The Instigator
Rolyatleahcim
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
JustCallMeTarzan
Con (against)
Winning
27 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: 12/22/2008 Category: Science
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 2,391 times Debate No: 6307
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (34)
Votes (5)

 

Rolyatleahcim

Pro

Science is the study of God.

For this argument God is not God (character) of any given religion's sacred texts.
Simply God "is" and "exist" for this Debate.
(God does not have to be magical nor do physics)

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

"is" is the singular third-person form of the infinitive "to be," which can roughly be restated as "to exist." Or the expression of being.

I am not arguing that God created anything or that it is a person or even something to be worshiped.
I am not referring to anyones particular refference they may or may not have to God.
If you believe in God or not, that is not what I am even going near.

From our view point, if God "is" than science must be the study of God.

Given that God "is" for this argument, Science is the study of God.
JustCallMeTarzan

Con

Despite my opponent's egregiously deliberate misrepresentation and misuse of the word "God," I can provide an argument to show that Science does NOT study God.

My opponent defines "God" as "is" or "exist." This definition does not make sense. It is logically incoherent. My opponent has defined a noun as a verb. It is as though I defined a coffee table as "stay." The definition he seems to be trying to introduce is that God is everything that exists. While this is a very bizarre notion of "God," I suppose we can work with it for now.

However, since my opponent has used "God" and not "god," he indicates that there is some other reason that this combination of everything needs another name. In all definitions, the capitalized God is a deity of some sorts. We don't call nature "Nature" as though it was to be revered and praised.

Furthermore, my opponent's definition is lacking in any sort of characteristics of what qualifies as "God." Science cannot classify anything is studies without a definition of the characteristics of it.

Lastly, in order for science to study something, there must be a testable hypothesis. As the definitions stand, "The totality of everything that science considers is God" is not a testable hypothesis. Therefore, science CANNOT study god.
Debate Round No. 1
Rolyatleahcim

Pro

You Sir are arguing some other debate than this. Prepare to be debunked.

Statement: "Egregiously deliberate misrepresentation and misuse of the word "God""
Response: God means many things to many people. Perhaps the God you depose is a misuse. But this I clarified in the primis of my argument.

Statement: I can provide an argument to show that Science does NOT study God.
Response: Okay please provide it.

e
Statement: since my opponent has used "God" and not "god," he indicates that there is some other reason that this combination of everything needs another name.
Response: when naming our galaxy do we not say "The Milky Way" rather than a milky way.

Statement: In all definitions, the capitalized God is a deity of some sorts.
Response: No this is not in all definitions.
see http://en.wikipedia.org...
Or perhaps Islamic distinction of God. Although that as well is another word entirely but is one and the same.
Also know that I capitalize all people, places or things.

Statement: We don't call nature "Nature" as though it was to be revered and praised.
Response: And we don't say "Hitler" so that what we are referring to is revered and praised either. Besides my opening argument addressed that the intention of this statement is not to impose my belief, to acknowledge anyone else's belief or to discredit any ones belief.

Statement: Furthermore, my opponent's definition is lacking in any sort of characteristics of what qualifies as "God."
Response: Except God "is".

Statement: Science cannot classify anything is studies without a definition of the characteristics of it.
Response: No but logic can. And as of yet scientist can not pinpoint all happenings, cause and reaction style, back to the big bang.

Statement: Lastly, in order for science to study something, there must be a testable hypothesis.
Response: This was not your last statement. Do you have a testable hypothesis for everything?

Statement: As the definitions stand, "The totality of everything that science considers is God" is not a testable hypothesis. Therefore, science CANNOT study god.
Response: I do not know what you are quoting because no one said; "The totality of everything that science considers is God", And in order to study everything I believe you would begin some place as science has.

Given the premise "God is".
Science most certainly is the study of that, directly or indirectly, and from whatever view point available.

Thank you.
JustCallMeTarzan

Con

My opponent has conveniently ignored my contention that he has not defined God. By stating that "God is" he has merely purported the existence of something we call "God." This is exactly the same as stating that the coffee table "is." Once again, you CANNOT define a noun as a verb - that simply doesn't work.

>>"God means many things to many people. Perhaps the God you depose is a misuse. But this I clarified in the primis of my argument."

Correction - "god" means many things to many people. "God" is a deity. You have not clarified WHAT "God" is - just THAT it is.

>> "when naming our galaxy do we not say "The Milky Way" rather than a milky way."
>> "And we don't say "Hitler" so that what we are referring to is revered and praised either"

Of course - that's because it's a proper noun. Like Paris. My opponent seems to be grammatically confused.

>> "see http://en.wikipedia.org...;

Good heavens - the Kabbalists are more like Deists anyway - who wouldn't call a "Creator" a deity?

>>"No but logic can."

CORRECTION - this is false - in order to evaluate "All S are P" you MUST have characterized S and P.

>>"I do not know what you are quoting because no one said; "The totality of everything that science considers is God""

I submit that the above quote is the only reasonable interpretation of the nonsense "God is."

>>"And in order to study everything I believe you would begin some place as science has."

This is your only statement I agree with. And since there is no definition of WHAT "God" is, that would make a good starting point.

*************************

My opponent's argument hinges on the reader's misunderstanding of "God "is"" - he has defined a noun as a verb, which is clearly not possible. Science can only study testable hypothesis. In order for any hypothesis to be testable, it must have defined parts. For example, the hypothesis "There are some Sneedles in Iowa" is not testable until we define what a Sneedle is. Likewise, any hypothesis including my opponent's erroneous definition of "God" is untestable because his definition does not specify what "God" IS.

Even if science studies that which is, and if "God" exists (is), then we still have no testable hypothesis The mere fact that something exists does not indicate that it is study-able. "God" may exist with attributes that are not touchable by science, much in the same way that unicorns exist in the mind or perfect geometric shapes exist in the abstract.

Thus, while science may intend to study "God" even as my opponent attempts to define it, science can go no further without a definition of what "God" IS and not merely what "God" DOES. Also, the use of the capitalized "God" does indicate some sort of special import to this entity, and I submit that the criteria that change "god" to "God" are criteria of moral or existential import that render the entity untouchable by science, for better or for worse.

Science CANNOT study "God."
Debate Round No. 2
Rolyatleahcim

Pro

It would seem to me that you are arguing against God being than science being the study of God.
I am sorry if the premise of my argument is hard to deal with or even my distinction created for the use of Logic and debate. Maybe you are arguing against religion, I am not sure.

Given the premise God is and my argument Science is the study of God, perhapses your next round should be spent arguing against the topic rather than capitalization or a belief in God.
JustCallMeTarzan

Con

It has become clear to me that my opponent lacks an understanding of both my arguments and the implications of his own. If one considers the resolution with his definitions, we get something like:

"The study of what is studies to exist." OR "The study of what is studies to be."

In other words, my opponent has seemingly created a rhetorical tautology. However, he has provided an invalid definition for "God." In the English language, it simply makes no sense to define a noun as a verb. God = exist. Coffee Table = stay. Book = read. Dog = play. None of these make sense. These are things the objects of consideration DO, not what they ARE. God a defined by my opponent makes no logical sense.

My opponent also states that "If God "is" than science must be the study of God." and "Given that God "is"... Science is the study of God." These are all well and good, but don't allow one to actually evaluate the resolution. Before making an evaluation, there must be some properties assigned to God. It is as though I asked you to go find me a Sneedle and cut off it's hopflong as a trophy. You have no idea where to even begin. Now if I say that a Sneedle is a type of bird, and the hopflong is a large plume of feathers on its rump, it becomes clear what I mean. My opponent hat touted the notion that science can examine something without any idea what it is. Consider the following conversation with a scientist.

Me: Go find me a Sneedle and run some tests on it.
SCI: Very well - what is a Sneedle and how will I know when I find one?
Me: A Sneedle exist.
SCI: I'm sorry - what was that.
Me: A Sneedle is. A Sneedle exist. Come on man - you study everything - find me a Sneedle!!

Obviously, without any idea what he's looking for, the scientist cannot produce a Sneedle, regardless of whether or not a Sneedle exists. Without a clear definition of a Sneedle, it is impossible to locate or study one, and even if a Sneedle pooped on his head, he wouldn't know what it was because he as no definition of a Sneedle. So consider the following:

Me: Hey Dr. Doofus - Go study and run some tests on God.
SCI: You mean the deity God?
Me: No - I mean exist.
SCI: I'm sorry - what was that?
Me: Good God man! I want you to study is! Exist! Go find it!!

This simply makes no sense.

***********************************

Again, aside from whether or not God exists, without any sort of descriptors, there can be no testable hypothesis formed about God, whatever it even is. Without a testable hypothesis, science can do no work at all. Consider:

Me: Test this hypothesis: A Sneedle can fly 14 yards upside down before crashing.
SCI: Very well - give me a Sneedle that I can test.
Me: Oh I don't have a Sneedle. A Sneedle exist though - so you should be able to study it.
SCI: I'm not sure what you mean by "A Sneedle exist," but perhaps I can make a computer model.
SCI: Give me some Sneedle-esque properties.
Me: Oh a Sneedle exist - you should know its properties - you study exist.
SCI: Get out of my office you mediocre dunce! I'm tired of your nonsense!!

No properties, no testable hypothesis, no possible action by science.

*************************

I have shown that first, the resolution makes no sense given the terrible definition of God. If a proposition makes no logical sense, it defaults to False.

Second, I have also shown that without a testable hypothesis, science cannot study anything. There is no formable hypothesis about my opponent's definition of God. Therefore science cannot study this "God."
Debate Round No. 3
34 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Common_Sense_Please 7 years ago
Common_Sense_Please
This debate is strange.. Where did this definition of God come from? I see no basis for it. I see the word God in the conventional sense, a supernatural being.
Posted by JustCallMeTarzan 7 years ago
JustCallMeTarzan
>> "Please do not try to talk smarter than you are."

Excuse me? Where did that come from?? Ad hominems are unbecoming...

All Mangani and I are arguing is that theology is not a science... that does not require any special cognitive capacity - just an understanding of the definitions of theology and science.
Posted by Rolyatleahcim 7 years ago
Rolyatleahcim
Please do not try to talk smarter than you are.
Posted by JustCallMeTarzan 7 years ago
JustCallMeTarzan
>> "Theology is the study of what is written about God, as well as the possibilities and attributes regarding the possibility of his existence, or the ramifications of belief in a deity given his non-existence, as well as the practice of worship by those who believe. Theology is an existing science, and the only way you can deny this is irrationally."

Theology is not a science any more than mythology. How is it irrational to deny that comparing interpretation to written text is not a science? The only scientific aspect of theology is that it looks to "real" science for answers on things like "Did the great flood actually happen?" And when those answers come back in the negative, theology substitutes written truth for scientific fact and carries on.

Theology deals in hypotheticals and unverifiables.

Science deals in facts and empirical data.
Posted by JustCallMeTarzan 7 years ago
JustCallMeTarzan
>> "Tarzan, when a pastor makes the claim that the "rapture" is based on biblical writings, and this question is compared to the writings of other biblical scholars, there is a religious truth brought into question. The study of the origins of this doctrine falls into theology."

Accordingly, theology is more closely related to the study of literature than of something like geology. The "truth" one is looking for is whether or not interpretation is backed up by religious texts, not whether or not the events in the text are true.

>> "When John makes the claim that "in the beginning was the verb, the verb was with God, and the verb was God", and a scientist makes a claim of "the big bang", the comparison of such as scientific/religious hypothesis is theology."

One explanation is verifiable. The other is not. One is scientific. The other simply tags "God did it" on to the first. Easy to see which is more reliable.

>>"Just as I stated with mythology- even though there are factual historical claims made in mythology, and completely fantastic claims, the study of either is called mythology."

Mythology is not a science. Mythology may EMPLOY science in looking for fossils of minotaurs and such, but mythology is NOT a science.
Posted by Mangani 7 years ago
Mangani
Tarzan, when a pastor makes the claim that the "rapture" is based on biblical writings, and this question is compared to the writings of other biblical scholars, there is a religious truth brought into question. The study of the origins of this doctrine falls into theology.

When John makes the claim that "in the beginning was the verb, the verb was with God, and the verb was God", and a scientist makes a claim of "the big bang", the comparison of such as scientific/religious hypothesis is theology.

Just as I stated with mythology- even though there are factual historical claims made in mythology, and completely fantastic claims, the study of either is called mythology. Theology is the study of what is written about God, as well as the possibilities and attributes regarding the possibility of his existence, or the ramifications of belief in a deity given his non-existence, as well as the practice of worship by those who believe. Theology is an existing science, and the only way you can deny this is irrationally.
Posted by jason_hendirx 7 years ago
jason_hendirx
You're making your stance so shrouded in semantics as to be totally meaningless. Go away, Mangani.
Posted by JustCallMeTarzan 7 years ago
JustCallMeTarzan
>> "There is a problem with my connection and it seems to be reposting comments I have already posted... sorry."

Make sure you have the QOS service enabled for your connection. Dropped return packets can fool he computer into resending the data. And flaky wireless connections won't help that either.
Posted by JustCallMeTarzan 7 years ago
JustCallMeTarzan
>> "theology is the study of God."

Pray tell how they get some god to study? They study some stories written by man ABOUT god.

>> "Testable hypothesis can definitely be formed regarding both the existence and non-existence of God."

Again - pray tell how you get some god to test upon? All that can be made are hypotheticals.

>> "My father is not a pro-noun, but when I refer to my father as Father it then becomes a pronoun." ETC...

You seem to be grammatically confused. "father" is a noun. "Father" is a proper noun. "god" is a noun. "God" is a proper noun. "They, them, us, we, it, I, me, he, she, you" - those are pronouns.

>> "Indeed the very definition of theology is: The study of the nature of God and religious truth; rational inquiry into religious questions."

Religious truth is an oxymoron - religion by it's very nature is based on faith, not truth. A rational inquiry into religious questions would yield mostly false results (Consider: Did Jesus really rise? - the only rational answers are "I don't know" and "no").

>> "To claim that myths cannot be studied because they are not true is truly an ignorant statement, and to claim that God cannot be studied because he does not exist is to deny the existence of an already established science accepted by all institutions of higher learning as an authentic branch of scientific inquiry."

Pray tell you science can form a testable hypothesis about something that does not exist? Science can go no further than to say "We can't test that" about God or a Minotaur. And theology is NOT an "authentic branch of scientific inquiry" - the notion is laughable.
Posted by Mangani 7 years ago
Mangani
There is a problem with my connection and it seems to be reposting comments I have already posted... sorry.
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by Mangani 7 years ago
Mangani
RolyatleahcimJustCallMeTarzanTied
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 johnnyjohnsmithsmith 7 years ago
johnnyjohnsmithsmith
RolyatleahcimJustCallMeTarzanTied
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 jjmd280 7 years ago
jjmd280
RolyatleahcimJustCallMeTarzanTied
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 Checkmark1 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 TheSkeptic 7 years ago
TheSkeptic
RolyatleahcimJustCallMeTarzanTied
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 
Vote Placed by JustCallMeTarzan 7 years ago
JustCallMeTarzan
RolyatleahcimJustCallMeTarzanTied
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