The Instigator
n7natnat
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
TalkingWaffle69
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

Science Refutes God

Do you like this debate?NoYes+3
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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/17/2015 Category: Religion
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 716 times Debate No: 71842
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (2)
Votes (0)

 

n7natnat

Pro

The motion is science refutes God. I have the distinct advantage here of arguing in favor of the motion because in fact we have evidence, reason, logic, rationality, and empirical methods on our side, whereas the opponent has vague hopes and fears, and they're arguing in favor of a motion that's hanging on for its existence by mere shreds of emotional and ideological spaghetti, much like this type provided by the flying spaghetti monster, one of the equally irrational gods which science provides no support for. But I first want to begin by clarifying the nature of the motion, because the motion isn't science disproves God. It's science Refutes God. And that's very important because you can't disprove a notion that's basically vague and unfalsifiable. I could not -- there's no way to disprove the notion that God didn't create all of us 15 seconds ago with the memories of the amusing comments we heard before that. There's no way we can disprove that, okay. And that's really important to recognize that those kind of unfalsifiable notions are unfalsifiable, as I say. But we can ask, is it rational to expect that that's likely. And here I want to emphasize that 500 years of science have demonstrated that God, that vague notion, is not likely. It's irrational to believe in God.
TalkingWaffle69

Con

That is the whole reason of Science. Most Scientific theories are just made up to answer the questions for people that do not believe in God. The Big Bang Theory is saying how the world was created when Christians believe that God made it. The theory of evolution is just answering the question "How were we made?" by saying that we came from fish when we believe that God made us.
Debate Round No. 1
n7natnat

Pro

And I would like to point out how none of these theories are thought of out of thin air. Science just doesn't make up reasons for things as a creationist would for the existence of the universe. Science relies on evidence and proof to support it's theories, and these theories have gone on for centuries in refuted and not disproven, making it more difficult for creationist to disprove them. And to refute God means refuting several claims. One that are all based on faith, not evidence. One, that God is necessary, two, that there is evidence for God; and three, that that belief is rational. And the point is that the progress of science has shown over and over and over again that the answers to all those three questions are no. No, no, no. Now, my favorite scientific field is cosmology. And that's the study of the origin and evolution of the universe as a whole. And it's where science and religion sort of confront each other. And creation myths have abounded throughout human history, and science confronts those creation myths. And we'll talk about that, I'm sure, at some point in the debate. But I want to point out that our opponents, I'm pretty sure, are going to argue first that one aspect of science that supports perhaps the belief in God is this notion that the universe is apparently fine-tuned for life. I hear that a lot, and because it was fine-tuned so life could exist. That is a remarkable and, in fact, cosmic misunderstanding, because it's the same kind of misunderstanding that led people to believe in special creation for life on earth before Darwin. It looked like everything was designed for the environment in which it lived. But what Darwin showed us was that a simple proposition, namely that there's genetic variation among a population combined with natural selection meant that you didn't need supernatural shenanigans, that in fact all the diversity of life on earth could arise from a single life form, by natural law. And he didn't know -- what he showed was it was plausible, based on the evidence -- he didn't know about DNA. He didn't know about the details of genetic replication, but he showed it was plausible. And as I'll say, that's where we're at now as far as the understanding of the universe is concerned. Now, my opponent, I suspect, will argue the universe is equally fine-tuned for life, and they -- in fact, they will point out that certain fundamental parameters in nature, if they were different, we couldn't exist. Or they may boldly assert that, in fact, certain of these parameters are so strange and unnatural that they must have been established with malice aforethought to ensure our existence. This too is an illusion. Just as bees need to see the color of flowers but they're not designed to do it, if they couldn't see them, they couldn't get the nectar and reproduce. So what we're seeing is a version of cosmic natural selection. We would be quite surprised to find ourselves living in a universe in which we couldn't live. In fact, that might be evidence for God.
TalkingWaffle69

Con

Well yes science can explain some stuff and tell us what traits animals have and such. My point is that the questions that people refuse to take God as the answer for, are answered with Scientific theories. And I challenge you to give me proof that the Big Bang was real.
Debate Round No. 2
n7natnat

Pro

Evidence for the Big Bang theory:
"Redshift of Galaxies: The redshift of distant galaxies means that the Universe is probably expanding. If we then go back far enough in time, everything must have been squashed together into a tiny dot. The rapid eruption from this tiny dot was the Big Bang.
"Microwave Background: Very early in its history, the whole Universe was very hot. As it expanded, this heat left behind a "glow" that fills the entire Universe. The Big Bang theory not only predicts that this glow should exist, but that it should be visible as microwaves - part of the Electromagnetic Spectrum. This is the Cosmic Microwave Background which has been accurately measured by orbiting detectors, and is very good evidence that the Big Bang theory is correct.
"Mixture of Elements: As the Universe expanded and cooled down, some of the elements that we see today were created. The Big Bang theory predicts how much of each element should have been made in the early universe, and what we see in very distant galaxies and old stars is just right. You cannot look in new stars, like the Sun, for this evidence, because they contain elements that were created in previous generations of stars. As such, the composition of new stars will be very different from the composition of stars that existed 7 billion years ago, shortly after the Big Bang.
"Looking back in time: The main alternative to the Big Bang theory of the Universe is called the Steady State theory. In this theory, the Universe does not change very much with time.
Remember that because light takes a long time to travel across the Universe, when we look at very distant galaxies, we are also looking back in time.
From this we can see that galaxies a long time ago were quite different from those today, showing that the Universe has changed. This fits better with the Big Bang theory than the Steady State theory.

I have much more evidence as well, but this will suffice for now. As the evidence based on factual evidence shows, the Big Bang theory is a strong theory that has not been refuted nor disproven at any point. No other evidence has shown to contradict it as well. Thus, making the theory more acceptable. At least 97% of scientists accept it, including the catholic church allowing you to accept it into your belief system.
But I want to point out that in fact the universe isn't particularly fine-tuned or conducive to life. Most of the universe is rather inhospitable to life. And in fact -- perhaps the biggest fine-tuning problem the field of cosmology, something, in fact, very extraordinary to have proposed in a sense is that the energy of empty space is not zero. The weirdest thing you can imagine, that empty space weighs something, but remarkably the energy of empty space is 120 orders of magnitude smaller than we would na"vely predict.
And if it were much bigger than we measure, it's true that galaxies couldn't form, and planets couldn't form, and debates couldn't happen. So the universe appears to be here because we are here. Now, that suggests religion perhaps, but the point is not that that claim of fine tuning is ridiculous because, in fact, if the energy of empty space was zero, which is a -- by far a more natural value, the universe would be a better place for life to live in. We all thought it was zero when I was a graduate student, because that was a natural value. If it was zero, the universe would be a better place. In fact, you can show the value that it has now makes the universe the worst of all possible universes to live in for the future of life. So, so much for a universe created for us. Now, once Darwin had removed the apparent need for God in evolution of life, the last bastion for God was the creation of the universe, how you can get something from nothing. And what -- we're in a remarkable situation of being in is precisely the same situation that Darwin existed in 150 years ago, namely, we have a plausible explanation of how a universe could precisely come from nothing.
TalkingWaffle69

Con

So a dot just blew up and made the universe?
Debate Round No. 3
n7natnat

Pro

In a way yes. It wasn't really a dot though. Just a small dense state of matter. The Big Bang theory is an explanation of the universe came to be from a tiny dense state. And it wasn't really an explosion either. Rather, just a rapid expansion from the point of origin. In fact, it still is expanding to day. Einstein originally thought that the universe was always the same. But after conducting research he saw he was wrong, and found that the universe was still expanding to date. But the debate here isn't how the Big Bang theory works; the debate here is whether or not science refuted God which many individuals such as myself have found to be true with factual evidence to support it. Such as that the bible claims to date the Earth and the universe to 6,500 years, when in actuality the universe and the earth are billions of years old. It's a fact. If you asked, "What would be the characteristics of the universe that came from nothing by natural laws?" it would be precisely the characteristics of the universe we observe, and it didn't have to be that way. It could have been another way. And by nothing my opponent will say that by nothing, I'm not talking about nothing, but I'm talking about nothing, no particles, no radiation, no space, no time, and even no laws of physics. My opponent might argue that the multiverse, which our universe might have spontaneously been created in, was created by physicists because they don't like God, because it's eternal and exists outside our universe, those same characteristics that God is supposed to have. But it wasn't created because we don't like God, although I don't like God. It was -- we'd been driven to it by measurements. In fact, I don't even like the multiverse, but I've learned to force my beliefs to conform to the evidence of reality.

That's where science differs from religion. There do remain deep philosophical and seismic questions that are unanswered, but God is not required or useful to explain any of them. And, therefore, to conclude, science has taught us that we don't need God to create a universe, that there's no evidence for God, that the specific sides of the claims of those who require God disagree with empirical evidence, and it's irrational. Science refutes God, so clearly you should vote for my side. Thank you.
TalkingWaffle69

Con

I'm gonna be honest I'm not even trying anymore my points were proven in the first couple rounds. Science is good yes but most scientific theories only refute God because they were made by people who don't believe in God.
Debate Round No. 4
n7natnat

Pro

Now this is where even viewers siding with my opponent acknowledge that Con is incorrect. Many of the theories known today were created by religious figures "and" no religious figures. Einstein himself was a theist: he was a pantheist. He did not believe in a specific god like my opponent might, but Einstein believed the universe is identical with divinity/that everything composes an all encompassing, immanent God. He didn't believe in an anthropomorphic god such as Yahweh or Allah, but he believed in that the divintiy of the universe was God like and of creation. He is even quoted: "God doesn't play dice". Plus there are many scientific theories made by scientist who were once religious, and changed their mind set "because" of there discoveries. Saying that scientific theories refute god because they were made by atheists is like saying, "The bible refutes that there isn't a God because the people who wrote it believe in God". It isn't logical. A scientist would not make up a theory out of thin air just to prove that God isnt in existence. Plus, there are scientist who believe god "used" the big bang to create the universe. I watched a debate last night where christian scientist devised this concept to help support the claim that God could still exist. A concept used by a christian that orginated from an atheist??????? I thought only atheist would listen to science? Nope. Even Christian scientist acknowledge the evidence to the big bang theory and evolution. They just believe it was divinely inspired (though there is no evidence for that, its unfalsifiable, and therefore has no reason to discuss it going off Newton's "flaminig laser sword" analogy). And as i mentioned before, even the Catholic Church recognizes the evidence for the theories to be substantional and even allow you to adopt it into your belief in the Christian god. But as ive already said, we have enough evidence to show that a universe "can" plausibly come from nothing. And the points you made were already disprove and refuted and cannot be recognize as valid because my arguments with actual evidence and sources outside of my opinion have done so. Also going back to where my opponent said, "Scientific theories only refute god because they were made by people who don't believe in god": that is like saying, "The evidence that shows where rain comes from only works because the people who found the evidence liked the rain." There are, again, many scientist who were christian who have come up with theories and decided to become atheist. My opponent, has therefore, stated an argument based of ignorance and opinion. He has no evidence to support this claim, while I have my example of theist Albert Einstein who believed in a form of God and created well known theories such as E=mc2, and believed in the big bang theory as well. I do not insult my opponent in any way, but it is obviously clear that he is ill prepared for the argument, relying on personal opinion or information told to him with no outher source to back it up. His points have not been proven, but rathered exploited. He claims we come from fish as one who does not understand evolution would claim we came from monkeys. That point he claims to of been proven is invalid as we do not originate from fish, but rather we come from ancestors that we have shared with all to most organisms to day. We have evidence for this as well with fossils, comparitive change, and we have proved "micro-evolution" (evolution over a small period of time) to be a fact. Macro-evolution (evolution over a longer period of time) remains a strong theory, but, it still has more evidence for it than we do for the existence for god for claiming god is real or unreal is unfalsifiable. We can not prove it, "but", we can refute it based of reason and evidence in our obviously observable universe. He also asked me fro evidence for the Big Bang theory which I gave and can list the sources if neccessary if my opponents asks. And as i already explained, we dont refuse god as an answer. In fact, when science was first conceived and apparent, we tried to use science to "prove" there was a god. But science has brought us to the point where god is not a neccessary explanation for the universe nor life itself. If there was evidence of god in science, we scientist would acknowledge god in all of our works because as I have already explained we scientist are not dogmatist and will and "have" to accept any more information countering or proving theories/facts. And if my opponent's "points were proven in the first couple of rounds" as he claims they were, then how come he incorrectly assumed that a "dot just blew up and made the universe"? I corrected him by telling and giving evidence that instead the universe originated in a "small dense state" not explicitly saying what shape it was (such as a dot), and it did not "blow up", but it rather expanded rapidly without all of the "combustion of a normal explosion". And now my opponent claims he will not try anymore to counter my arguments. Does this sound like an opponent who is worth not my time, but your time reader, for you might of had better evidence to argue agaisnt me. But instead, the opponent gives up where you might of picked up better points. Does that seem fair, in your mind, that your side should lose because he does not want to "try" anymore and would rather give up? I hope this shows how ineffecient my opponent is at making points and the readers and observers of the debate will not vote for the side they support the most, but rather the side that gave the best argument and put their most forth effort into this. I thank you again fellow readers for taking time out of your day to read one of the most disputable topics ever conceived by mankind, and I hope you enjoyed it. If not, i apologize on my behalf, and my opponent's for not giving you the debate you wished for. But i hope you vote according to valid reason and not bias opinion. If you still choose to vote based off your beliefs, I will not condem you for it. It is in your will to do so. I am not you. "BUT". I sincerely hope that you vote according to how a debate works: vote on who gave the better evidence, support, and claims despite even if they are against your personal motion on the matter. Thank you for your time, and godspeed.
-Pro
TalkingWaffle69

Con

Stop typing so much
Debate Round No. 5
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by n7natnat 2 years ago
n7natnat
Thank you will. I know you are a Christian, but I will not discriminate you for it. You have a right to choose your beliefs whether I like them or not. I apologize that the side you favor did not have an exceptional argument for your case because the Con was not prepared. If needed, I would propose the same debate with you to let you explain your side with more evidence and give your beliefs a chance to thrive.
Posted by Will22 2 years ago
Will22
I suggest debaters make sure they are up for it when accepting a theological debate especially if the instigator is Atheist, as those debates tend to be very well prepared. Con's "typing too much" is the normal typing amount for most debaters here. This is not a playground.
No votes have been placed for this debate.