The Instigator
Pro (for)
7 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
15 Points

Science Vs. 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 6 votes the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/10/2013 Category: Science
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 6,345 times Debate No: 32317
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (13)
Votes (6)





I am not trying to hurt anyone's feelings and I do not believe anyone's personal beliefs are "wrong".
I do not wish to personally attack anyone, I just want to have a fun, fair debate!
Please do not be ignorant of any topic that happens to come up in this debate!

I hope this is an exciting debate and remember, nothing stated in this debate is fact since there is always a possibility of change.


I am going to accept your debate.

On the contrary, I believe that science and religion works in harmony. Science alone is dangerous, and it can't win a battle against God, because he is in all of us even if we don't wish to admit it.

I await your argument.
Good luck!
Debate Round No. 1


Thank you for accepting!

1. In science everything is a possibility. When we look at science we see that almost everything is a theory. Take gravity for example, gravity has never once been proved wrong yet we still call it a theory. This is the beauty of science, it can always change! If one day we find something in the universe traveling faster than the speed of light, we can no longer believe that the speed of light is as fast as things can go and thus that theory is expelled(until proved right again).

2. The largest flaw in the theory that there is a god is simple, it cannot be tested or proved. This is clearly a huge problem with the theory since without proof your theory holds no weight. Lets go back to gravity, if I pick up my computer and drop it from my roof, I am 99.999999% sure that the computer will indeed fall to the earth. This can be tested time and time again, it has yet to fail.

3. Arguments have been made that there must be a god since miracles occur on earth. Some would say, My mother had cancer and the doctors told me she only had three more days left. I prayed and prayed and the next day the doctors were baffled to find that the cancer had completely vanished! This must be signs of god right? No. This is clearly not a sign of god, it's a sign of chance. For example if one thousand people are fatally ill and the doctor says to each patient, the chance of death is 99.9% theoretically, someone lives. This can be called a miracle if you want, but mathematically it's just chance.

4. The arguement that you presented prior to this was that, God is everything. There is nothing that is not god and thus he must exist. This is just mixed up termonology, it seems as the word you are looking for is energy. Energy is everything just in differant states. "God A being conceived as the perfect, omnipotent, omniscient originator and ruler of the universe, the principal object of faith and worship in monotheistic religions." (sorry about my formatting, i'm currently on a phone.)
Clearly this is only one of the many definitions of god, but it seems to be the most accepted one throughout relegion.
Now if god is omnipitant, he should be bound by no laws such as, one cannot create or destroy matter. if their is a god he in all his greatness should break the laws of physics from time to time since he is omnipitant, and if not he isnt truly omnipitant at all.


I am eager to begin this debate.

I completly agree with your stand on science. The more we know, the more we realize how much we don't know. Just look at what the discovery of photons changed. Look at holographic universe principle, can it explain quantom physics?


Is it practical to always be fair or always say the truth?
Can we say the spainards and other colonists did not benefit from exterminating natives?
Does porn lose financially?

We can identify morals as behaviour that is against personal benefit. Morals is a non-profit desire.

Morals can be seen as a boundrie, just like Friedrich Nietzsche said: "We are deprived of strength when we feel pity".
The greatness of heroic actions is not in profit, since they are mostly unprofitable, nor in it's logic, since it is often illogical. The existance of an other world must be possible, we consider tragic heroes victorious, but in this world, they gained nothing. So is there an other meaning for human existance? An other meaning rather than this relative and limited meaning?

Rituals and sacrifices existed in all religions, and it's nature remained an unexplained mystery, an irrational one.
It is an other system from an other world that contradicts the principle of interest and benefit that exists among animals. So we have the interest and benefit and human sacrifice. Interest is one of the principles of economical flourish, but sacrifice is one of the principles of religion, Interest is earthbound, but sacrifice is heaven-sent. Morals must have a value, but that value cannot come from this world, a value that cannot be measured with material standards, a value that does not subject with natural laws.

Then, moral behaviour and sacrifice and higher values have no meaning by itself, but it have a meaning in the existance of God.

So the bottom line is: If God does not exist, then humanity does not exist.

Humans never had the choice to be just an animal, an animal is innocent morally, but a human is either good or evil (lacks good), there is no human that is innocent morally. There is no choice to be a human or an animal, but there is a choice to be human or inhuman. So if humans were simply animals, their life would be free from mysterious or rituals or beliefs or symbols, contray to animals whos ultimate goal is to satisfy desires with luxuries.

So if it is correct that we become better persons by suffering, and bad people by luxuries, then we are different from animals. If humans are the sons of nature, then how can we oppose nature?

There is no scientific reason to be a moral person. But in the end, there is no true athiest, since his morals come from religion, when people go to temples for charity, this proves their belief in equality among human beings, not strong preying on the weak.

"I have always obeyed this law of nature by never permitting myself to feel compassion. I have ruthlessly suppressed domestic opposition and brutally crushed the resistance of alien races. It's the only way to deal with it." -Adolf Hitler

That is the basis of atrocities commited by athiest tyrants.

So essentially, athiests have little to do with human rights. The issue is purely metaphysical, so how can they demand equal rights for fellow humans? Equality between humans is a moral reconigation, however, when we look at a natural and material point of view, we are not equal. Unless God gave us this right.

But what about humanism or theory of natural human? belief in humans and humanity alone with putting society over everything else? Is it a better alternative for God?

I don't believe Rousseau thought this through. This is unbelievably contradictory, human is completly consumed by nature, the rules of nature is his rules, the values of nature is his values which run on him like all other creature. Thus, humans are nothing but a 3D material pattern. A social animal whose mind is a material matter, thus at some point, humans will lose themselves.

"As soon as man began considering himself the source of the highest meaning in the world and the measure of everything, the world began to lose its human dimension, and man began to lose control of it." -Vaclav Havel

Athiesm is bad, it is the basis of mass murders commited by immoral people, it is also the basis of pagan cults and secret societies.

Athiesm is no solution to an equation, it is the admition of failure to find a tolerable solution due to elements like pride. It is being lazy.

You asked very basic questions which I would be happy to answer.

So your first one is: Why can't we see God and interact with him?
That question is false by nature, if we did, then I'd turn athiest. If that is the case, then God is limited to a time and place, our eyes are a concept of reality, but it does not show the full reality by a long shot. Thus it would be contradictory to the omnipotent nature of God.

The correct format of the question is: Why didn't God give us knowledge and sureness of his existance?

Answer: We were born with neutral minds with signs.

Is: "Do you believe in the sun?" a logical question? It isn't since the sun is in front of us and we cannot deny this. But faith requires some effort, or what would be the point of all of this? We were given morality and logic, we should conclude that nothing creates nothing.

This is clearly a huge problem with the theory since without proof your theory holds no weight.

Talk about evolution *chuckles*

If you want to play the number games, then know that Aristotle himself cannot prove philosophally that 1+1=2.

Is the first 1 a perfect one? is the plus sign a perfect sign? Is the other one equal to the first one? Does the equal sign portary a perfect result?

There are many factors in play.

However when speaking mathmatically.

And for the miracle argument, good job being Dr. Phil, but you are incorrect.

Lets say people in the past attributed earthquakes to God, and now we know that it is due to the movement of tectonic plates. Does this exclude God from the equation?

By knowing the cause do we disclaimed the causer or be more sure there is a cause?
When we learnt that clouds move due to wind, does this mean that God have nothing to due with it or did he create these laws and perfected it?

As you said, science is not a closed box, we do not know natural law enough to claim a phenomina is breaking it, who knows about the possibility of breaking atoms, alternative universes etc...

Scientifically, scientists did comment how they could notice signs of grand design among laws and phenominas. And this brings me toward my next point.

There is no question that the probability of this universe is 1 in hundreds or thousands of billions. (A loaded dice) Imagine getting the perfect answer everytime you roll it.

You might say that the universe had unlimited chances, But according to the Law of large numbers, The more you have an extra try, Your chance will get lower. So if you have unlimited chances then the chance is ZERO.

Can you look at the earth and universe and honestly tell me it happened by chance?

As I said, athiesm is being lazy, you leave blank answers blank.

Now let athiesm give answers (For once!) for:

1-Newton's first law.

2-First law of thermodynamics.

3-Third law of thermodynamics.

4-Big Bang Theory.

Debate Round No. 2


Thank you for such a well thought out response!


In your argument you describe morals to be a non-profit desire or against personal benefit. You then state that heroic acts are non profitable and non logical. I cannot think of a single example of this being true. Take for example Hanibal of Carthage during the great Punic wars. Hannibal was having amazing victories throughout Rome crushing any who stood in his way. When he heard that Rome had snuck into Carthage and raamsacked it's mighty cities he decided to return to his homeland. Even though he was having these great victories his morals made him protect his people. How is this not logical? Morals differ from person to person making them a very vague argument. You later bring up the topic of good and evil when in reality, neither truly exist. People think that they are doing something good if it benefits their people and evil when they are hurting their people. Lets look at war for an example. Each side in a war thinks that they are just, they think themselves good and the others evil. How can this be? Both sides can't be good and evil at the same time, that just doesn't make sense. So whose right and whose wrong? There is no right answer because good and evil are simply terms we humans use to justify the things we do to others.


Sacrificing animals and people seems to be quite trendy with humans. Why is this? Before major leaps in science humans didn't know much about physics so they jumped to conclusions. For thousand of years we needed a god to make sence of everything around us. We clearly didn't know about quantum physics because we didn't have the tools or knowledge to access such advanced science. It makes sence why people came up with the idea of god, they were afraid. I mean who wouldn't be? Death is something that plagues the mind of individuals throught the planet because humans clearly don't want to die. So how would you cushion this huge fear? What about an afterlife? If everyone believed In the afterlife it would take a large Amount of fear out of death. What about natural events such as thunderstorms? Pretty scary if you don't know what it is. So people went to what they knew and decided that gods were the cause of thunder and lightning. The problem with god is we no longer need it in science, we can describe events without it. Why have what isn't needed? Comfort. It is comforting to think about a higher power that has complete omnipotency. I mean we still haven't got a clue what happens after death because we clearly can't just die and take some notes on what happened. If we can somehow find out and prove what happens after death god will be even less significant. You argue that atheism creates cults and bloodshed but look at the history of humans. What is the leading cause of war? Religion!!! We are killing each other because we cannot think for ourselves.

It couldn't have been random.
Clearly the universe is far larger than we are able to comprehend, earth is yet a mere spec floating though out it. In your next argument please explain where god is needed in science.
The Big Bang theory is the most supported theory we have for the creation of the universe so that is the theory that science goes with. That fact is everything is expanding, we know this in science. Everything is expanding because it is the result of an explosion of epic proportion. You can sit there and say that everything is god but the Burden of proof falls on you. You must prove to me that science cannot explain itself and needs god to make sence. You must prove to me that Hawking, Einstein, Tyson were all completly off and god it truly everything.

"God is an ever receding pocket of scientific ignorance."-Neil DeGrasse Tyson.
This quote couldn't be more true! What has happened to god over the length of human existence? It has changed! We used to believe that rain was from the gods, then we believed that earth was made for humans, we even believed that the sun revolved around the earth. We know these things are not true in this day and age. You are being completely ignorant to everything that we as a species has achieved. Instead of striving for answers to your questions you go straight to god. I don't know how this happened so it must be god. You can't prove god because there is nothing to prove! God is just a fancy way of saying I don't know and am to lazy to figure it out. You can believe in god if you truly wish but it will get you nowhere. In 1,000 years people will still believe in god, but it won't have anything to do with the creation of the universe or life on other planets. God will always remain
With humans because we are to scared to let it go.


I am talking about morality from a natural, material, and scientific perspective.
From that perspective and compared to other animals, morals in their pure form are against: nature, materiality, and logic. Unless they comes with religion.

You are claiming that the only reason Hannibal returned was to save his people, this is probably one of the main reasons. But strategically, it is a must. What is a leader without people?

In theory, morality may only come in religion. But in practice, morality is in all of us.

Moral hypocrisy proves that morality have a value. It can be compared to people printing fake money.

Morals are subjective, not personal, it does not rely on human's desires or what they want. Good is good for the good and the evil person, and evil is evil for the good and evil person. It is against their desires, consciously or subliminally.
There is no nation that claims lies are better than truth, or injustice is better than justice, or betrayal is better than trust. It is hard to define good and evil, but it is embraced by all humans.
It is ridiculous that you attribute all wars to be morally good. Wars are often started because of greed and generally bad intentions.
Morality exist, but that doesn't mean exceptions doesn't exist. If someone was born deformed that doesn't mean the law is wrong, but it is an exception for that law. Killing murderers for example can be seen as an exception because it attempts to fulfill that law.

Lets assume, that you have the opportunity to steal something of great values with no material boundaries. Meaning that it would be impossible to get caught.
Would you steal it?
Talking from a material and logical and non-spiritual perspective. If you didn't steal it you are either insane or an idiot. There would be no single material argument that tells you to not steal.
All arguments against that are metaphysical ones that are based on faith, so a religious person have the ability to argue against that, but a Darwin loyalist who believes in natural struggle and survival of the fittest have nothing against that.

So you have three options:
1- Became a thief.
2- Be illogical and insane by denouncing the principles of materialism and atheism.
3- Be religious.

The issue can be explored in Greek mythology, what did Prometheus gain by trying to help humans?

If your wife or daughter asks you permission to preform adultery, would you refuse? If you did, then why?
Why do we love our neighbors? Nature tells us that it is about survival of the fittest and we are not equal.

You see, I pointed that humanism is simply a detour for naturalism. Meaning they will most likely lead to the same result because they are based on the same principle.

First of all, I avoid using words such as "Always or Never" as a principle unless it is something proven.
I never said morality is always non-profitable or always non-logical.

Constitution and civil laws are mandatory and manifest human morality. (I am talking about decent laws, not laws that gives you the right to clap for royalty)
But why do we need them? Why are humans the only creature that requires such thing? Why would the son of nature rebel on it? Why are humans the only ones who rebels?
It is a struggle, between soul and body, between material body and higher values, between good and evil, duty and interest.
The reason for all these laws is the attempt to balance between the body and the soul.

For example:
When someone accidentally kills someone, we don't judge by what happened physically, we judge by what that person's intention.

Atheism is the only doctrine that calls for negativity and carelessness regarding morality, a submission for desires. And who resists is against Darwin and natural laws.

Madelyn Murry said we should have sex like cows, she stole tens of millions, and she said she will never forgive her son because he became a christian.

You can't criticize such things as an atheist.

We are not animals because animals can't rebel on their animalistic fate. Why people show dissatisfaction even if they are wealthy? Why is there suicide and psychological illness? Why doesn't advancement mean more humanity?

You still seem unsatisfied by my answer of why God was interrupted as the cause of everything.
That logic is false.
When you ask someone: "Why are you climbing that mountain?" He can give two correct explanations:
1- "I want to see the view from top etc...". Which is a Teleological explanation.
2- "Since I consumed food, my body produced energy which my muscles used to start a chain of contractions after neuron signals were sent by the brain through the spinal cord after being stimulated etc..." which is the mechanical explanation.

When Socrates was trialed, he answered sarcastically: "I sit here because I am made from bone and muscles... bones can be described as hard which have... muscles are elastic and they cover the bone... when bones are lifted at their joints... etc...
The same joke is on atheists.

These two answers are quite different, but they are both correct and exist at the same time. Thinking that the existence of one nullifies the other is false.

It is a completely natural reaction, every cause have a causer.

Mao Tse Tung
Che Guevara
Vladimir Lenin
Karl Marx

All had disgusting racist quotes calling for mass F'n murder.
Result? 250 million killed in one century.

Just because people are religious, does not mean all their wars are based on religion. English and France did not fight because of religion.
True atheism spawned HEARTLESS people. I'd take religion any day.

It is funny how some atheists believe that only the priests of Technocracy have the ability to uncover all the secrets of the universe solely through calculation.

Lets face it, atheism is based on chaos and randomness. No two atheists can have the same belief, look the communists sects, they are completely different and see each other as parasites, and .
This was forced upon them when the big bang theory took over since it removed the theory of a suspended universe, they tried to defend it as long as possible. This embarrassed atheism and scientists admitted it.

Seculars are using the same argument of Jews. They brag that 40% of Nobel prize winners are Jews (Although Obama refuted Nobel prize).
But look at Ethiopian Jews, only one of them won a Nobel prize.
Science is completely neutral, it is does not really on your doctrine. Muslims were religious, but at some point they were advanced in science.

SMH, I don't know why you'd mention Hawkins. That guy is contradictory beyond belief.
"Philosophy is dead" at the beginning of the book. Yet all his book is based on philosophy... He is trying to soft resurrect the theory of suspended universe.

'Laws themselves do not create anything, they are merely a description of what happens under certain conditions.' -John Lennox

Albert Einestine, Issac Newton, Allan Sandage believed in God.

Here are some philosophic puzzles that I doubt could be solved based on atheist principles.

1- Like Descartes said, how can we prove everything around us is materialistic? Couldn't life be a dream? If you dreams of being a butterfly and woke up, how do you know you are not actually a butterfly having a long dream?
Could we prove that objects still exist if we don't sense them?

2- Can you prove in a logical argument that the sun is going to raise tomorrow?

3- If someone killed your son for example, you would shout, be angry and intense. But that adds nothing to reality, thus it is meaningless. Therefore, saying that the world or life have no meaning is also meaningless and adds nothing to reality. So is anything real?

4- I have a mind and free will because I am conscious, but isn't it possible for me to be the only conscious mind in the universe and people around me are intelligent creatures similar to puppets?

Since you used youtube:
Debate Round No. 3


"The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it." - Neil Degrasse Tyson. I need you to understand that beliefs hold no weight in this argument. I believe that you are just a pink unicorn who learned to use a computer. Does this matter? No. I can believe as much as I want that this is true yet it changes nothing. So please don't bring up beliefs in your argument as they hold no weight.

I am going to address your riddles first because they are not very relevant to this debate.

1. Like Descartes said, how can we prove everything around us is materialistic? Couldn't life be a dream? If you dreams of being a butterfly and woke up, how do you know you are not actually a butterfly having a long dream?
Could we prove that objects still exist if we don't sense them?

My responce to this is very simple. You have the Burden of proof. For Example: If I were to say, watch out there is a blue dragon in the same room as you, he just can't be seen or detected in any way. You would probably just say no that's BS. This is my exact response to you, until you can come up with some testable proof that I am really just a butterfly I will go with the overwealming odds that I am indeed not a butterfly.

2.Can you prove in a logical argument that the sun is going to raise tomorrow?

Your trying the same thing once again. I can not predict the future thus can not prove the sun will ris eagain tommorow. But I can look at what I do know to make an accurate assumption. The sun has appeared every day I or anyone else has been on this earth(excluding those parts of the world who go half a year in the dark because of positioning). The sun has shown no signs of being near the end of it's life so it will most likely not explode and eradicate us all. The chance of a quontom wormhole appearing the size of our sun causing it to move to another part of the universe is extremely low, You have a much higher chance of becoming the pope/president then getting struck by lightning while giving your speech, surviving the lightning strike and decide to go for a swim, get attacked by a shark and lose your leg, get out and go to the hospital to recieve treatment and then be hit by a meteor. So with these odds I can safely ASSUME that the sun will rise tommorow. And to be exact the sun doesn't rise, we just spin.

3.If someone killed your son for example, you would shout, be angry and intense. But that adds nothing to reality, thus it is meaningless. Therefore, saying that the world or life have no meaning is also meaningless and adds nothing to reality. So is anything real?

Every action has a reaction.

4. I have a mind and free will because I am conscious, but isn't it possible for me to be the only conscious mind in the universe and people around me are intelligent creatures similar to puppets?

Burden of proof... you can believe that everyone is just an intelligent puppet, almost like a computer but it doesn't change anything in reality.

Now I will show a similiar meaningless responce.
Can god create a burrito so how that he himself cannot eat? please respond as I responded to your strange questions as well . . .

Faith doesn't mean anything. You cannot argue that it does. I will challenge faith with a test. I want you to strongly believe that gravity does not exist. Pray to god if you must. Once you are ready drop your mouse over the floor. Did it fall? If yes your faith failed the test.

I would appriciate it if you made your arguments more relevant and clear. Also please address my arguments at the end of my last round. THe fact of the matter is God is just something humans use to fill voids in our understanding. Zues is no longer taken seriously because we know the reasons behind Lightning. The same goes for your god who is everything. This is energy in differant states, god is not required to make sence of things anymore.

Knowledge is power and god is the refusal to learn. Regarding the Big Bang, if yop watched the video I sent you everything is a theory because things change. PLease show me evidence proving something other than the big bang.


I had already established that beliefs are indeed meaningless as it cannot change the world. This can manifest in the third philosophic puzzle and my criticism on the atheist scientific method. Repeating the argument without specifying a purpose is a shady method in an argument, it asks a lot of unnecessary questions that can be avoided in order to establish a more fluid and constructive argument.
Furthermore, you personal accusation that I have used personal beliefs in order to justify my point of view is a fallacy, you seem to not recognize the difference between belief and logic. I insist that I remained logical and did not allow belief bias get in the way.
Therefore, I give you permission to clarify you accusation outside the imposed boundary on words.

You seem to have poor philosophic abilities for a logic-based discussion. You claim that you have the burden of proof, but that can easily be an interruption of your mind. Furthermore, you failed to address my first argument, most likely due to misunderstanding, you could have imagined your friend say it. When you falsify a statement, you agree with the opposite. So if life can't be a conscious/lucid dream, does this mean we have no free will?
You have used "induction", which means to claim that past events proves the future, so you claim that the general rule of the sun is to rise everyday. But saying that the pasts can give us information about the future is not logical, nor can we come up with proof that it would be useful for the future. Induction cannot explain induction as that would create a closed circle. Eating the same dish does not prove it is going to taste the same or it is going to satisfy your hunger in the same degree.
Therefore, your life is based on illogical and irrational assumptions, blind faith, and generalization. It would be impossible for you to live your life without relaying and irrationality.

I have already addressed your last argument twice in two different formats. The refusal of acknowledgment is quite irritating. Therefore I shall point you to it is position so you can use the search function (Ctrl+F) if you truly find it so hard to identify arguments.

||Lets say people in the past attributed earthquakes to God, and now we know that it is due to the movement of tectonic plates. Does this exclude God from the equation?

||You still seem unsatisfied by my answer of why God was interrupted as the cause of everything.
That logic is false.
When you ask someone: "Why are you climbing that mountain?" He can give two correct explanations:
1- "I want to see the view from top etc...||

I have already argued that the big bang is against atheism.

"I think, however, that we must ... admit that the only acceptable explanation is creation. I know that this is anathema to physicists, as indeed it is to me, but we must not reject a theory that we do not like if the experimental evidence supports it." -H.S. Lipson

The dead-hand of a superseded theory continues to embarrass us, because in this case the recognised terminology still has implicit reference to it. This, however, is only a slight drawback to set off against the many advantages obtained from the classical generalisation of energy as a step towards the more complete theory -A S Eddington

"I did not defend the theory of the universe stable as to its authenticity. but I wanted to being correct, but after accumulating evidence has shown us that the game is over .. And that we must leave aside the theory of the universe stable." -Dennis Scaima

My argument still remain untouched.

As for your burrito argument, it is cute. I can certainly imagine a child asking this question.
Shame on who thinks that this is philosophy, you even used it as a stupid example. That absurdity is simply a "Stupid argument".
Although the word "Omnipotent" explains that nothing can be greater than God, lets solve this argument

I can see that the formula for this argument is:
  • 1-God is omnipotent, he can do anything.
  • 2-God can create an uneatable burrito.
  • 3-God can eat the said burrito.
  • 4-An object that is eatable and uneatable at the same time exists.
  • 5-God is a paradox.

Have you heard of food that is absolutely uneatable? That is a paradox by itself since it contradicts the definition of food. Therefore, the object of the paradox must have a finite characteristic. As for the heavy rock argument, that would require an infinite dimension which is paradoxical since it does not have a definitive mass, and it takes an infinite amount of space.
The omnipotent of God means perfection, therefore absolute rationality, therefore God would not create something unless there is infinite wisdom behind it.

Lets assume we live in an atheist Utopia where religion is non-existent.
(Remember, don't use "Religious crap" for these points)


1-How will you deal with a handicapped person in your society? Will you push him toward suicide in order for the said person to serve natural selection and not put burden on society or will you go against the theory?
“Multiply, vary, let the strongest live and the weakest die.” -Charles Darwin

2-How would you give hope, optimism, and motivation to a handicapped person? How would you give these to hard workers and troubled people?

3-Will you sterilize mentally retarded people so they would not have off-spring? If not, then why? And would this go against natural selection?

4-Will marriage or families exist in such society?
"The curse which lies upon marriage is that too often the individuals are joined in their weakness rather than in their strength, each asking from the other instead of finding pleasure in giving" -Simone de Beauvoir
Is it simply a grand deception against our nature?

5-Will sexual activities that are considered perverted be prevented? And in what justification would they be prevented and/or stopped?

6-"the fortunes of railroad companies are determined by the law of the survival of the fittest." -James J. Hill.
Do you agree with the context of this statement? If not, then why?

7-"With savages, the weak in body or mind are soon eliminated; and those that survive commonly exhibit a vigorous state of health. We civilised men, on the other hand, do our utmost to check the process of elimination; we build asylums for the imbecile, the maimed, and the sick; we institute poor-laws; and our medical men exert their utmost skill to save the life of every one to the last moment. There is reason to believe that vaccination has preserved thousands, who from a weak constitution would formerly have succumbed to small-pox. Thus the weak members of civilised societies propagate their kind. No one who has attended to the breeding of domestic animals will doubt that this must be highly injurious to the race of man. It is surprising how soon a want of care, or care wrongly directed, leads to the degeneration of a domestic race; but excepting in the case of man himself, hardly any one is so ignorant as to allow his worst animals to breed." -Charles Darwin
Do you agree with this statement? If not, then why? And do you think Social Darwinism would work?

8-“We have stopped natural selection from purifying the species because deep in our heart of hearts, we are all terrified that we won't make the cut.” -Moxie Mezcal
Do you agree with this statement?

9-“If they are sufficiently complete to live, they do live, and it is well they should live. If they are not sufficiently complete to live, they die, and it is best they should die." -Herbert Spencer
Do you agree with this statement? If not, then why?


We must ask ourselves. Are we ready to live in such society? A society where we are humans no more?
Atheism in it's purest form is against equality, freedom, human rights, morality, and humanity.

"A little philosophy inclineth mans mind to atheism; but depth in philosophy bringeth mens minds about to religion." -Francis Bacon
Debate Round No. 4


I am going to use this final round to wrap up my argument.

God cannot be tested, god cannot be known. To expect someone thinking logically to believe in so something like this is absurd. I do not have the right to say that god is 100% not real, this would be a claim that I do not have the knowledge to back up. I can however say that there is no need for god in the universe as we know it. Science works in amazing ways, we humans think of a topic that we would like to know more about and we figure it out. The most amazing part is the fact that we on this minuscule little spec in the middle of the universe can ask and answer such huge questions. I mean we figured out how everything started without any evidence for hundreds of years! Science is something that is humans use to question what we do not know. Science is what drives us to know more about the vast universe and everything it contains. Science is what makes our little minuscule species so incredible.

God on the other hand is giving up. When we don't know something about our past or our future we instantly go to god the omnipotent being for safety. Instead of figuring out, how did the universe begin? What is thunder? What happens when we die? Instead of figuring this out we turn to god for comfort and warmth. I am not saying this is a bad thing, if people enjoy religion then by all means be religious. But even so, god kills human curiosity. In your arguments you have tried t find loop holes in science to hint that god must exist but you have yet to show me any proof of this all mighty being. You may say, there is no way to prove the existence of something like god. To this I say, why would you believe in something without proof? Faith? Do you believe faith has an impact on reality? I can assure you it does not. People die every day with faith that their god will save them. Why did they die? Was their faith not strong enough? If this is true please enlighten me on how this works, prove it.

In your previous argument you speak of good and evil which do not exist. Good and evil are terms we use to describe something or someone who does of doesn't cooperate with societies views. When you step on a ant hill do you consider yourself evil? It wasn't on purpose so it is excusable right? And even so, they're just ants. That's how we think of things to make ourselves feel better but ants probably think of humans as horrible evil beings. What if an alien race came to earth and crushed us like we do ants, they would be evil right? Good and evil are meaningless terms when put into perspective.

Now lets look at what would happen if god was proven real. You cannot believe in god and science on equal terms, it makes no sence. You either believe in the laws of physics which cannot be broken in this universe or you believe in a being who can break them. If god was real we would have to discard everything we know Because it wouldn't apply to god. If god defied gravity that would disprove all science regarding the laws of gravity. So either you believe in the rules of the universe that have worked perfectly so far or you think they are all BS that god can break at any whim.

I would like to thank my opponent for accepting this debate and thinking of great arguments, but you have yet to show proof of gods existence, or even a reason as to why it is needed. I will not answer the utopia question as it does not relate heavily to our topic. That is a whole seperate debate on human behavior. You did not explain how the Big Bang is a faltered theory yet either.

I can only hope you enjoyed this debate as much as I did and to all the voters, vote pro!


During the past thirty years, people from all the civilized countries of the earth have consulted me. I have treated many hundreds of patients. … Among all my patients in the second half of life — to say, over thirtyR09;five — there has not been one whose problem in the last resort was not that of finding a religious outlook on life. It is safe to say that every one of them fell ill because he had lost that which the living religions of every age have given to their followers, and none of them has been really healed who did not regain his religious outlook.
Dr. Carl Jung. Modern Man in Search of a Soul. Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, Book, 1933. Page 229.

If the definition of religion as a total concern about Man’s World is correct, it follows that in any human society — even the least closely integrated one — religion will enter into all human affairs. Religion is a faculty of human nature, and human nature has its roots in nature. Religion is concerned with the world order, and it is involved in the social order, even when it has acquired a maximum degree of autonomy. It is practically impossible to draw a hard and fast line between religion and philosophy. Historically, philosophical speculation has evolved out of religious speculation, and the common ground between them is extensive. Philosophy may seek to confine itself to intellectual speculation, to steer clear of moral judgements and emotions, and to avoid social entanglements; but its success in insulating itself within these self-assigned limits can never be more than partial, since it is impossible to be a philosopher without also being a human personality whose nature it is to have feelings, to pass moral judgments, and live in society as the social animal that every human being is. Actually some philosophies have not only originated in religion but have eventually turned into religions again...
Arnold Toynbee

If we traverse the world, it is possible to find cities without walls, without letters, without kings, without wealth, without coin, without schools and theatres; but a city without a temple, or that practiseth not worship, prayer, and the like, no one ever saw.

My opponent have failed to answer my questions, even worse, he did ignore and avoid them, and even used straw-men mercenaries.

You still did not explain how metaphysics can be tested and explained without God. Why are we asking these questions? Why don't animals ask such questions? Why are we special compared to other creatures? Why do "human rights" exist?

I have already shown you that a scientific and teleological explanations exists at the same time, I find it funny how atheists only question non-material things when having a discussion or debating, but they believe in them unconsciously in their daily lives. Your faith argument is a sub-sect of an argument from evil. Btw, nice job equalizing stepping on ants by mistake with mass genocide. Again, there is no nation that claims lies are better than truth, or injustice is better than justice, or betrayal is better than trust. Thus, our view of what is good or evil is almost the same. You attempted to equalize them, but that does not work, even worse, you used your attempt to equalize them as proof they do not exist.

God is perfection, thus we are talking about absolute good or absolute evil. We can't just call anything absolute evil, because that means nullifying all good intentions, effects, results which is non-existent, evil isn't simply the opposite of good, it means the lack of good, just like light & dark and hot & cold, knowledge & ignorance etc...
There is no such thing as absolute evil in nature, because nature is based on balance, at some point, scientists thought that all bacteria is harmful, but even disease bacteria can be beneficial. But atheism is about denying blessings. We have more than enough resources, but there is always greed.

An other example would be when Mao Tse Tung decided to start a genocide (how typical!) on sparrows during the four pest campaign, it turned out sparrows also ate insects who significantly worsened harvests which contributed to the great famine that caused at least 20 millions to die from starvation. So why are we not living in a world of lollipops?

The problem of evil is not that complicated, we just have to look with the right angle: Without hardship, we would not seek God.

The world is beautifully strange. What makes you physically stronger weakens your heart, and what makes your physically weaker strengthen your heart. So a person who went through hardship have much greater will power than a spoiled person. So, There is no true evil in the world itself, as it manages to bring balance somehow.

But why did God not give us constancy without hardship? Well, imagine that you feel no hunger, no cold, no fire, no fear etc... What does life mean? How do you know you are alive? These brings us motivation, brings us purpose. Without the pain of ignorance, we wouldn't have sought knowledge.
This also proves that life is a test to discover God. Hardship forces us to seek God. We forget him when we are in blessing, but we seek him in hardship, and seeking the infinite proves that God is there.

As for miracles. Your idea of the universe is limited, human mind would like to avoid knocking down houses of cards. If you do look through, everything in the universe is a miracle. Planets are a miracle, their movement is a miracle, law of gravity is a miracle, plants are a miracle, human mind is a miracle, nature is a miracle, humans themselves are a miracle. But due to repetitively witnessing them, you grew the prejudicial concept that miracles are only the things that surprises you and challenging what you are used to seeing. What value does a rational mind have to take things he used to as a standard to his belief in things and disbelief in them?

Laws themselves do not create anything, they are merely a description of what happens under certain conditions.
-John Lennox

There are two ways to live: you can live as if nothing is a miracle; you can live as if everything is a miracle.
-Albert Einstein

The invariable mark of wisdom is to see the miraculous in the common.
-Ralph Waldo Emerson

I also find it funny when you say that believing in God is giving up. What is your latest explaination of the universe? It created itself from NOTHING. Really? If there is nothing, there is nothing laws included. Of course there are some attempts to smuggle the law of gravity into "nothing" which is cheating, where did the law of gravity come from? From nothing. Scientific laws don't do anything as previously stated, they only describe. Scientific laws need something to work on, they have to describe something. If there is nothing, then there is no gravity, and no law of gravity.

Listen, i can think of three possiblities for the universe:
1-It created itself from nothing.
2-God created it.
3-We created it. (We are in a dream world for example)

I don't understand why would you think that the atheist Utopia questions are not related to our topic since our first arguments were heavily about that subject. I am simply comparing religious-concept morality with a scientific-based morality. Science can't explain morality, and in theory it can't exist in non-religious people. But it exists in everyone, this means we have responsability.

You have also failed to clarify your accusations or correct your views, which either comes from not reading the argument or not caring. I said that the big bang wasn't good for atheism, I never even posted a hint that it does not exist. Which makes me doubt your validity.

It is not me to order you to vote Con, it is only for me to give you a choice, a choice based on logic and reason.
(Subliminal messages ftw)
Debate Round No. 5
13 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by crfidler 3 years ago
You are talking about the heisenburg uncertainty principle. I suggest you look that up because the natural laws still staight that energy cannot be created or destroyed by the conservation of energy (in an isolated system). Yes anti matter and matter have been seen to pop from nowhere but this does not prove anything. We still don't understand why. And the matter does not just disapear but it turns into a "release off energy" in which we don't know... but its a release. I'm not saying there is a God but that has nothing to do with God vs. Science.
Posted by makhdoom5 3 years ago
oh man so great debate.
but issue is i cant read that big debate indeed in one phase.
so i cant vote.
wish u best those are great u can vote.
Posted by GiantSpoonMan 3 years ago
Actually in quantum physics something can come from nothing. Quantum particles pop in and out of existence for no reason at all. God is just a big misunderstanding. We don't know how certain things happened so we jump to ridiculous conclusions.
Posted by crfidler 3 years ago
I fully agree with both of you actually (in a way). Science is essential in understanding our present world. When it comes down to faith or fact, fact should win. Would the pro science understand this for me. Human are a product of evolution. We came from a primordial nature; most specifically a primate. Long before that we were a single cell organism that formed from carbon and other such chemicals from the formation of our universe. This formation was created by elements from the big bang. The big bang was formed by a massive explosion. The Higgs Boson particle and all that. But everything must stem from something... but how is that possible when their has to be something that upholds that all. I am by no means saying this "entity" or whatever you want to call it is the God we think of today but some sort of "God" attribute must apply.
Posted by Ragnar 3 years ago
Since both sides did not agree to the change in argument title, I can only vote on "Science Vs. God."
Both sides got lost in talk of faith, never proving that those are in fact different things (lengthy explanation in the vote).
Posted by leo_von_gentleheart 3 years ago
They both make very convincing Opinions but there are some thing Religion has that Science do not have , Vice versa.
Posted by GiantSpoonMan 3 years ago
I wish these debates could be over five rounds... anyway it was fun good job.
Posted by F-16_Fighting_Falcon 3 years ago
"God" and science are not opposites.
Posted by Ragnar 3 years ago
Difficult one... I assume it's accepted this debate was atheism vs. religion? As opposed to the original question of science vs. god? Very different things to measure.
Posted by GiantSpoonMan 3 years ago
i will be posting my argument later today, sorry for the delay i have been busy.
6 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Vote Placed by Ian159 3 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Com was convincing
Vote Placed by Ragnar 3 years ago
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Reasons for voting decision: Here's the heart of the issue: They both forgot the question. Atheism for good or ill, is a system of faith/beliefs; as was demonstrated by con, one which has at times interfered with the advancement of scientific theory ("the big bang" for examle). However Atheism is NOT science. Religion is likewise a system of faith/beliefs, one which at times has aided advancement of scientific theory (as mentioned, Islamic nations used to be very advanced, in fact some were the medical experts of the world). There was a claim of religion causing most wars, countered by a figure on the death toll from atheist dictators in the last hundred years. Pro: "Please don't bring up beliefs in your argument as they hold no weight." funny if the argument was about religion; doubly funny if it was an argument about science as weight has no fixed value. Pro made tiny S&G errors "sence" "PLease... show me..." no question mark, yet all too minor to cost that point. Nice job both of you, it's a tie.
Vote Placed by handywandy 3 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: I was more convinced by Con
Vote Placed by Misterscruffles 3 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Reasons for voting decision: In this debate, both sides asserted their positions without demonstrating them.
Vote Placed by Subutai 3 years ago
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:70 
Reasons for voting decision: Scientific processes created man!
Vote Placed by bigbee99 3 years ago
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: God creates man!