Miracles do not violate science
Debate Rounds (3)
Pro will argue that miracles do not violate science, while Con will argue the opposite. The BoP is on Pro. No forfeiting. No profane or discriminating language.
1st Round - Acceptance
2nd Round - Argument/Rebuttal
3rd Round - Counter rebuttals
Your definition of miracle that was posted in the comments "An effect or extraordinary event in the physical world that surpasses all known human or natural powers and is ascribed to a supernatural cause." clearly violates science. "ascribed to a supernatural cause." is pretty much the opposite of "the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment." Natural vs. supernatural. Ascribed vs. observation and experimentation.
Definition from Oxford: (http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...)
My has opponent basically violated the template I typed above, which read "1st Round - Acceptance" by putting forth his argument in Round 1. By doing this it is now harder for him to win, so I would advise him to be careful about what he accepts to.
My opponent states that the definition of a miracle "clearly violates science" but has not shown how. How do miracles violate science simply because they do?
Scientific laws are only assumed true through repetition. No finite number of attempts can show that a law is applicable for every case in the universe. For example, long before Australia was discovered, it was believed in the West that all swans in the world were white. But when Europeans landed in Australia, they saw, for the first time, a black swan. What was considered a scientifically violable truth before had to be withdrawn. Let's look at another example. When Newton published his laws about the universe, they were regarded as incontrovertibly true for almost two centuries. They worked very well, and were endorsed as unrefutable. Then, Einstein's theories of relativity contradicted Newton. Despite common belief, Newton's laws were proved in important ways to be wrong or at least inadequate. However, these laws could be, in the future, proved erroneous yet again. By this we learn that Einstein's theories have the capability to be proved wrong and are therefore, not completely true, but our "best guess".
So how are scientific laws verifiable? They aren't. As we have seen above, scientific laws at our "best guess" of what we know about the universe. In this respect, we realize that miracles cannot violate science, because science itself does not verify what each instance will turn out to be. It only assumes what will happen based on previous tries. In his book What's So Great About Christianity, D'Souza writes that "scientific laws are not 'laws of nature.' They are human laws, and they represent a form of best-guessing about the world. What we call laws are nothing more than observed patterns and sequences. We think the world works in this way until future experience proves the contrary." By this we determine that "An effect or extraordinary event in the physical world that surpasses all known human or natural powers and is ascribed to a supernatural cause." does not violate the assumed laws of science.
Another contention I have is that: if miracles by this definition are possible, then there must be a supernatural. In that respect, wouldn't the supernatural have complete control over science? If we assume the Christian God for example, how would he be bound by something he devised? He would have the power to alter the laws of nature if he chooses to, which are the very point of miracles themselves.
1. D'Souza, Dinesh. What's so Great about Christianity. Washington, DC: Regnery Pub., 2007. Print.
The BoP is on Pro. It is Con's job to rebut the arguments put forth in Round 2 rather than violate the boilerplate and put forth his argument made in Round 1. Even if that were not the case, I would not have had anything to rebut because Con has made no valid arguments and has only stated that the definition of a miracle "clearly violates science" without supporting any evidence or real argument for it. Vote Pro.
"So how are scientific laws verifiable? They aren't. As we have seen above, scientific laws at our "best guess" of what we know about the universe. In this respect, we realize that miracles cannot violate science, because science itself does not verify what each instance will turn out to be. It only assumes what will happen based on previous tries." Science, when it changes things, reaches for new or updated laws, not "Whelp, God did it." Science is the study of natural laws not supernatural ones.
"if miracles by this definition are possible, then there must be a supernatural. In that respect, wouldn't the supernatural have complete control over science? If we assume the Christian God for example, how would he be bound by something he devised? He would have the power to alter the laws of nature if he chooses to, which are the very point of miracles themselves." A definition of something does not mean it exists. Otherwise dragons would exist. (Unicorns too! There isn't anything keeping them from existing.) You haven't given any examples of true miracles so this argument is invalid. Just assuming they exist violates science itself. I might as well say that, sense magic, by definition, is possible wizards must exist.
Because my opponent hasn't upheld his BoP, and just dismissed my argument showing the contradictions of natural laws and supernatural occurrences instead of actually attacking them I urge a Con vote.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by whiteflame 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:||5||0|
Reasons for voting decision: So I think this is pretty straightforward. Pro provided argumentation that showed that violations of science don't happen every time we discover something new that doesn't fit the usual paradigms. He also says that since God can create natural laws, that He can also violate them. I'm not sure I buy either argument strongly, especially the latter (since that requires an awful lot of assumptions), but these are the arguments that Con needed to hit in order to win this debate, and I don't think he does so effectively. Con tries to say that Pro hasn't met his BoP in the final round, but doesn't say what that BoP is beyond stating that it's necessary for him to present examples of miracles, which I don't see as a well-supported statement. The responses just aren't there, and Pro's arguments are easily the strongest in the debate. S&G goes to Pro because Con's was pretty awful at multiple points. Conduct also goes to Pro due to ignoring the rules in R1.
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.