The Instigator
yansmil
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
SuperiorArsenal
Con (against)
Winning
3 Points

Science cannot explain everything

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
SuperiorArsenal
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/17/2013 Category: Religion
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,064 times Debate No: 32580
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (0)
Votes (1)

 

yansmil

Pro

I have read your comments. As I have read your profile you are atheist. I think you believe only in science and not in the bible, right? I have to challenge you for a debate.
SuperiorArsenal

Con

I'll accept this challenge. I would like to make a few things clear:

1. While yes, I am an athiest, I have no issues with thiests or religion.

2. In regards to the Bible, I acknowledge its importance, but look at it in more allegorical terms where the depictions within are fictional accounts meant to represent varying moral guidelines (Many of which I actually agree with, some of which I do not).

I'm also a little unsure on what exactly you want for debate guidlines and format, so I'll wait before posting an arguement (Plus, having the first and last arguement posted isn't exactly fair to you)
Debate Round No. 1
yansmil

Pro

Thank you for some comments. My proposition is about "science cannot explain everything". Do you agree that science cannot explain everything? If your answer is YES, we have nothing to argue with...But with regards to the Bible, I would like to know what are written in the bible which you don't agree?
SuperiorArsenal

Con


First off, I would like to answer your question and say that I believe science can explain everything. However, there is a difference between can and will.



For example, imagine a car driving from Point A to Point B. The car has enough gas and is in good enough condition to make the journey. This means that the car can get from Point A to Point B. However, that doesn’t mean the car will make it from Point A to Point B. Perhaps another driver hits the car, demolishing it, and prevents it from carrying on. Thus is the difference between can and will.



Like the car, science is fully capable of explaining everything in principle, and is only inhibited by our lack of appropriate technology (Which is also advancing rather rapidly). The question is, will science ever explain everything? A wreck for the car could easily be something like an extinction-level event that stops science (Human science at least, there is always the potential for extra-terrestrials to continue science) from achieving its ultimate goal.



So, can science explain everything? Yes. Will science explain everything? Probably not.
Debate Round No. 2
yansmil

Pro

I got your explanation about CAN and WILL.

You said that science is capable of explaining everything. In the bible (Mat 24:6-7) states that "You will hear of wars and rumors of wars, but see to it that you are not alarmed. Such things must happen, but the end is still to come". Nation will rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom. There will be famines and earthquakes in various places.

Another prophesy from the bible that came true. Mat 24:24 For false messiahs and false prophets will appear and perform great signs and wonders to deceive, if possible, even the elect.

There are lot of prophesies in the bible that already happen in our times. If you believe only in science you will lost everything that you have when Christ will judge you. but you still have time to change your mind...

Those prophesies science cannot explain why there are many religions today and also anti-Christ like you!

Brother think it many times...

My question that you must to answer base from science so that I will know.

What is the reason why there are many Christian denominations in the world today compare to the 1st century until 10th century?

Why there are more records of earthquakes from 19th century up to this time compare to 1st century until 10th century?

Please answer me with data records if you have so that I will know.
SuperiorArsenal

Con


“In the bible (Mat 24:6-7) states that "You will hear of wars and rumors of wars, but see to it that you are not alarmed. Such things must happen, but the end is still to come". Nation will rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom. There will be famines and earthquakes in various places.”


==


What I take it you are trying to do is claim that Science cannot explain how these “prophecies” came true. In this case, it is hardly a prophecy. I could claim, right now, that within the next couple thousand years, people will go to war, famines will happen, and there will be earthquakes. If any of those happened within that time frame, should I be considered a testament against science? No. All of those are things that are, on the time-scale we are talking here, relatively frequent. In regards to wars, there are theories that they operate on cycles, making them somewhat predictable [http://en.wikipedia.org...]. The risk of a famine occurring can also be discovered [http://www.who.int...]. Even earthquakes have a level of scientific predictability [http://www.infoplease.com...].


==


“Another prophesy from the bible that came true. Mat 24:24 For false messiahs and false prophets will appear and perform great signs and wonders to deceive, if possible, even the elect.”


==


So he predicted people would say false things about religion? And this defies scientific explanation how, exactly?


==


“There are lot of prophesies in the bible that already happen in our times. If you believe only in science you will lost everything that you have when Christ will judge you. but you still have time to change your mind...”


==


While I don’t believe in religion personally, a critical mistake you are making is creating a void between science and religion. Science and religion don’t have to disagree. What does science being capable of explaining everything have to do with your religious beliefs? Because you can explain the existence of your God does not mean it cannot exist.


==


“Those prophesies science cannot explain why there are many religions today and also anti-Christ like you!”


==


Science can, actually, explain religion. Early humans had not developed scientific methods to help them understand the world. Instead, they made stories and explanations that fit their needs. As science developed, many people realized its importance and the absurdness of various religious aspects. Meanwhile, people don’t like new ideas (It is harder for new ideas to replace older ideas, no matter how out-dated they may be) and prefer to cling to the more religious beliefs. But, again, science and religion don’t have to exist as separate entities.


==


“What is the reason why there are many Christian denominations in the world today compare to the 1st century until 10th century?”


==


Population growth mostly. If a person’s parents where Christian, then their children are very likely to be Christian. As more and more Christians are born, there will always be deviation in belief, as people have different experiences that shape how they view things. These deviations, given enough time, grow into groups and denominations. Cultural influences are a big part, as well as the moral and ethical “climate” of the world given the time period. You could view it as Religious Evolution.


==


“Why there are more records of earthquakes from 19th century up to this time compare to 1st century until 10th century?”


==


Various reasons actually. Population was a lot lower and less spread back then, so earthquakes could have been happening in different parts of the world that went completely unnoticed. Furthermore, we are far more populous now, with sensory equipment designed with the sole intent of recording earthquakes, making it virtually impossible for one to go by unnoticed. Also, with the advent of seismology, computers, and science in general, we keep far more accurate records than those of the first 10 centuries.



I hope I answered your questions adequately.


Debate Round No. 3
yansmil

Pro

What I take it you are trying to do is claim that Science cannot explain how these “prophecies” came true. In this case, it is hardly a prophecy. I could claim, right now, that within the next couple thousand years, people will go to war, famines will happen, and there will be earthquakes. If any of those happened within that time frame, should I be considered a testament against science? No. All of those are things that are, on the time-scale we are talking here, relatively frequent. In regards to wars, there are theories that they operate on cycles, making them somewhat predictable [http://en.wikipedia.org......]. The risk of a famine occurring can also be discovered [http://www.who.int......]. Even earthquakes have a level of scientific predictability [http://www.infoplease.com......].

""""""""""""
The link that you have given me doesn't show the prediction of science about the prophesy that I have given to you from the bible. The data in the links are all that already happen not a prediction of science. I show you the prophesy of the bible so that you will believe that science cannot explain everything but I admit that science explain in detail to something. Of course, not at all!

"""""""

While I don’t believe in religion personally, a critical mistake you are making is creating a void between science and religion. Science and religion don’t have to disagree. What does science being capable of explaining everything have to do with your religious beliefs? Because you can explain the existence of your God does not mean it cannot exist.

""""""

No, I did not say that science is nothing. What I mean is that, SCIENCE CANNOT EXPLAIN EVERYTHING. Again I admit science is good and can explain something but not ALL. What I want you to know that don't believe only in science but also believe in GOD who created everything you see and unseen.

"""""""""

Science can, actually, explain religion. Early humans had not developed scientific methods to help them understand the world. Instead, they made stories and explanations that fit their needs. As science developed, many people realized its importance and the absurdness of various religious aspects. Meanwhile, people don’t like new ideas (It is harder for new ideas to replace older ideas, no matter how out-dated they may be) and prefer to cling to the more religious beliefs. But, again, science and religion don’t have to exist as separate entities.

"""""""""

Your statement that I make it bold the text is the theory right? So in the beginning there was already science...What is the relationship of their stories to religion? of course nothing! Don't say that science is explaining the religion.

""""""""

Population growth mostly. If a person’s parents where Christian, then their children are very likely to be Christian. As more and more Christians are born, there will always be deviation in belief, as people have different experiences that shape how they view things. These deviations, given enough time, grow into groups and denominations. Cultural influences are a big part, as well as the moral and ethical “climate” of the world given the time period. You could view it as Religious Evolution.

""""""""

You mean that in first 10 centuries there were no deviation in belief because the people were small in number? No, because even 5 persons have different views of a single thing. The first 10 centuries have many people. That's the truth in the prophesy of the bible
that came true. In the book of revelation state that Christ would be the King for thousand years. That is why there are no other religions so that the people will distinguish the first religion establish by Christ.

""""""""

Various reasons actually. Population was a lot lower and less spread back then, so earthquakes could have been happening in different parts of the world that went completely unnoticed. Furthermore, we are far more populous now, with sensory equipment designed with the sole intent of recording earthquakes, making it virtually impossible for one to go by unnoticed. Also, with the advent of seismology, computers, and science in general, we keep far more accurate records than those of the first 10 centuries.

""""""""

I know that science can detect something before our time. You cannot say that science cannot noticed earthquakes.

"""""""


Brother, please change your mind now! don't believe in science alone but believe in God also so that you will have a very strong reasons which cannot be destroyed here on earth and the life after.


God Bless!!!
SuperiorArsenal

Con


“The link that you have given me doesn't show the prediction of science about the prophesy that I have given to you from the bible. The data in the links are all that already happen not a prediction of science.”


==


The links show how science can predict the things listed in the prophecies. It demonstrates how science can explain the predictions given. Not that it really matters, because any Joe Schmoe can make an educated guess that, within the next couple of centuries, earthquakes will occur and people will experience wars and famine. It would be far more outstanding and unexplainable if he had predicted exact dates or locations for said wars, famines, and earthquakes. But he didn’t.


==


“What is the relationship of their stories to religion? of course nothing! Don't say that science is explaining the religion.”


==


The relationship of the stories to religion? For the most part, the stories are a major component of religion. Explanations for things the people of the era could not fully understand. Stories from a book that demonstrate moral guidelines. And why can’t science explain religion, whether you are religious or not?


==


“In the book of revelation state that Christ would be the King for thousand years. That is why there are no other religions so that the people will distinguish the first religion establish by Christ.”


==


No other religions in the first ten centuries, eh?


http://en.wikipedia.org... would like to disagree. Turns out, it was neither the first nor the only religion of the time period, far from it actually.


==


“I know that science can detect something before our time. You cannot say that science cannot noticed earthquakes.”


==


I’m not saying that it can’t, it is just that earthquakes that happened since we have attained the technology to properly record them were significantly easier to detect/keep track of. Ones that happened hundreds of years ago are not just as easily discovered, which is why we have fewer records of them.


==


Again, I hope the questions have been sufficiently answered.


Debate Round No. 4
yansmil

Pro

“In the book of revelation state that Christ would be the King for thousand years. That is why there are no other religions so that the people will distinguish the first religion establish by Christ.”


==

No other religions in the first ten centuries, eh?

http://en.wikipedia.org...... would like to disagree. Turns out, it was neither the first nor the only religion of the time period, far from it actually.

"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""

I mention above that there are no there religions. I know you don't get what I mean. I really mean that in the 1st century until 1400 A.D. there is no Christian religion except the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church which came from Catholic Church. Most of the Christian religions today are using the bible. Not just like the Islam, Buddhist, Judaism and others which their origin did not split to many denominations.

http://en.wikipedia.org....

Only Christian religion is the source of good morality and true Love to others. And this Christian religion is no other than the Catholic Church.

Catholic churh teaches not to speak blasphemy or bad words because it's a sin. The RCC teaches to Love even to the enemy.

Science did not teach those good moral especially to Love the enemy. Only in the Roman Catholic Church that even rich people rejected being rich but live as a poor to follow Jesus Christ.


http://en.wikipedia.org...

http://en.wikipedia.org...

And there are many rich people who give up all their weath and live as a poor to follow Jesus.


Science did not teach to live as a simple human but to a luxurious living.

SuperiorArsenal

Con

SuperiorArsenal forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
No comments have been posted on this debate.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Diirez 3 years ago
Diirez
yansmilSuperiorArsenalTied
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: Pro used the bible as a way of arguing and turned the debate in a prophecy debate. Both Con and Pro cited wikapedia, I wish I could take away points for that.