The Instigator
spencetheguy
Pro (for)
Losing
12 Points
The Contender
kenito001
Con (against)
Winning
25 Points

Science is just as provable as Religon.

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  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/31/2007 Category: Science
Updated: 9 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,802 times Debate No: 1210
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (10)
Votes (11)

 

spencetheguy

Pro

Please keep your arguments short and concise please.

science is just as provable as religion. all science is the belief that data proves something. if one does not believe that data provides a fact than science is wrong. just as a person believes in a religion can believe that another is incorrect despite no data.
one may say 1+1=2
well another can argue that that is incorrect and there is no way to prove which is right.
off coarse most everyone believes the religion that says 1+1=2
religion is just as provable as science in that neither can be proved. science cannot be proved with religion and religion cannot be proved with science.
i know my argument is extreme but it is just taking what we all know and making a new conclusion.
kenito001

Con

I'm going to try and keep my arguments as short as possible, but with this topic it's going to be a little hard. The premise of the argument is that the con has to show that science is MORE "provable" than religion.

First I'd like to argue my own case, then refute my opponents.

The debate needs definitions of religion and science, and since the Pro provided no such definitions, I shall. Since science itself isn't a questioned entity, I'm going to simply use scientific theories and laws. For religion I'm going to define it as the search for God and/or a higher being of worship and creator qualities.

I have two arguments/proofs under these definitions for the round.
I. The argument from laws

The argument can be summed up simply that there are proved scientific laws that have been shown to be true and are simply accepted absolutes, whereas religion hasn't ever been proven, thus science is more "provable"

i. Laws of nature and other scientific laws exist, and are accepted on a massive scale. (Beyond 99.99% of the population)
ii. No God has been proven, or accepted on a massive scale.
iii. Science is proven, religion is unproven.
iv. Science is more provable than religion.

II. The argument from belief

The argument can be summed up simply that science is reliant upon a method, the scientific method, and proven principle, whereas religion is faith based. Since faith is personal and not a provable entity, science holds in analysis between the two.

i. Science relies upon methodology and strong evidence physically
ii. Religion relies upon faith
iii. Methodology and evidence are better sources of explanation than faith
iv. Science is more provable than religion.

Next, refuting my opponent.

"science is just as provable as religion. all science is the belief that data proves something. if one does not believe that data provides a fact than science is wrong. just as a person believes in a religion can believe that another is incorrect despite no data.
one may say 1+1=2
well another can argue that that is incorrect and there is no way to prove which is right. "

My opponent first argues that the premise of science, when denied, makes it equal to religion. The difference is, when you deny the premise of science, you also deny other premises, and thus nothing can be proved at all, however this defies logic, and logic itself is rejected. When logic itself is rejected, you can't necessarily determine anything, and thus further it is seen that if all premises are rejected, then nothing can be known for certain, so there is no weighing mechanism towards "provability." Because you can't tell which is greater, since there is no system, the system is pointless. My idea however thus stands, since it is the only weighing mechanism to see which is actually better, or if the two are equal. Without such a mechanism, this resolution can't say anything, because it assumes one or the other can be proven.

"off coarse most everyone believes the religion that says 1+1=2
religion is just as provable as science in that neither can be proved. science cannot be proved with religion and religion cannot be proved with science."

Religion cannot be "proven" necessarily, however science can.(see my case) Just because one cannot prove the other, (as you stipulate) doesn't mean that one is not greater than the other. If you're saying that because neither can prove one another, then they are equal, then please tell me, and I will further clarify.

My opponent vaguely outlined his case, and further explanation would be greatly appreciated. Through all of this it is evident that science is more easily proven than religion in a logical and rational standpoint, which is the only world view mechanism able of proving anything.
Debate Round No. 1
spencetheguy

Pro

sorry about that then.

i will agree with your definitions of science and religion.

i will use the same method you did, or respond to your points directy
you say...
"i. Laws of nature and other scientific laws exist, and are accepted on a massive scale. (Beyond 99.99% of the population)
ii. No God has been proven, or accepted on a massive scale.
iii. Science is proven, religion is unproven.
iv. Science is more provable than religion."

i say...
i. just becasue somthing is accepted does not make it absolutely ture and therfore proven.
ii. no god has been proven or accepted but is science so different. are there not opposing ideas and theorys that everyone arugues about?
iii. science is unproven, religion is unproven.
iv. science is jst as provable as religion.

you say...
"i. Science relies upon methodology and strong evidence physically
ii. Religion relies upon faith
iii. Methodology and evidence are better sources of explanation than faith
iv. Science is more provable than religion."

i say...
i. science revolves on the belief that methodology and evidence proves points.
ii. religion is the beleif in God.
iii. methodology and evidence is a form of faith. of beliveing sothing is true.
iv. science is just is provable as religion.

i will draw and analogy...
suppose that there is a beauty contest but the judges are the contestents. they would all just pick themselvs right?

science is proven using the laws and sciece and religion the laws of religion, neither is absolute.
therefor science is just as provable as religion in that neither are provabe.

i realize that it was a complicated premis and i thank my opponent for kepping it short and to the point.
kenito001

Con

I'm going to defend my logic proofs by simply refuting your attacks to my proofs together, then analyzing the overall basis of this debate. Happy New Year!

First and foremost, my definitions of science and religion in this debate hold, and thus all arguments must have complete compliance with this definitions.

"i. just becasue somthing is accepted does not make it absolutely true and therfore proven.
ii. no god has been proven or accepted but is science so different. are there not opposing ideas and theorys that everyone arugues about?
iii. science is unproven, religion is unproven.
iv. science is jst as provable as religion."

Laws of nature and science aren't simply accepted, in the science community a law is absolute and true. There were two stages to the proving of religion and science, absolutes and acceptance. Religion has no absolutes, whereas science has. Things have been proven with science, whereas nothing has with religion. If you are suggesting that laws do not exist, such as newton's laws of physics or what not, please clarify. If you do not believe such laws exist, the I will have to explain the certainty of laws in relation to man. Another key point is that religion is defined here as the search for a God, but nothing has ever been shown. Science on the other hand, does have things that are laws, or absolutes, whereas religion has no such things. This simple fact alone differs the two in their ability to be proven.

". science revolves on the belief that methodology and evidence proves points.
ii. religion is the beleif in God.
iii. methodology and evidence is a form of faith. of beliveing sothing is true.
iv. science is just is provable as religion. "

Science in this debate doesn't revolve on the BELIEF of proof, but it relies upon the premise of proof. You are rejecting the whole idea and the premise of science itself, and thus my later argument has previously refuted you. By rejecting the premise of science, then the premise of religion has to also be rejected, as does logic. By rejecting all of these premises, you are rejecting this debate itself. Without logic you cant show that something is more provable than something else, however I can since I'm complying with the premise; if you're following this train of thought then this rejection provides the CON with the basis of a victory. You then say that you have to believe something is true, and this is partially true, however the difference is one relies purely on faith, whereas the other has a clear methodology and usage of evidence, so if we are to assume that both require a belief, then science relies upon faith, evidence and methodology, whereas religion relies purely on faith. Thus under this circumstance in you refutation, again the CON side wins.

"science is proven using the laws and sciece and religion the laws of religion, neither is absolute.
therefor science is just as provable as religion in that neither are provabe."

There are two problems with these two arguments. The first again relates back to provability. One has two be more provable than the other, and science has this ability. With analysis also, you see that science has a more plausible believable system. Just because one is allegedly not absolute does not mean that they are both equal. Next, the other problem is your rejection of absolutes. By rejecting absolutes, you are rejecting the inductive principle of logic, and defying logic itself. We assume that the sun will rise tomorrow, or that the law of gravity will take effect. This is because these simple scientific ideas have shown themselves to be absolute in circumstances. Also, basic chemical studies can show that boiling water and salt will evaporate the water is another example of provability. Simple things such as adding a colored dye will change a t-shirt color are all scientific principles and absolutes you are rejecting.

Because of these necessary inductive absolutes science has proven something. Religion in this debate relies on the search of a God, however no God has been found. Thus because science has proven things, no matter how basic, it is more provable than religion due to the simple inductive principle and basic laws of nature.
Debate Round No. 2
spencetheguy

Pro

I must refute your arguemnt that i am forgeting the basic nature of science. is not the basic nature of science is that it is allways changing and evolving in acordance with the newest deiscoveries? newton proved plato wrong and einsetin proved newton wrong and now they think they might to proven eintsein wrong. this "proving" one thing right then to be wrong will never end. that is the nature of science.
just because you dump a green liquid on a tshirt that then turns green means that the liquid turned the color. it could of been aliens that beamed down and swapped tshirts with you or anything.
of coarse that is perposterous but it has never been proven wrong. nothing is provable. meaning that provable or knowable for shure without a shadow of a doubt. that uncertenty is built in out brains so when we say provable that means 99.99999999999999999999999% sure. but that still gives .0000000000000000000000001
chance of being wrong.

the science absolutes are made up absolutes that are used to "prove" right or wrong. Like in math, proofs are used using math. You say that he scientific community's word is law. they have been wrong. the scientific community once said that the sun revolved around the earth and that bleeding sick people made them better. they have been proven wrong by your own definition. You state that science is based on the premise. the i quote the thesaurus. premise- hypothesis, proposition. all ofthese words are uncertnecies. guesses that are offten proven wrong.
there are no absolutes in science. science is just as provable as religion in that neither are provable.
kenito001

Con

kenito001 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
spencetheguy

Pro

When humans say provable it is an attempt to make our irrational world rational. but it is irrational still the same. Nothing is for certin.
kenito001

Con

This debate is easily summerized into why the CON wins. I will first refute my opponents round 3 arguments, then summerize why science is more provable than religion.

First, my opponent talks about how newton proved plato wrong and other things. There are a few answers to this. First of all, laws of science, which are proved facts, are not proven wrong; theories of science are proven incorrect or clarified into laws. My opponent then says that just because you place green liquid on a t-shirt doesn't mean that aliens didn't beam it on. The difference is, you didn't contend that somehow the green liquid changed it. Although the majority, actually all, of rational beings would agree that it is a chemical reaction, it is completely agreed on the beginning and the outcome, making something proven. My opponent then says that nothing is provable. Ironically, by contending this, he cant prove that statement. So it is false under his premise. My premise is that things can be proven. By my analysis, I can actually prove a point, but under his, he proves something, but says it can't be proven. His argument is illogical, circular and self-contradictory.

Finally, he says there are no absolutes in science. I really don't have to say much to this, since he simply asserts this. I have provided examples, and shown that if you know something you have to simply know it.

This debate comes down to three simple things. First, science has actually proven things, religion has not. Secondly, my opponents attempts at reducto ad absurdum continually engage in logically fallacious statements. Finally, his idea that you can't prove anything goes against his own statements, and the resolution. If you can't prove anything, then you can't say that something is equal to another, since you don't believe it is able to know or prove anything.

Thanks for a fun debate.
Debate Round No. 4
10 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by dalzuga 9 years ago
dalzuga
spencetheguy, I would like to debate you on this issue. if you'd like to please challenge me. you can copy and paste the title and your first round if you wish.
Posted by kenito001 9 years ago
kenito001
sorry for the forfeited round, i will be posting soon.
Posted by tjzimmer 9 years ago
tjzimmer
Hello

Remember when people thought the world was flat? Or that everything revolved around the earth not the sun? Or that there are only 9 planets in our solar system? Scientist are always changing "what is truth" because no one can be entirely sure of everything. Science is a little bit faith if you think about. The faith that your research and discovery will be the same every time, not matter how many tests you do. Faith that you did everything correctly to reach your conclusion. Faith that people will respect and value your results, ultimately abide by them. Nothing is for sure in this world and people who think that everything can be explained by science are clouded by the technological advances of our world, forgetting the true origins of faith.
Posted by kenito001 9 years ago
kenito001
sorry about the no response, I've been busy. I'll clean everything up in round four.
Posted by senorsavas 9 years ago
senorsavas
Dear Spencetheguy
Are you seriously questioning if the sun rises in the east? You are blinded by faith and I feel sorry for you.
Posted by spencetheguy 9 years ago
spencetheguy
i am adding on the previous argument because i hitthe submit button before i meant to.

you say that division amongst religion proves itself wrong. is science so different? there are all ways different ideas that contradict each other. so according to your deffinition science is wrong also. yay for me!!
if you want to challenge me feel free.
Posted by spencetheguy 9 years ago
spencetheguy
i am responding to the previous comment.
"the science absolutes are made up absolutes that are used to "prove" right or wrong."

the sun rising in the east is an absolute that other theories are based on.
i have a little sister that does not think that the sun rises in the east. she says it rises in the "wiist." how cute.
QED

you to think that popular opinion decides truth
Posted by senorsavas 9 years ago
senorsavas
Spencetheguy -

The sun rises in the east. This is a fact of science. There is no chance of it being wrong. Everyone in the world believes this to be true without question. It's absolutely true.

Religion is man made. God did not create us in his likeness. Societies throughout time have created the 1000s of variations of their take on God. All of them are certain their version of God is the right one. But they can't all be right, right? So in the bigger picture they are proving that religion is subjective, based on faith, and scientifically speaking a bunch of hogwash. Therefore, all religion is far from being proven true and should be considered nothing more than the fiction that it is.
Posted by lazarus_long 9 years ago
lazarus_long
Incredible. NEITHER side understands what "science" really means.

It's things like this that get me very depressed re the state of science education in this country today. Sigh.
Posted by Korezaan 9 years ago
Korezaan
I was gonna debate you, but I have no idea what your case says.
11 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by kenito001 7 years ago
kenito001
spencetheguykenito001Tied
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 
Vote Placed by turtlecool2 9 years ago
turtlecool2
spencetheguykenito001Tied
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 
Vote Placed by fightinirish1985 9 years ago
fightinirish1985
spencetheguykenito001Tied
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 
Vote Placed by yoon172 9 years ago
yoon172
spencetheguykenito001Tied
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:30 
Vote Placed by fightinirish1986 9 years ago
fightinirish1986
spencetheguykenito001Tied
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 
Vote Placed by EricW1001 9 years ago
EricW1001
spencetheguykenito001Tied
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:30 
Vote Placed by spencetheguy 9 years ago
spencetheguy
spencetheguykenito001Tied
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:30 
Vote Placed by PreacherFred 9 years ago
PreacherFred
spencetheguykenito001Tied
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:30 
Vote Placed by Princeofpersia 9 years ago
Princeofpersia
spencetheguykenito001Tied
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 
Vote Placed by chrispy4 9 years ago
chrispy4
spencetheguykenito001Tied
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