incorrect. So, using the lack of scientific knowledge in an area does not in anyway provide SCIENTIFIC, FACTUAL evidence of God which is the definition of scientific evidence and what this debate is about.
I thank pro for providing an entertaining debate.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Brian123456 2 years 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||4|
Reasons for voting decision: Huh
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.