The Instigator
Jwarr12
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
jh1234l
Con (against)
Winning
1 Points

Science is based on rational thought, while belief in God is based on irrational thought.

Do you like this debate?NoYes-2
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...
jh1234l
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/17/2013 Category: Religion
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,152 times Debate No: 30267
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (2)
Votes (1)

 

Jwarr12

Pro

Science is the formulation of theories and facts based on observable and reproducible evidence. Everything we know as individuals is learned through the scientific method whether we realize that or not. The power of science lies in its ability to recognize that not every question can be answered and that we can only postulate an answer if we have evidence to suggest one.

Religious people often argue that the scientific method relies on basic assumptions such as that the laws of physics apply to everything at every place and point in time and that God (or other deity) somehow transcends these laws and lies outside of time and physical space. I would refute that argument by saying that under the principles of science, I have to admit that this case is possible (as is any), but the chances of man making as complex a hypothesis as the existence of God on faith (which essentially means a guess) and actually being right are so low given the empirical evidence that it is just plain irrational to actually believe in God, or any other form of higher intelligence.

I would now invite someone to enlighten me as to why they think belief in God is in any way rational. Please keep in mind that I am distinguishing the person from the specific belief as I know many rational people who believe in God. Also keep in mind that I am choosing belief in God rather than religion itself as I believe many hypotheses that are religious in nature may very well be true. I would prefer the challenger to be someone educated, ideally in some form of theological studies.
jh1234l

Con

Please note that I will be Devil's Advocating this debate.

Pro claims that the chances of man making as complex a hypothesis as the existence of God on faith (which essentially means a guess) and being right is so low given the empirical evidence that it is just plain irrational to actually believe in God, or any other form of higher intelligence.

However, he has not shown any of the "empirical evidence", even though he has 8,000 characters.

Arguments for that belief in a god is rational:

Rational is defined as: agreeable to reason; reasonable; sensible.[1]

If there is proof that God exists then believing that he exists is rational, because if there is sufficient evidence for something it would be reasonable to believe it is true; so I'll provide you with some arguments on the existence of a God.

1. The shape of our galaxy

Objects with high mass tend to turn into a sphere due to their high gravity. [2] Milky Way's mass is 5.8×1011 M(.)[3], so it must have enough mass to turn into a sphere. However, its shape is a barred spiral galaxy [3] and is not round, so there must be some force making it perfectly that shape. What is capable of changing the shape of something with a mss that high? An omnipotent being like a God.

2. The big bang can't happen

If a God created our universe, then he must exist or else he couldn't have created it. But what about the big bang? If God didn't create the universe then it must be the big bang, which is a well-proven theory.

The problem is, how did all the matter come from nowhere if God didn't create it? Many atheists like me (I am devil's advocating, as stated before) say that it is caused by quantum fluctuations, which can cause particles to come out of nowhere.

We now know that vaccums are actually hives of activity with particle-antiparticle pairs being repeatedly produced out of the vacuum and almost immediately annihilating themselves into nothingness again, due to quantum fluctuations[4]. However, as the particles get annihilated at the end, hardly enough to fom a universe.

If the Big Bang theory is wrong, what is something else that is pausible? Answer: God.

3. Divine intervention

The universe is full of evidence that divine intervention has happened. One example is the milky-way thing that I just showed you.

So if there is evidence that God exists, then it is logical and rational to believe that he/she/it does.

Sources:

[1]http://dictionary.reference.com...
[2]http://www.universetoday.com...
[3]http://schools-wikipedia.org...
[4]http://machineslikeus.com...
Debate Round No. 1
Jwarr12

Pro

1. The shape of our galaxy

Solid objects have a tendency to become round because the force of gravity overcomes the centrifugal force acting on the overlying layer. For example, a mountain on Earth will eventually become flat because the force of gravity on the nitrogenous atmosphere is greater than the centrifugal force created by the Earth's rotation. This creates a friction between the mountain and the atmosphere which eventually results in a flat plain. This phenomenon is called erosion. If separate objects, however, have sufficient rotation and distance from one another, the centrifugal force overcomes gravity and the objects continue to separate from one another. If gravitation and centrifugal force are equal, the distance between the objects does not change and the result is an orbit. This is the case with the moon or with man-made satellites. The Milky Way is not a solid mass, but a collection of separate bodies of mass that each exert their own gravitation and centrifugal force. We have a fairly decent understanding of these forces. The phenomena of orbits and erosion can be reproduced in experimental ways and they hold up to scientific scrutiny. To postulate that that we are simply wrong about these natural forces and there is actually some supernatural force "pulling" and "pushing" on matter is simply not reasonable.

2. The big bang can't happen

I would dispute your comment that if God didn't create the universe, then it must be the big-bang theory (a so-called well-proven theory according to you). This is most definitely not a well-proven theory. The scientific community acknowledges multiple theories as good candidates and that we really do not know what created the universe. The big bang theory is currently accepted as the best candidate. Also, the big bang theory is simply a regression of a known rate of change. We believe the density and temperature of the universe is changing and we believe that we know that rate of change. If the rate of change of density and temperature is constant, then theoretically at some finite point (which works out to about 14 billion years ago), there was a condition of infinite density and temperature. The big bang theory does not try to account for the hypothesis that something came out of nothing, nor does it try to account for the conditions existing prior to the big bang. If the big bang theory is wrong, chances are that whatever event or condition created the universe (assuming the universe's existence actually is finite), has a natural explanation rather than a supernatural one. The supernatural or God theory is simply another hypothesis, and it is one for which we have no evidence at all.

3. Divine intervention

There is no evidence of any divine intervention. I provided a rational explanation based on evidence for the fact that the milky way is not a solid round mass.

You have yet to provide any sensible evidence for the existence of God.
jh1234l

Con

Pro has not provided any sources to refute point 1, but I posted sources for my claims in my footnotes last round.

As he has not used sources to refute that point, and has no reasoning provided, so his rebuttal to point one cannot just be assumed to be true.

Pro again did not use any sources to back up his claims in point two, and did not refute my point that quantum fluctuations cannot result in the big bang. Instead, he posted a bunch of statements with no sources to back them up.

For point 3, see my arguments on point 1.
Debate Round No. 2
Jwarr12

Pro

Point 1: You are arguing that the laws of physics are not true.. it is common knowledge that these laws exist so it can actually be assumed to be true, but here's a source just for the heck of it.
http://en.wikipedia.org...

Point 2: "Thus, the Big Bang theory cannot and does not provide any explanation for such an initial condition; rather, it describes and explains the general evolution of the universe going forward from that point on."
http://en.wikipedia.org...

Your reference stipulates that ". The creation of a particle-antiparticle pair out of the vacuum violates the law of conservation of energy" which I assume is the basis for that particular point.. but the sentence continues "but the Heisenberg uncertainty principle allows such violations for a very short time." It later states that the inflationary model of the universe accounts for the expansion of the universe.
http://machineslikeus.com...

I did not post sources because this debate is not asking if the big bang theory or the laws of physics are rational. It is irrelevant if it rational or irrational to believe in the big bang theory (point 2) and it is ridiculous to refute the laws of physics (point 1). To elaborate, even if we could disprove the big bang theory, that is in no way evidence for other possibilities unless you assume that there are only two possible methods the universe could have been created.

On a side note outside of the debate (speaking as a moderator), as you have stated that you are an atheist, please at least research some of the common arguments made by theists and try to empathize with those arguments. I have had many debates with theists on this topic as I am primarily interested in the psychological mechanisms of genuine theism. No intelligent theist would argue against basic natural laws (and yes, I realize that's an opinion.) Once again, this paragraph is meant to be outside of the debate and not as a point for rebuttal. Please just humor me.
jh1234l

Con

Sorry, I will be unable to argue due to schoolwork. Please give all 7 votes to my opponent.
Debate Round No. 3
Jwarr12

Pro

Jwarr12 forfeited this round.
jh1234l

Con

On second thought, don't vote all for Pro. We both forfeited, canceling eachother out.

Debate Round No. 4
Jwarr12

Pro

Jwarr12 forfeited this round.
jh1234l

Con

jh1234l forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by Jwarr12 4 years ago
Jwarr12
http://dictionary.reference.com...

I say the existence of God is possible because science can not absolutely be certain in anything. The existence of a flying pig is possible. That does not make it a rational idea.
Posted by Flip 4 years ago
Flip
Can you please define rational? Also, if you admit that god is a possibility haven't you established that the belief is rational in at least one way?
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by RyuuKyuzo 4 years ago
RyuuKyuzo
Jwarr12jh1234lTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 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:01 
Reasons for voting decision: ff