The Instigator
Rolyatleahcim
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Levi3o4
Con (against)
Winning
16 Points

Science is the study of God.

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: 12/21/2008 Category: Science
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,142 times Debate No: 6301
Debate Rounds (1)
Comments (10)
Votes (3)

 

Rolyatleahcim

Pro

Science is the study of God.
For this argument God "is".

Science: The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena.
Or you could even say; The study of what is.
Levi3o4

Con

Seeing as I'm new here, I cannot be sure about how flexible I am allowed to be with the established rules of the argument. Just my caveat.

For the purposes of my argument, I will rephrase "The Study of what Is" as "The Study of Everything," purely for purposes of understanding. I believe that this is a valid equation because "is" is the singular third-person form of the infinitive "to be," which can roughly be restated as "to exist." In any case, my argument can be followed and is, in my opinion, valid, regardless of which word is used. For additional reference:

http://dictionary.reference.com...

"What is = what exists"; therefore, "the study of what is" = "the study of what exists." Thus, if "the study of what is" = "the study of God," then "the study of what exists" = "the study of God," in which case "what exists" = God. Since we know that a lot things exist, or many things "are," such as soccer balls, Alaska, and Ray Charles, as well as a bunch of other things, and God is certainly not any of these things ALONE (except perhaps the third one), we must slightly clarify our definition as being "all that is" or "all that exists." So, if the argument is true, then the statement God = "all that exists." I do not believe that this is the case. Furthermore, Any argument for or against that statement can be effectively countered with a contradictory yet equally valid set of religious beliefs. Unless my opponent is able to provide a compelling argument proving, beyond the proverbial shadow of a doubt, that God is, in fact, somehow equated to everything in every single applicable religious system, I think we can safely say that that particular set of equations is invalid. In any case, if I may use Dictionary.com as an arbiter:

http://dictionary.reference.com...

According to the above page, God is defined as a Supreme Being or Creator, which supports my claim. (I don't feel any particular desire to get any senior theologians involved in this, but if it comes to it, I'm game. ;-) )

My opponent might now argue that since God CREATED everything, science is the study of his creations, and through them, of him. For that argument to be true, we would have to assume that studying a result (everything) = (or is equivalent to) studying a cause (God). I would not say that the study of, say, dandelions is the same or near enough to the study of aerodynamics, even though the former would be impossible (in nature*) without the latter, and the two are therefore in the following cause-result relationship: aerodynamics cause dandelion seeds to spread, therefore, dandelions exist. For an analogy that focuses more on the creator-created dynamic, one need only consider that the study of a literary work is not necessarily the study of its author. For example, J. R. R. Tolkien is often credited as creating a world of his own in his body of works focusing on the invented location of Middle Earth. There are people who approach his works from a scientific standpoint – those studying literature, sociology, and Warg reproduction. While the author is of course relevant to the topic, he (the creator) is not the one being studied. Therefore, the idea that we primarily study God through all of the sciences whenever we study his world is not true.

Finally, while I agree that a scientist may apply his profession as a means of studying God, this is a question of intent, not of definition. The closest idea to that of my opponent I can agree with is that science is the study of what God has wrought (if, of course, God exists). The connection between the father and the son, however, is up to the individual to make.
Debate Round No. 1
10 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Rolyatleahcim 8 years ago
Rolyatleahcim
Levi3o4,
Statement: In fact, supernatural means "above natural," in other words, "above normal," which I am sure you would agree God is.
Response: Actually no I wouldn't. After all, is what is above normal? Is referring to everything there is in total, so that that its parts and their ebb and flow may be examined above normal?

I believe the argument you are arguing against is a religious one.
Posted by Rolyatleahcim 8 years ago
Rolyatleahcim
Levi3o4.
Statement: With all due respect, Rolyatleahcim, "God is" is only your opinion.
Response: No "God is" would be the premise.
Posted by Rolyatleahcim 8 years ago
Rolyatleahcim
jjmd280,
Statement: Then what is God? Not his attributes, but what IS He?
Response: Maybe God could only be looked at or studied by said attributes. After all you are the one saying "He"
Posted by Rolyatleahcim 8 years ago
Rolyatleahcim
Here is a new one.
http://www.debate.org...
Posted by Rolyatleahcim 8 years ago
Rolyatleahcim
I would like to say sorry for only having this debate be one round each, as there is clearly more to debate.
Posted by TheSkeptic 8 years ago
TheSkeptic
Condcut - TIE: Neither side was offensive or condescending.

Spelling&Grammar - TIE: Neither side many spelling&grammar mistakes.

Convincing Arguments - CON: PRO just presented definitions and CON argued his case. This was a ONE Round debate.

Reliable Sources - CON: CON had the only sources.
Posted by jjmd280 8 years ago
jjmd280
God is not supernatural. God is. Fictional characters are supernatural. Maybe your distinction of God should be debated jjmd280.

Then what is God? Not his attributes, but what IS He?
Posted by Levi3o4 8 years ago
Levi3o4
With all due respect, Rolyatleahcim, "God is" is only your opinion. Also, fictional characters are not supernatural, they are merely not real. In fact, supernatural means "above natural," in other words, "above normal," which I am sure you would agree God is. In fact, I suggest you take a look at definition #2 here:

http://dictionary.reference.com...

2. of, pertaining to, characteristic of, or attributed to God or a deity.

In any case, if there's a question about distinctions needing debating, that's what this site is all about!
Posted by Rolyatleahcim 8 years ago
Rolyatleahcim
God is not supernatural. God is. Fictional characters are supernatural. Maybe your distinction of God should be debated jjmd280.
Posted by jjmd280 8 years ago
jjmd280
God is supernatural - science is the study of what is natural. Ergo - you lost before you even began.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by JBlake 8 years ago
JBlake
RolyatleahcimLevi3o4Tied
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 Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Vote Placed by KRFournier 8 years ago
KRFournier
RolyatleahcimLevi3o4Tied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Vote Placed by TheSkeptic 8 years ago
TheSkeptic
RolyatleahcimLevi3o4Tied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05