The Instigator
Leftii
Con (against)
Winning
13 Points
The Contender
shipman37
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points

Religion vs Science

Do you like this debate?NoYes+7
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Con Tied Pro
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision - Required
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/4/2011 Category: Religion
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 2,213 times Debate No: 18623
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (12)
Votes (3)

 

Leftii

Con

I am interested to observe the outcome of this debate, as I agree with neither side, my view undecided at the present. I will be arguing on behalf of science, however, being a committed Church-goer myself, I do not wish to state anything I say as a truth.

I would like to thank my challenger for accepting the debate and I am hoping you will be an interesting opponent. You will notice the word infinite becoming overused and that it because it is a key point in M-theory, the ultimate theory of which I am using to demonstrate the lack of need for a divine being.

My argument is based on the works of Stephen Hawking. That which with simple rules, complex happenings can be explained to their full extent. The complexities of the beginning of the universe, in this case, can be explained by the force of gravity. The singularity (or big bang/inflation) consisted of a single point of infinitely small volume in which all space is present. This space then, due to gravity, inflated within an infinitely small volume of every dimension (including the fourth - time). Gravity did this, because of the point's infinite mass. An infinite amount of mass is not affected by Planck's Constant (and to a lesser extent, quantum theory itself), therefore its path is ultimately set: an infinite amount of mass bends space-time infinitely, and so contorts itself with such a force the fabric of space inflated. Gravity, finding irregularities in matter, twisted the dimensions, causing mass to bend around the latter mass, creating what we up until recently know as gravitational orbit. Gravity and matter's irregularities therefore are a theory backed up by much evidence opposing the mere hypothesis of a divine being creating the universe. A lack of necessarity means a lack of need for the theory to back our developing world's ever-growing scientific needs.
shipman37

Pro

I will ask you this: how big is the universe? Isn't it infinite, according to most scientists? Tell me, have you ever measured how big it is? Then how do you know it is infinite? You believe that the universe is infinite without actually knowing how big it actually is. Sounds to me like science is based on faith as well. :)

----

to believe in something without circumstantial evidence to support it.

-----

You can never be completely sure that any scientific theory is true anyways. Just because there is no evidence to contradict one does not mean that there may be evidence in the future to contradict it.
I believe that God created science to get a more precise view in life, but people believe that they can prove that he doesn't exist because of atoms and cells, isn't it easy to say that that is what God created for us to understand. He is not just gonna give us an easy trip to the mountain, we ourselves have to climb it in order to enjoy our success. What I mean by that is that most likely God would not wish to declare that he is real but allow us to believe and discover on our own and to put our faith in him.

Debate Round No. 1
Leftii

Con

Pro states that a) science is based on faith, b) one cannot be certain that a theory is correct and c) God exists

a) Science is based on necessity and a theory's evidence to correlate with our observations. If a theory has sufficient evidence to reflect reality and prevent being proved incorrect, it is therefore necessary to be used in the way of evidence and is therefore an accepted theory. Therefore, a theory is not based on faith, but on the needs of modern science.

b) Pro is correct in this, however, as stated above, science does not depend on correct theories, but necessary theories.

c) If, as pro states, a theory can never be proved, the theory of a deity is as correct as M-theory, however is not a necessity, so has no sufficient evidence to become an accepted theory, therefore M-theory is more necessary than God. Also, the theory of gravity destabilizing the singularity stated in my opening argument is a theory with physical and theoretical (which, in itself contains physical evidence) evidence - more evidence than of divine creation -, so is therefore more of a necessity than divine creation.
shipman37

Pro

shipman37 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
Leftii

Con

An earlier comment from dappleshade asked for my clarification. As pro has forfeited, not putting forward arguments for me to base mine on, I may as well enter this clarification into the debate.

The aim of a theory is to have enough evidence for in ratio to evidence against, and therefore necessity to become an accepted theory. A lack of a need here reefers to necessity, where, if a theory is to lack evidence, it therefore lacks the necessity to be accepted. The theory of divine creation, until recently, had no theoretical or physical evidence for or against it. However, due to the theory of gravity disrupting the singularity, there is sufficient theoretical evidence, which is supported itself by theoretical and physical evidence, against the theory of divine creation. Therefore, it lacks sufficient evidence and so lacks necessity. In conclusion, it is not an accepted theory (although it may be an accepted belief).
shipman37

Pro

shipman37 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
12 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Leftii 5 years ago
Leftii
GaryBacon: "Reasons for voting decision: The "science" theories used by Con are actually closer to religion in my opinion. M theory is all about faith without any evidence." M-theory contains a great proportion of theoretical evidence - or physics. Our understanding of physics at the present has never been incorrect - from proving dimension theory, which later was reinforced by solid evidence, such as radiation taking shortcuts around the "flow" of gravity and the more recent phenomenon of nutrinos travelling "faster than light"; to merely explaining buoyancy and density. Therefore, the physics behind M-theory is stable enough to accept the ultimate theory. M-theory also has necessity. It explains observations and has no evidence against it. One may say that divine creation follows the same path, but the necessity for a divine being is minimal, and so the theory is not accepted. One would be wrong to say that M-theory contains no evidence, for how would it become accepted without the evidence to render it necessary.

Theory -> Evidence -> Necessity -> Acceptance
Posted by Leftii 5 years ago
Leftii
your consistancy fails :)
Posted by shipman37 5 years ago
shipman37
i am sorry for forfeiting i was visiting my mom and did not have a computer.
Posted by Leftii 5 years ago
Leftii
Didn't mean to post it twice. My computer's messing up.
Posted by Leftii 5 years ago
Leftii
I would like to point out that pro used the word "precise" as opposed to "accurate":
"I believe that God created science to get a more precise view in life".
Precise, meaning exact or detailed.
Accurate, meaning as close to the true value as possible.
Although the former makes sense, the latter i believe is more suiting to the phrase. Forgive me if I am incorrect.
Posted by Leftii 5 years ago
Leftii
I would like to point out that pro used the word "precise" as opposed to "accurate":
"I believe that God created science to get a more precise view in life".
Precise, meaning exact or detailed.
Accurate, meaning as close to the true value as possible.
Although the former makes sense, the latter i believe is more suiting to the phrase. Forgive me if I am incorrect.
Posted by dappleshade 5 years ago
dappleshade
Haha, it happens ;)
Posted by Leftii 5 years ago
Leftii
I apologise to dappleshade in thinking she is male (his). :S
Posted by Leftii 5 years ago
Leftii
I would like to thank dappleshade for his view on the matter. This is how I would reply:

The aim of a theory is to have enough evidence for in ratio to evidence against, and therefore necessity to become an accepted theory. A lack of a need here reffers to necessity, where, if a theory is to lack evidence, it therefore lacks the necessity to be accepted. The theory of divine creation, until recently, had no theoretical or physical evidence for or against it. However, due to the theory of gravitaty disrupting the singularity, there is sufficient theoretical evidence, which is supported itself by theoretical and physical evidence, against the theory of divine creation. Therefore, it lacks sufficient evidence and so lacks necessity. In conclusion, it is not an accepted theory (although it may be an accepted belief).

However, if pro were to provide evidence supplied by the theory of divine creation, or to lesser extent supplied from elsewhere, there would be sufficient evidence for - in the former's senario - the theory of divine creation and against the other and he would therefore have a worthier position in this debate.
Posted by Thjoseph 5 years ago
Thjoseph
This is interesting. Never had to debate on a side that I didn't believe in.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by Zarroette 2 years ago
Zarroette
Leftiishipman37Tied
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:40 
Reasons for voting decision: ff
Vote Placed by GaryBacon 5 years ago
GaryBacon
Leftiishipman37Tied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: The "science" theories used by Con are actually closer to religion in my opinion. M theory is all about faith without any evidence. Nevertheless, Pro forfeited two rounds and so I must vote for Con. The spelling and grammar vote is because Pro used the word "anyways." "Anyway" is an adverb, and adverbs cannot be pluralized.
Vote Placed by kkjnay 5 years ago
kkjnay
Leftiishipman37Tied
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 Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Reasons for voting decision: I'm surprised someone accepted this debate. Oh, actually I'm not. I just looked at Pro's argument. Lol.