The Instigator
simpleman
Pro (for)
Losing
6 Points
The Contender
TheSkepticSaviour
Con (against)
Winning
9 Points

Science has not and cannot prove that God does not exist

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 6 votes the winner is...
TheSkepticSaviour
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/16/2013 Category: Religion
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,260 times Debate No: 37787
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (16)
Votes (6)

 

simpleman

Pro

I propose science lacks the ability to prove God does not exist. My argument will be on the basis of existintial and experiential grounds. Hypothetical implications from theoretical science do not qualify as proofs, only theories, hence the name of the field and the nature of it's postulations. I want my opponent to demonstrate, if possible, how those who follow science can say with absolute certainty how science has actually achieved this claim by way of concrete evidence.
Bear in mind that I do believe the actual findings of science, and do not dispute the actual evidence it has discovered to us. I do not support the implications and intimations people have added to the evidence for the purpose of supporting their opinion with disregard to the whole; however, for the sake of personal feelings and not the pursuit of the truth.
TheSkepticSaviour

Con

Science has shown that it is very good in filling/scientifically proving certain aspects that have been accountable to God.
I think it is ignorant to state that science cannot prove that God does not exist since a certain period ago, the very same could be stated for the roundness of earth.

From my skeptic point of view, nothing can ever be certain since everything is just a interpretation made by the brain.
BUT, I, even if fooled, have a sense of morality, reason and logic. Following that makes me believe that scientific research will further discredit religion, and at some point it could even discredit the existence of God.

Hypothetical implications are made to be researched, debated and proven. Science had a variety of hypothetical implications on any topic, but to my knowledge, one always came up to be true.

Don't mistake my opinion, I don't BELIEVE in science, I follow my reason and my logic which leads me to think that science is the most promising and most objective way of knowing the truth.
Debate Round No. 1
simpleman

Pro

I used to possess a skeptic point of view myself, so I understand fully the context of your perspective from which you place your argument. I happily offer my reply that there also exist evidences that science has discovered that carry the implied probability that God does exist.
The point of my assertion is that in order for it to positively confirm such an absolute negative, it would have to possess first hand knowledge of and obsevance within the ability for our senses to measure every thing in existence, which lies far beyond the scope of our ability. People claim facts prove something based on what is observed in the resulting evidence of either past things or presently occurring things which are in our ability to accurately observe them. Science cannot however discover by objective analysis why there is existence. They would have to possess the ability to observe the beginning of the universe to see what initiated the matter in the irreducible singularity they have postulated in the Big Bang Theory to exist in the first place to be impelled to expand beyond that state and why such initiation took place for us to have a reality to observe. I think that you would agree that such a proposition is reasonably and existentially impractical in realistic parameters.
It is ignorance to assume that based on what little fragment of all that can possibly be known of the universe that we possess through science can be an exhaustive reference for not only what, when, or how, but also why everything is the way it is. People do not claim science may disprove God. They affirm that it has as a fact. That is the arrogant assumption that I am refuting. No evidence exists that can back up this claim, and never will within the limitations of the human ability of investigation.
What is more is that science of itself makes no such claim in the basis of pure evidence devoid of intimation being added to it. It is the implication people add resulting from personal disputes with the existence of God that try to disprove Him.
If science held the record of everything there is to know, it would have no need to continue investigation for the purpose of gathering more information.
Science is invested in the neutral observance of that which naturally occurs, not the personal mission to disprove anything exceeds it, or the humans that observe it. And no confident argument can be given that science is inherently contrary or opposed to God in and of itself.
TheSkepticSaviour

Con

Well, in your reply you make two statements.
The first is that science is limited. You can not make that presumption since we do not know what the majority of the universe really is. The logical step is to make the assumption that science can prove or disprove the existence of God, since we do not know its limit.

The second is that people make implications based on their personal mental state. I actually agree, but the right move to make here is publicly debate those implications, having in mind where they came from.

I myself think that widely known atheist that use science as their 'weapon' are mostly just anti-theist. In most cases they just want to get rid of religion, not God. Having that in mind, try to reason with all the circumstances that surround the implications/statements they make and then make your own opinion of it.

Now, I agree science is neutral, but when it disproves Thesis A it becomes anti-A.
From my point of view science will not disprove or prove the existence of God in the near future, we still have a long way to go. But it IS NOT impossible.
Debate Round No. 2
simpleman

Pro

The statement you made in the third sentence, that we do not have knowledge of the whole entire universe is exactly why I said that science is too limited for atheists to assert that scientific evidence demands presently the validity of their claim.
Science also cannot posit that nothing exists outside the realm of physical observation either. In order for us in the first place to have complete knowledge tangibly of the whole of the physical universe, even provided one were able to travel at the speed of light, it would require multiple billions of years for arrival at even nearer points than it's far edge, much less the time to fully analyze such galazies elsewhere upon our arrival, considering that we have not even fully arrived at a full tangible knowledge of our own galaxy the Milky Way, which alone boasts a diameter of 220 billion light years. So, does it seem likely that humanity can possess such complete knowledge of even just the physical constituency of the universe? All they can do is reference available data for analysis, which is likely to continue to remain incomplete indefinitely as regards concrete evidence beyond the assumptions of theoretical speculation.
Plus, scientific analysis cannot invalidate the testimonies of a multitude historically and presently that they have experienced God and carry on a relationship with Him. Firsthand experience cannot be invalidated, even by the probabilities arrived at through speculative analysis. The people who make such claim, myself included, bear testimony that they had no such experience until having approached God on the biblical terms given as imperative in the Bible itself. The only way to truly invalidate it would be to submit to the terms demanded by God in scripture, which requires one submit to the perspective of the Bible instead of attempting to subjugate the Bible to one's own personal perspective. In the scriptures, God has made it clear He will not submit to the terms of His creation for validation, but will provide it only on the basis of submission to His terms.
Thus science on that ground cannot refute His existence even through physical analysis either.
TheSkepticSaviour

Con

You mustn't be so close minded about God, imagine you were a 2D object in a 2D world and I was who I am now, a 3D object in a 3D world. Now, you would hear my voice but you would not see me, hence, you would probably label me divine. For you to find proof of my existence would not require you to have perfect knowledge about your 2D world since even if you had one, no proof would be presented.
Just imagine yourself 500 years ago. Would you even understand the concept of quantum computers? It would clearly seem like sorcery. And I can think of many more convincing examples to back up my statement.
When I said we do not know whether science has a limit or doesn't I was stating that it can take us beyond our space-time continuum which certainly doesn't require traveling across the universe. Science is well aware of that, so today, there is more and more abstract thinking which could lead us to 'upper heights', a higher dimension, an evolution of consciousness or whatever lies beyond, even if its endless nothingness.
Life on Earth is on a voyage through eternity, trying to find answers for the questions we pose.
The answers could be just anything, they are most likely not even comprehensible by our brains.
BUT, you must admit that science is the leading force filled with curiosity, of which almost every branch tries to comprehend our universe and what is beyond it.

Now, I, as a human being am well aware of how faulty my perception of my conscious self could be.
I am not trying to completely discredit people that experienced God.
However, there are many diluted experiences that do not involve God and are clearly explained by psychoanalysis, neurology or some other field of study.

The bottom line is, for us knowing the truth about God, it would require either a clear, public intervention by God into our physical world, or science making the biggest, most important breakthrough in human history.
When we look at the facts, the number of known interventions and the number of scientific breakthroughs, only ignorance stops us from trusting science.
Debate Round No. 3
simpleman

Pro

I respect so much your honesty, and am delighted that you understand the concept of what I have asserted. My point is that atheists use science and distort it's findings, which are minimal in consideration of the sheer enormity of the universe, to say God does not exist. They do not oppose religion in general. They oppose anyone who believes God exists, mainly Christians. The term atheism comes from Greek. It was two words: a; alpha, meaning negative, and theos meaning god. The literal translation is negative god, but it implies there is no God.
Jesus Christ was God's intervention upon our history. No other single life has made such impact, or even a kingdom for that matter. Consider that His life is the dividing line of history, hence the origin of B.C. for before Christ, and A.D. for Anno Domini meaning in Latin the year of our Lord. History has provided this witness for humanity, and many biblical documents have been found that predate Jesus'slife that show the accuracy of the text of the Old Testament that we still have in the Bible.
So there is left then that atheists stubbornly refuse to admit the evidence that stands clearly before them.
Archaeology is, after all, a valid field of science that needs little speculation for it's findings, not that they have never occurred, but in the case of Christianity are relatively few such occasions.
Given your ability to grasp the concept, it makes me wonder what still renders you skeptical to the extent of agnosticism. What is hindering you from taking the Bible at it's word and making attempt to see if indeed our claims be true?
TheSkepticSaviour

Con

It is the common scientific belief that 95% of the universe is consisted of Dark matter(~23%) & Dark energy(~72%), so the next step would be to assume that the whole diversity of the universe is in the other 5%, of which we know most.

You mention Jesus Christ as God's intervention and there are two reasons why I'm skeptical of it.
The first is that I think the people of his time were extremely gullible, believing in the supernatural and having next to no research of the world around them.
Even if Jesus was real, imagine him in our modern society where all his actions would be questioned and studied.

The second reason is that I think the Bible is almost entirely metaphorical. Most of my life I was a Christian, a Roman Catholic.
So in school I have had religious education, where it was clearly pointed out that the Bible is metaphorical.

In my brief 19 years on this planet, I have studied religion, I have lived by it, I have seen dying people mumbling for God on their deathbed and I did not see/experience anything divine. I think most people cannot grasp the concept of death, so religion offers a clear, kind of obviously imagined(I'm not saying that it truly is), explanation of the afterlife.

To answer your question more directly, I have taken the Bible in attempt to see if indeed its claims were true, and the only thing I found were superstition and weird, unreasonable claims. The Bible, and Christianity require a leap of faith so big I am just not willing to take it before I experience it with my own sensations.
Debate Round No. 4
simpleman

Pro

I did the same and persecuted Christianity previous to belief in it. You read the Bible, but did you take into account everything besides the words on the page? Did you ask who was speaking, who is the audience, and what events occurred for the conntext?
Faith is belief in the reliability of a God who makes Himself intangible. It would require no effort to believe only in that which you see, feel, hear, taste, or smell. God wants people to love Him because they want to period. He has no use for those who would believe Him for any other reason.
They have an old adage; " To him who believes, no proof is necessary. To him who disbelieves, no proof is sufficient." Human nature possesses the attribute of stubbornness even in the face of logical reasons to incline their belief. How many times have you seen someone lose a spouse in an accident, and refuse to believe they are dead? You have seen people mumbling on a deathbed to God and did not percieve anything divine. That is presumption. God states He will only reeveal Himsrlf to those who come to him in humilty, not the arrogant position of trying to disprove Him. I could say i don't believe in you because maybe we are not really having this conversation. Maybe a machine is generating these words. I have seen machines generate responses before, but I have never seen you. Therefore there is more to belief than sight. I choose to believe you are a real person. But even if I chose to disbelieve that, it would not diminish that you exist as a real person. And would you want to meet me simply for the sake of answering me on a question that assumes you don't exist? The same is true with God.
Even if evidence existed that shows both He and the person of Jesus Christ exist, it does not imply that people would believe Him to be God. That has been the point of why I opened with the title of my debate. It illustrates that belief is brought forth deliberately by an act of the will, not merely by the presence of visible evidence. Even with visible evidence, you can have two different beliefs on the identity, and qualities of what is observed. The existence of God and Jesus will ever remain open to the critical nature of man's speculation.
Therefore, to me, the testimony of Jesus makes perfect sense. He claimed to be sent of God, and He was doubted. He gave them signs and wonders that they might believe His testimony, and they accused Him of witchcraft. He gave them the scriptures they followed and asked them to judge Him by them, and they began accusing Him of disrespecting the high priest Caiaphas. He told thim He was the Messiah they had long waited for after having given them physical evidence to show His fulfillment of the prophecies they believed concerning the Messiah, and they put Him to death. All of these things with the inclusion of the Archaeological evidence we have that the majority of the events in the Bible occurred is more than enough proof for me to believe. But I approached God, because i wanted God, His love, and His promise of redemption to be true, not because the evidence impelled me to investigate His validity. I should think this applies to any belief that is held.
Science being neutral, and also a product of man, therefore lacks the requisite tools necessary for such a perception to be made. We can only find it true or false on an individual basis given our perception of what is beheld by us and the choice we determine in response.
TheSkepticSaviour

Con

You said people sometimes refuse to believe their spouses are dead. Couldn't that be the other way? Couldn't people believe God exists because of some event that happened in their life? I think the answer is obvious.
I didn't try to disprove the existence of God, God was in my life since birth, and I believed in him. However, he slowly faded away as I acquired the thirst for knowledge, and it led me to unbelievable creative intellectual thoughts that shed light on the God concept.
You surely must believe that I am a real person and that I exist. But even if you spoke with a machine, you would be interested in what is stated in this debate, so the existence/diversity of the entity typing this is not really important since only the content is.
Science may be neutral, but God, seen by an observer is also neutral.
Science may be a product of man, but so is religion and God, it's just that science observes and concludes upon the natural. And if God exists he surely must be natural.
Science has many unanswered questions, but as it gathers more and more information, many fundamental questions, as if there is a God, I believe will be answered.
Debate Round No. 5
16 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by TheSkepticSaviour 3 years ago
TheSkepticSaviour
On what basis do you conclude that the universe is a contingent if not limited knowledge.
And you missunderstood me, observing physical reality can lead to manipulation of itself, or finding a fundamental flaw and using that to "escape" it. You must try to understand that we don't need to go to the physical limits of the universe to get out of it. Science is the most probable concept to find certain limited knowledge that can lead to certain knowledge. But every limited knowledge is to be examined, and only reaching its peak can show if it can lead us to real, certain knowledge.
Posted by simpleman 3 years ago
simpleman
Ah, but trying to view physical reality for the purpose of trying to find physical evidence for a nonphysical or extranatural state or consciousness is untenable logically. We can find evidence of it's intrusion upon physical reality on the basis of our universe being a contingent entity, but this is the limit of such a path I am afraid. Faith is that necessary leap that places you upon that path leading to the destination you are desiring.
Posted by TheSkepticSaviour 3 years ago
TheSkepticSaviour
One cannot achieve objectivism without doubt.
Making that choice means accepting all flaws and dealing with them.
On your second comment, it is only a realm of infinite uncertainty if you don't have a view[1] which goes beyond the realm itself, that is what I hope science will do. That is what I hope science CAN do.

There is, however, a chance that doubt remains even when that view is obtained, but it probably will not, since perception is at that point non-existent.

[1] Don't mistake it for a classic, human-like, 3D, perceptional view. I am talking about a much higher state of conciousness which goes beyond space, and time.
Posted by simpleman 3 years ago
simpleman
I do not say that in disrespect. But, how can you say knowledge is uncertain, and at the same time make a valid case for the coherence of your argument. How could it be true or false in a realm of infinite uncertainty? It must be one or the other.
Posted by simpleman 3 years ago
simpleman
One cannot be a pure skeptic either. In rebelling against everything, you give up the right to rebel against anything. You cannot base everything off of seemingness, unless you wish to doubt existence itself.
Posted by TheSkepticSaviour 3 years ago
TheSkepticSaviour
Your statement goes against your own words in the debate, you cannot say something is apparent since you do not have the sufficient knowledge, which I think noone has.
I just want to explain my POV, I don't think that the universe is fine-tuned. I think the part thas actually seems to be tuned, is just something that is as it is due to certain circumstances at its creation.
I think everything, literally everything in our universe is as it is because of those circumstances.
That includes our conciousness, thinking and existence.
And I do not see philosophy as necessary in our contemplation of the world.
Hence, my belief in all manmade thoughts, researches and beliefs comes to a dilemma.
However, it seems to me that mathematics is least affected by those circumstances in the creation, so it can potentially answer the most fundamental questions.
To answer Kepler, the universe does not need rationality imposed on it, since there most probably cannot be an irrational one.
Posted by simpleman 3 years ago
simpleman
Johannes Kepler stated, "The chief aim of all investigations of the external world should be to find the rational order imposed on it by God, and revealed to us in the language of mathematics." This is inscribed over the door to the Princeton Observatory.
I do not accuse you of drawing conclusions in the absence of constructive knowledge. But, if you look upon the construct of the universe, it is apparent that it is a contingent entity, and not an ontologically independent one. That is the logical flaw I feel atheists tend to commit when they arrogate to themselves the position of science proving their position, and supporting their presupposition that God does not exist.
Posted by TheSkepticSaviour 3 years ago
TheSkepticSaviour
I don't draw on examples in the absence of knowledge, I just think science can also be a manipulative, deceiving force and it would require me to thoroughly investigate scientific examples for which I don't have enough time. I associate science with curiosity, curiosity about the world and its origin. You CAN research the brains of living people, but you cannot research the psyche of the people that established religion and belief in God or the ones that disproved it.
In the fields that I have knowledge of, there was inconsistency and flaws, so the part of science which I believe most is mathematics, and it has almost to no relation with philosophy.
Posted by simpleman 3 years ago
simpleman
Your claim against the church being founded on falsehoods to decieve the masses is a false speculation. You apparently took Bart Ehrman's opinion too far. And if you can explain eveything in scientific terms, please explain how everything was first impelled to exist prior to the blind mechanical forces that manipulated it's proliferation of matter and the ourward expansion of the universe. Oh, and facts only please. No speculations that end up saying the agency which impelled the matter in the irreducible singularity to exist was itself, if you would be so kind, sir/madam.
Posted by Biochemistry92 3 years ago
Biochemistry92
You both should be ashamed, as an academic this conversation is so far from standard qualities that it reminds me of grade school children with dictionary's and a thesaurus while trying to pick apart the others argument, All the while not moving in a coherent direction. While the pro side is most surely holding the argument, one fails to realize just where the actual academic argument lies. Your background in science is apparently filled with falsehood and terrible assumptions. To claim that science is forever removed from the possibility of disproving god is an invalid statement by design as you have yet to do one thing you or any other theologian/Philosopher/Scientist.... etc has ever done, proven that god has existed. First person experience's are subject to the same scrutiny that any other experience hold, in stating so the vast majority of god experiences fall apart in mere moments under close inspection. The implications of this assertion are very blatant and as such it is safe to dismiss all first person experiences that solely lie on an individuals POV. As for the one standing for science, your argument is reminiscent of a accused man standing trial. Your defense is nonexistent, you have failed to draw on examples in the absence of your personal knowledge and as a defender of Science you have failed to even draw one sentence to combat such a flawed argument from your opponent. If a hundred and fifty years ago a philosopher like Nietzsche had the gall to say "God is Dead" then dont you think there was a backing on this assumption beyond one mans opinion. It is now considered scientific fact that god rests on a multitude of falsehoods (such as brainwaves that react with certain neuro-anatomical to convince people that ordinary events lead to godlike experiences, it is also common knowledge that churches have for thousands of years fabricated events to convince the masses of God's omnipotent ability) this failure of a argument is nowhere near it should be.
6 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Vote Placed by Ozymandias_King_of_Kings 3 years ago
Ozymandias_King_of_Kings
simplemanTheSkepticSaviourTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Good debate from both, had to go with con though.
Vote Placed by Greematthew 3 years ago
Greematthew
simplemanTheSkepticSaviourTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:31 
Reasons for voting decision: Good arguments from both, I must side with pro however. Good debate, and it sounded productive.
Vote Placed by wiploc 3 years ago
wiploc
simplemanTheSkepticSaviourTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: Many of Pro's sentences were hard to figure out.
Vote Placed by rottingroom 3 years ago
rottingroom
simplemanTheSkepticSaviourTied
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 Checkmark-1 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 kept capitalizing words like he and him so I gave grammar to con. I think both presented convincing arguments but in the end I was more convinced by con that eventually there will be a possibility to disprove the existence of god.
Vote Placed by johnnyvbassist 3 years ago
johnnyvbassist
simplemanTheSkepticSaviourTied
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:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Con basically agreed with Pro's thesis in round 2. So...it must have been a good argument.
Vote Placed by johnlubba 3 years ago
johnlubba
simplemanTheSkepticSaviourTied
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: Good debate and I am half way through and siding more with Pro, I hope to vote on Sunday when I get time to fully read through this debate, But at the moment Pro is leading by making statements about our limits to actually be able to know everything in our universe, in other words our senses are limted to what we can gather and also we are limited to what we can know about the universe. Good debate so far. Con has to come up with something special to sway my vote.