The Instigator
Pro (for)
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
4 Points

Science cannot disprove God, nor does it even come close to offering anything on the matter.

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 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/27/2015 Category: Religion
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,744 times Debate No: 70571
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (35)
Votes (1)




Science is allowed one miracle: the creation on the universe and everything in it, and the creation and function of all the laws that govern it. After that they got it pretty good.

Just remember to not get ahead of yourselves. People, particularly scientists, have a habit of 'uber-theorising', meaning that they try and explain the full picture with just the knowledge they have. Every single culture since the dawn of agriculture 'knew' the beginning and origins of the world, at least they thought so.

My arguments, and the topic of the debate in detail, is as follows:

Scientific research could never disprove god. So we will never know.

Scientific research, as well life itself, does not suggest that there is no a god.

First round arguments outlined, impossible to accept.


Thank you, pro. I am really excited to debate this subject in a limited round debate then over beers and nachos with several friends. I believe it will be far better in this format then in a pub with very loud music having to say pardon every other sentence. I hope I can bring to you and the audience a worthwhile debate. If nothing else thank you for allowing me this opportunity of my first ‘accepted’ debate.

As Tommy.leadbetter is pro, the Bop is on him to show the validity of his claim. I look forward to his supporting arguments.

I do have some question on definitions (not starting the debate early, just clarification). Can you define Miracle, “uber-theorising” and theory as you understand them? Also God is a very big component of this debate. Can you define what god you are using, a pantheon, deist, christian, jewish, pasta? I’m not looking for a specific semantically argument of the properties of god, just how to a point of reference as you see god for the purposes of the debate.

Though I’m sure you’re going to address it, Life itself? Do you mean bio genesis the beginning of life, or the experiences of life lead you to conclude god or something else entirely. I just want to fine tune the argument so were not debating something past each other and I find this subject fascinating.

Again, thank you for the opportunity and I look forward to your R2.

Debate Round No. 1


Thank you for accepting, I look forward to this debate also, and I hope we can be as precise as possible and understand each others points. It would be special to, if we could give each other serious food for thought on our own ideas.

Firstly I will attempt to clear up some of the definitions you pointed out.

Miracle: in this case I'm referring to an event. The 'big bang' and the point at which the laws of the universe began is the 'miracle' event I'm talking about. I say 'miracle' because in the atheist model of reality, this event is essentially a miracle, in that it was without explanation and causation. Don't worry too much about this one, for want of a better word I would change it.

'Uber-theorising': This word I adapted myself, but it essentially means: making a big theory that encompasses more than the evidence shows. So for instance, on a small scale: seeing a few rude polish people might lead to somebody assuming polish people are mostly rude. Or learning world history might give somebody the impression they understand how humans got where we are, when other factors such as our biological and psychological aspects might change that persons opinion entirely on why we are the way we are. Have I explained that well enough? Il try one more: All cultures, have an explanation for the entirety or reality. Whether they are a tribe in the amazon or the royal society, they all 'know' what reality is, based on their knowledge however limited that may be.

Theory: In this context, a belief or idea about something. Not the scientific definition that means it has to be currently accepted by our scientific society.

God: A will that to some degree comprehended the origins of us, or maybe even began reality itself. This is not a theological debate surrounding religious texts and dogma. Though I don't think if there was a creator, it would have absolutely nothing to do with 'religion'.

Your question about life-yes I'm referring to the entire cosmos.

I hope that helps. Please say otherwise.

My arguments, and supporting points.

Argument 1. Science cannot disprove god.

Science is the study of the make-up of the creation, and how the mechanics of it work. It will never be able to claim anything beyond the reality in which it exists. One might say there is nothing beyond the reality, but even that is a guess. Science is concerned with reality and has always been, its supposed to differ from religion in the fact that it was concerned with the natural world and not the purpose of reality. Science and religion are different but as institutions they step on each others toes; religion makes claims about reality, and science makes claims about god. Neither are correct to do so in my opinion, for how can how can one understand god enough to practically apply it? And how can a humble mammal who has traveled 1% into its home rock, not even explored the oceans depths, not traveled further than the moon, and is hundreds of light years away from anything, able to make claims on the nature of reality? In my opinion, the answer is that we cannot rationalise our origin, because even if we could explain how the matter of the universe came to be, we could never explain

Our logic falls short and is not useable at this level, just like our logic has to be totally re-learned when we study the world at an atomic level.

I would like to hear from you, if I may say, what kind of knowledge might disprove god. I know if you cannot provide anything it doesn't disprove your case, I'm just curious as to if you have any ideas.

2nd argument. Life itself doesn't necessarily suggest there is not a god. I would like to rephrase this but I'm sure my opponent won't object: The cosmos itself suggests that there might be a 'God' in the broad sense.

So this argument is a matter of opinion, and will have to be voted on by personal choice rather than an absolute definitive argument.

We have to approach the topic of the nature of reality with humility, and with as little pre-assumptions as possible. We have to look at what we know for sure, I think, as a starting point, for what else can we start with? So: we exist. So do other versions of us (other life). There is the possibility of more of us (life) elsewhere, but other than that, it seems, its just rocks and stars and other 'mundane' substances. So life seems to be the most diverse and unique thing in existence. What is life? Well all we know is that we have love, consciousness and an awakened, aware state that can consider the cosmos. We have morality and happiness, is it likely such a wonderful thing could be meaningless and a fluke? Indeed, the idea of a fluke is one created in reality, and is in fact not a true word-for there is no such thing as a 'fluke':even the roll of a dice could be predicted by science. A so called fluke, can only exists within a medium: that it either manipulates, or is manipulated by. There needs to be something that is actually the source of the fluke. The 'fluke' argument is, in my opinion, impossible, not just improbable.

So, if a fluke is impossible, then the question becomes even harder. What was there before the universe and how, or why, did it come into existence? All the laws that govern the universe right down the electrons, what are they for? Well all we know is that they have produced life and us, me and you, and our ability and desire to question that reality. This, for me, is like a massive 'clue' in solving the puzzle of what reality truly is. That 'clue', for me, is suggestible towards some 'divinity' that is utterly unknowable that perhaps is what all cultures reference as 'religion'. The 'presence' or whatever it is, has been felt by ever culture known to man.

In a nutshell: I could see the universe, without life, as perhaps being a sort of clever chance. But with life and us, it seems too miraculous to be chance. What are the chances, that the laws of the universe, and mass created in the universe, would be able to come together and create something with the ability to question the nature and discover the origins of the thing itself? I know that is whats actually happened, and therefore its near impossible to imagine the odds of it not hapening, but would they not be high? It's hard to think about isn't it.

That was hard. This is a very difficult argument to boil down to short points and overarching themes. I hope you can understand most of what I'v said, its very difficult to describe my thoughts on the matter, even if I was a better writer. Thank you for reading, I look forward to your arguments, (and response if you choose).



Your initial claim is interesting and I hope to keep that interest alive in my response. I also appreciate that you defined the terms, which will, I believe have a large impact on the debate in the following round. Some individual in the comments are notably worried that I will drop the ball considering that the Bop is automatically shifted, however after reading R1, it seems a little more obvious on how to respond to your particular claim and I hope not to disappoint the audience.

I see that we, as well of many of the viewers of this debate have dozen (or more) arguments under our belt so I’ll get down to why your claim is based on a faulty premise, logical fallacies, faulty terms and false assumptions. It was hard to get through everything so I’m unfortunately having to cherry pick some of the more egregious mistakes due to time and word constraints but it falls down to a few simple things.

Black Swan Fallacy of argument 1.

Science cannot disprove god.

I have never seen an answer to the question so one must not exist.

You have said that our limited understanding of science and its methodology does not allow it to disprove god. Just because it hasn’t yet, doesn’t mean that it will not in the future. 2000 years ago people believed Lightening, planetary formation and evolution were all gods’ realms and could not be understood. They are now all fields of study.

My response is - your presumption of we can never know is invalid.

Argument from Ignorance or God of the Gaps

Science cannot disprove god.

What about Transitional Fossils?

Though slightly different then Black swan, is God of the Gaps. Rather then I don’t of any answer other than god, you have placed god into the tiny spots between what we know. There is a gap in understanding, be it a transitional fossil, the development of morality, the big bang, the cause must be supernatural and in this case god. However as Scientific knowledge has expanded the realm of god has shrunk to ever smaller proportions.

My response is - At a certain point our knowledge may push god out of necessity.

Argument from Either Or

One of these theories is not like the other.

Even if science doesn’t disprove god, it can prove something else was responsible. I’m going to pay a little homage to Douglas Adams here and the Atheist Experience. Science may prove something else created existence like - possibly that self-replicating gay pixies named bob who live on the sun made the universe with the help of pan dimensional beings that exist in our universe as mice. If this is true, it negates God.

My response – If mice did it, you don’t need god.

Lastly on Claim 1

You state - Our logic falls short and is not useable at this level, just like our logic has to be totally re-learned when we study the world at an atomic level.

Your statement is based on a flawed assumptions and lack of understanding. Science is a methodology, it asks questions and seeks verification. Mythology is an answer begging a question (sorry for the logical fallacy pun). Our logic on this does not fall short, our knowledge does.

As a side note, not part of the debate to answer your question of what could disprove god? Beside that which I listed, “I don’t know for certain” is fairly obvious.

Your 2nd Claim - Life itself doesn't necessarily suggest there is not a god. I would like to rephrase this but I'm sure my opponent won't object: The cosmos itself suggests that there might be a 'God' in the broad sense.

I don’t mind the rephrasing and it’s a little clearer and concise then your original and will proceed from there. However you’re no longer arguing science cannot disprove god, you’re going to its reasonable to believe in god, or that the complexity is suggesting that one exists. Which puts the Burden on you, which makes my job really easy.

The first problem is that “suggests that there might” is not valid. Sand dunes “suggests that there might” be an intentional designer but it’s just the wind. You could suggest that god is behind the wind, but it’s an unnecessary step and you are now redefining the word wind.

Your claim - There is the possibility of more of us (life) elsewhere, but other than that, it seems, its just rocks and stars and other 'mundane' substances. So life seems to be the most diverse and unique thing in existence. a more recent estimate

You presume that the chances of life are rare, so god did it. However you haven’t proved it. I don’t know who built the pyramids, however until I have a justified reason to believe it, and evidence to support it, the default position isn’t aliens did it, its I don’t know.

Also if we find that life exists in the billions of other planets does that mean your entire argument for god goes away because life is not that rare? Or do you then say, God is so brilliant that he can do it anywhere?

Which I also reject why you claim the big bang was a miracle. You have no way to demonstrate a “rare natural cause event” vs a “rare supernatural caused event?” If you could, you would be doing something that every atheist would love to hear, a coherent argument for the proof of supernatural.

Your claim -This, for me, is like a massive 'clue' in solving the puzzle of what reality truly is. . . . . The 'presence' or whatever it is, has been felt by ever culture known to man.

The feeling of god is in your head, just like many people can feel there are aliens in the white house, weapons of mass destruction to justify a war or the closet monster. Children (I have one) fear the monster in the closet and under the bed. You’re not suggesting that just feeling something is validity for its existence, but that is really the position that you are holding.

You claim - In a nutshell: I could see the universe, without life, as perhaps being a sort of clever chance. But with life and us, it seems too miraculous to be chance.

What you’re presenting is known as the fine-tuned argument. Which is also invalid. Which requires far more time in a debate here, which is why the link is provided. But basically you’re saying the odds are astronomical that life in the universe is rare. How did you come to this conclusion? If you bought a ticket for the lotto and there was at least one guaranteed winner, and you could not ask how many other tickets were sold, or even if anyone else bought a ticket, how do you judge the odds?

I will fully admit that I did not touch upon two concepts in your R1. That god is unknowable or undefinable and that science only deals with the natural world. I will address them in the R2 (depending upon your response). However I believe I have sufficiently shown your original 1st claim is false or untenable, and your second claim is also (mostly) faulty and has serious holes in it to maintain its claim.

This was a lot of work, and I truly enjoyed the mental exercise. Hopefully everyone was entertained, saw something new (or phrased) and enjoy the read. I am looking forward to pro’s response.

Debate Round No. 2


Tommy.leadbetter forfeited this round.


I forward my response. . .
Debate Round No. 3


Tommy.leadbetter forfeited this round.


Dear Community. Pro has done more debating in the comments then in the actual debate. Not only this he has routinely started debates expressing his point of view and either not taken up the debate (not responding) or not even accepting a challenge to his debate. I hope you will not only review this debate an vote according but look to other debates where this happens. Also if anyone wishes to pick up the debate from where it ended I'm more then willing to. . .

thank you

Debate Round No. 4
35 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by NathanDuclos 3 years ago
A slight shifting of the BOP, but then you would have to define god. . .
because were no longer talking about what science can not do, but what can be understood. . . .
Posted by ZenoCitium 3 years ago
Might also be beneficial to remove the double negative. The resolution should be "Science can disprove the existence of God."
Posted by ZenoCitium 3 years ago
I'm ok with continuing with the current parameters. Four rounds: first round for acceptance, second round main arguments, third round rebuttal (no new arguments) and fourth round for final rebuttal and closing arguments (no new arguments). 1 week or more voting period. Maximum character limit. I'd prefer if we dropped the second part of the resolution as it is a bit indeterminate. It's your choice. Also, it's your choice if you'd prefer to instigate or not.
Posted by NathanDuclos 3 years ago
Sounds cool. . . . what are the paramaters. . .
Posted by ZenoCitium 3 years ago
NathanDuclos, I'm interested in continuing where Pro left off .... which is basically at the beginning.
Posted by NathanDuclos 3 years ago
Please vote. . . I would hate to tie on a person who left the debate. .
Posted by NathanDuclos 3 years ago
Doh! 1 hour left. . . . .
Posted by missmedic 3 years ago
Science has done far more to both explain the world around us and help us improve our condition than millennia of religion. Religion tries to make faith a positive attribute, religious faith can not be used consistently and is an unreliable path to knowledge and truth.
Claims about the truth of religion or the existence of some god cannot be defended to a skeptical nonbeliever or freethinker on the basis of faith. It means that faith is not an adequate or reasonable defense of any belief or belief system which purports to have any empirical connection to the reality which we all share. Faith is also an unreliable and irrational basis for singling out one religion and claiming that it is true while all other religions, as well as any competing secular philosophies, are false.
Posted by ZenoCitium 3 years ago
I'm curious to read NathanDuclos's arguments. In my opinion, this debate is a logical lock for PRO. I'll withhold my reasoning for the voting period. Good luck.
Posted by ZenoCitium 3 years ago
My response was in regard to Missmedic. No disresepct but medic's view on religion is both narrow and na"ve. In this Missmedic world, science is reason and religion is fantasy. They are essentially, synonyms, rational as compared to delusional. In truth, they are not actually directly related. This is why I have presented evidence that it is quite common for individuals to believe both in science and in religion.

Science: the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.

Religion: an organized collection of beliefs, cultural systems, and world views that relate humanity to an order of existence.

Science helps us understand the physical and natural world while religion helps us relate to an order of existence. In many cases, people find a deeper faith in God through their studies in science and their further understanding of the miracles of nature.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by ZenoCitium 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 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: Pro forfeited. Con made the more convincing arguments as Pro's arguments were based mainly on personal views and lacked support/references.