The Instigator
Chaomage6
Pro (for)
Losing
1 Points
The Contender
Magic8000
Con (against)
Winning
32 Points

RESOLVED: Science and religion are not mutually exclusive.

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 6 votes the winner is...
Magic8000
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/27/2013 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 870 times Debate No: 32985
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (2)
Votes (6)

 

Chaomage6

Pro

For purposes of debate, science shall be defined as the most widely-accepted theories among the scientific community.
It is arrogant to assume that either science or theology is mutually exclusive. Why is it so impossible for both of them to be right? Take universal creation for example:
In Abrahamic theology, God created the universe and the world.
From a scientific stance, the universe was created by the big bang.
The conclusion can be drawn that God created the universe through the big bang if both were to be correct.
To quote Gertie Hatfield:
"The pew on sunday goes with the desk on monday... science is the slow revealing of God's ways."
Magic8000

Con

I'm assuming the religion that's being referred to is the Abrahamic ones

Science says there's constants. The world remains the same. When we drop a ball, we assume next week that the ball will drop again. When we test Gravity we don't think they will change tomorrow, or the next week. The same goes for almost everything in the world. When we test biology, we know dead people don't rise from the grave. When we test Physics, we don't see people walking on water. When we test medicine, we don't see camel urine healing anyone.

However religion says a God exists, who can change these things. Religion and science can't be compatible because religion makes a statement that contradicts something fundamental in science!


Con ad hominems my view in claiming it's arrogant. How is it? Even if it's false, why is it arrogant? Con claims whenever a scientific discovery comes along (big bang, evolution, ect), one can still insert God. However if a religion's book already makes a claim about science, then it can be tested and falsified.

There's various problems with the first book of Abrahamic theology and science. In Genesis light was created before light producing objects were made like the Sun and stars (1:14 -19) we also have evening and morning before the Sun! This contradicts science.

In Joshua 10:13 it says
So the sun stood still, and the moon stopped, till the nation avenged itself on its enemies, as it is written in the Book of Jashar. The sun stopped in the middle of the sky and delayed going down about a full day.


How does the sun stand still, unless the Bible assumes the abandoned Geocentric model. Another Abrahamic book (The Qur'an) makes the same mistake.

31:29
Do you not see that Allah makes the night to enter into the day, and He makes the day to enter into the night, and He has made the sun and the moon subservient (to you); each pursues its course till an appointed time; and that Allah is Aware of what you do?


21:33
And He it is Who created the night and the day and the sun and the moon; all (orbs) travel along swiftly in their celestial spheres.


The resolution is negated. Religion makes claims about the world that have been shown wrong.
Debate Round No. 1
Chaomage6

Pro

Chaomage6 forfeited this round.
Magic8000

Con

Pro threw four fits
Debate Round No. 2
Chaomage6

Pro

Chaomage6 forfeited this round.
Magic8000

Con

You know who to vote for.
Debate Round No. 3
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by effimero89 4 years ago
effimero89
Its not arrogant at all to think the two are mutually exclusive. The reason the bible contradicts the creation story is because it doesn't say anything about a big bang lol. You are inventing your own style of Christianity when you bend and twist it to your liking. You either take the bible for what it is or you don't. Its very irritating when people today attempt to make their own version of the bible. They DO NOT go hand in hand. You are just making up your own concept of what you think it should be rather than what it is.
Posted by philochristos 4 years ago
philochristos
I think your use of the word "religion" is too broad. A person could win this debate easily by simply inventing a religion that explicitly denies one or more of the most widely accepted theories in the scientific community. Or you could win by inventing a religion that affirms all of the most widely accepted theories in the scientific community.

It all depends on what you mean when you say science and religion are not mutually exclusive. Do you mean that no religion contradicts science? Or do you mean at least some religions do not contradict science?

I think you should say that science and some particular religion (e.g. Christianity) are not mutually exclusive.
6 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Vote Placed by 1Devilsadvocate 4 years ago
1Devilsadvocate
Chaomage6Magic8000Tied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: F.F.
Vote Placed by Vulpes_Inculta 4 years ago
Vulpes_Inculta
Chaomage6Magic8000Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: FF
Vote Placed by wiploc 4 years ago
wiploc
Chaomage6Magic8000Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: FF
Vote Placed by Billdekel 4 years ago
Billdekel
Chaomage6Magic8000Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: FF
Vote Placed by Ragnar 4 years ago
Ragnar
Chaomage6Magic8000Tied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:13 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct is a measurement between the forfeit against pro, or the false claims of an Ad Hominem attack against con, magnified by noob sniping. Argument still very much goes in favor of con, as pro did not meet his BoP, or counter any claim by con.
Vote Placed by Subutai 4 years ago
Subutai
Chaomage6Magic8000Tied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: FF.