The Instigator
HAMMOB
Pro (for)
The Contender
OxfordUni
Con (against)

Should there be a 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  
Debate Round Forfeited
OxfordUni has forfeited round #2.
Our system has not yet updated this debate. Please check back in a few minutes for more options.
Time Remaining
00days00hours00minutes00seconds
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/10/2016 Category: Religion
Updated: 10 months ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 239 times Debate No: 93551
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (2)
Votes (0)

 

HAMMOB

Pro

The simple question is whether everything in our actual and factual universe points towards the existence of a Supreme Being. My answer is YES, it does! Because there is rather something than nothing and something always points out towards something rather than nothing in an absolute sense. Nevertheless, all logical argumentation for God goes only up to the point that a person starts wondering whether there SHOULD be a God not whether there IS a God. Contemplating on various aspects of our lives as well as the universe categorically demonstrates from a variety of angles that YES there should be a God, rather than no God.
OxfordUni

Con

I argue against the notion that there should be God. My position on this topic is that there should not be a God because it is hindering the development of scientific thought among individuals around the world, in which science has always been the key to our survival for the human race. I argue that the notion of God as the creator of the universe is just a poor excuse or explanation to try and fill up any gaps in our human mind in which we do not yet have enough information on. By filling up our knowledge gaps and beliefs with an ideology (God) that is very difficult to dispute due to the lack of evidence to prove it as wrong, people tend to give up on challenging the notion and just accept that whatever strange or spiritual encounter that they encounter has to be God or an act of God. This is no different than how some people who hear the wind howl through their windows at night and claim that there are ghost making noises.

Above all, as people just accept that it is God that caused this and that, they no longer use their rational thoughts to try and find an alternative answer that is outside of the area of God. As a consequence, this not only hinders the development of humans as scientists, it completely halts it. In addition, just to clarify what I mean by scientists, basically I am referring to the concept of being a scientist, as anyone who as curiosity and uses that curiosity to explore and try to discover the world around him or her, which in this case, every baby can be considered as scientists by nature.

In regards to why science is crucial to our survival, every technological invention, from the spear to the first cups and clubs, cannot have been invented without scientific thought. And if our minds were replaced with the notion of God, there is not much of an argument to question anything that surrounds us, society would likely to remain exactly the way it is for hundreds or thousands of years (or in theory forever), just like how some of the most religious countries in the Middle East are at the moment.

Above all, I believe that there should not be a God as much as there should not be people believing that shooting stars are just flying, purple unicorns at a great distance.
Debate Round No. 1
HAMMOB

Pro

Hi!

You wrote: "My position on this topic is that there should not be a God because it is hindering the development of scientific thought among individuals around the world, in which science has always been the key to our survival for the human race."

Whether science has always been the key to our survival is subject to yet another debate, however the first part of your response is also categorically baseless. The belief in God has never hindered anyone from scientific advancement, rather Godly people and/or religions have encouraged scientific development as long as they have remained on their original teachings. Diverting from religion and making it a tool of one's vested interests brings about the gap between religion and science that you are talking about. It is historically evident that the majority of scientific discoveries and advancements were done by religious people who held a belief in God. The golden era of Islam bears testimony to this fact and so do the earlier periods of Chinese traditions and Buddhist philosophies. Thus, religion or God has never been in contradiction with science rather it supported science to its utmost.

You wrote: "I argue that the notion of God as the creator of the universe is just a poor excuse or explanation to try and fill up any gaps in our human mind..."

The "God of the gaps" argument usually presented by the atheistic side has no credibility at all. Having demonstrated that true religious philosophies do not hinder scientific advancements, it is therefore a false accusation put upon the believers in God that they try to fill the "gap" with God. Had this been the case, all religious people should have been sitting idle not thinking and pondering over any scientific matter at all. The reality, however, goes against this notion. Although being believers in God, theists are as much involved in finding scientific answers to those gaps as atheists are. Both parties are striving in the same direction equally motivated (if not religious people are more so motivated) to find scientific answers to important scientific questions. In fact, the very scientific method which is the base of every scientific exploration till date was developed by a great Muslim believer in God. This categorically shows that true religious beliefs are in strong contradiction to the notion that every single gap should be filled with God.

It would be wise to explain this concept a little further. God by definition is the Ultimate Being in each and every sense. Hence, when religious people tend to say that God is behind everything, it is in this very context that they are making this statement. They are not implying that no scientific mechanism is involved in the scheme of things; they are simply stating that God being beyond and above everything by definition is the ultimate source of all reality.
This claim of God as being the Supreme One in each and every sense is not something illogical, rather it is inevitable for the sane human mind to come to such a conclusion after pondering upon our universal reality that surrounds us. Scientific advancements that are trying to fill the gaps step by step can never reach a point of absolute certainty and say that each and every gap has been satisfactory explained by science to an absolute degree - they can only go so far as to say that they have reached a conclusion to a high degree or to a very high degree. Human intellect can never be absolutely certain about anything. It can only deduce certain facts relativistically to a certain point, but can never be hundred percent sure about them. That is why mere human intellect is essentially blind when it comes to matters that are out of its bound and beyond its capacity to comprehend. God, however, as stated above is by definition the Ultimate, Absolute, Infinite Being and since human intellect can only appreciate to know about such a Being, its full comprehension requires other methods which feed the mind with novel realities.
Simply and in short, atheists are short minded when they say that God doesn't fit in their scientific reality of the universe. Even though that they know that the scientific ladder they're holding firm is in theory unending ad-infinitum, they want to put their feet only then on each following step once it has been confirmed to a very high degree; theist do the same, however, at the back of their heads they have already taken the ladder to be as part of their essential belief that in the scheme of things it is indeed unending and have labeled it as God. The GUT (Grand Unified Theory of Everything) that every scientist nowadays is striving towards to figure out is basically the God of the gaps for the theist, name it however one desires.

Let me conclude at the end by stating once again (as you have put great emphasis on this point) that God or religion does not discourage scientific thought, it rather promotes it. If you had read religious scriptures, you would have noticed that it's made obligatory upon believers of God "by God" to excel in knowledge and discover the universe. People are admonished to use their intellect and find the truth. They are advised to enhance their intellectual and scientific abilities by pondering upon the universe and to figure out how it functions. Therefore, I being a believer in God and having a scientific approach to figure out things, can never agree with your statement that God or religion is a hindrance in scientific advancement.

Thank You!
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 2
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 3
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 4
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 5
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by missmedic 10 months ago
missmedic
"this alleged entity has no place in any scientific equations, plays no role in any scientific explanations, cannot be used to predict any events, does not describe any thing or force that has yet been detected, and there are no models of the universe in which its presence is either required, productive, or useful."
Posted by vi_spex 10 months ago
vi_spex
ah, trees therfore god
This debate has 6 more rounds before the voting begins. If you want to receive email updates for this debate, click the Add to My Favorites link at the top of the page.