The Instigator
Con (against)
0 Points
The Contender
Pro (for)
6 Points

The existence of God conflicts with science.

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  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/10/2014 Category: Religion
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 829 times Debate No: 52197
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (11)
Votes (1)




The purpose of this debate is to talk about whether, in any and what circumstances, God and science are contradictory. Main discussion topics will be about creation and the big bang, evolution, age of the earth, whether the existence of God matters to everyday science (both functional and forensic), et cetera. I only want to debate someone who is truly qualified and knows about the subject. Bring your best.

Also, asking questions is highly encouraged, because CX is important to a debate. Please put all your questions in the same place so I can answer them easily.


Thanks to Con for initiating this debate. Con has defined God as the Judeo-Christian God. He also said the bible will be in discussion. I will present two scientific arguments refuting the God defined.

The Universe Never Began

God needs to be the cause of the universe. In order for this to be true, the universe must begin. It must at one time not have existed. Otherwise, God would not have been the creator, only a sustainer of something that has existed as long as he has. A clear definition of what it means to begin to exist is given by Christian Philosopher, William Lane Craig

e comes into being at t if and only if (i) e exists at t, (ii) t is the first time at which e exists, (iii) there is no state of affairs in the actual world in which e exists timelessly, and (iv) e’s existing at t is a tensed fact. [1]

This means most of the A theories of time are required for something to begin to exist. So, do theories of time in which the past and future exist hold weight? Experiments in quantum mechanics say yes. Particles can be entangled through time [2]. The present can affect the past and the past can be affected by the future, meaning they must all exist. This implies either the B theory of time or the moving theory of time, but these don’t fit the given definition. Other experiments show time is an internal phenomena from quantum entanglement [3]. An external observer would perceive all states of time.

Furthermore, time travel cannot happen for the universe to begin. Otherwise, the past and future would have to exist. But we have observed time dilation [4].

Take note, this does not reject current scientific models like the big bang. Under these theories of time the universe is indeed finite. However, it does not begin. It’s like inch one beginning on a ruler, or Canada beginning at its border.

To put this in a syllogism

1. If the Universe never began, God does not exist.

2. The Universe never began

C. Therefore, God does not exist.

Premise one is true by the definition of God. Premise two has just been justified. The conclusion follows.

The resolution is affirmed.

The Bible is wrong

The argument goes like so,

1. 2 Timothy 3:16 says “All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness,”

2. God is suppose to be perfect

3. His scripture is full of errors making it imperfect

4. A perfect God can't breath an imperfect book

C. Christianity is false

Proof of Premise 3

The bible seems to teach the out dated Geocentric model.

Joshua 10:12-13

12 Then spake Joshua to the Lord in the day when the Lord delivered up the Amorites before the children of Israel, and he said in the sight of Israel, Sun, stand thou still upon Gibeon; and thou, Moon, in the valley of Ajalon.

13 And the sun stood still, and the moon stayed, until the people had avenged themselves upon their enemies. Is not this written in the book of Jasher? So the sun stood still in the midst of heaven, and hasted not to go down about a whole day.

Many of tired to get around this by stating Joshua only said it appeared that way. However this is wrong for many reasons. First, Joshua asked God to stop the sun, not the earth. If we were speaking in an appearance manor we don't ask for the said appearance. Second, Habakkuk 3:11 states

"The sun and moon stood still in their habitation: at the light of thine arrows they went, and at the shining of thy glittering spear."

Clearly showing the belief that the sun itself stopped rotation.

Some have also tried to get around this by pointing out that the sun does rotate around the milky way. This is true, however it wouldn't have any affect on the earth's day, because if the sun moved or not, it still creates curvature in spacetime. Stating that both the sun and earth stopped would be wishful thinking, speculating with no scriptural support.

Alternatively one could say that Geocentrism is true. However this is shown wrong by many observable effects.

*Stellar parallax [5]

*Basic Gravity [6]

*Stellar aberration [7]

We also know the Earth rotates by the effects it produces. Like,

* Coriolis effect [8]

* Foucault's pendulum [9]

The resolution is affirmed.






[6] Curtis Wilson, "The Newtonian achievement in astronomy", pages 233–274




Debate Round No. 1


C1): God is Necessary to Science

Science, the pursuit of truth through the scientific method, is completely and utterly dependent on truth. Because of the human situation, there is "no picture- or theory-independent concept of reality." [1] Due to this, all that we can observe is all that we know. I promise you there are many things we do not know exist simply because we cannot observe them, yet. Our best evidence, even though it is our best evidence, may not really point to the truth. Here is an example: Ptolemy developed a theory called Geocentrism off of his best and most precise measurements of the universe. We know that the Earth revolves around the sun, but, in Ptolemy's time, all the evidence pointed to the "fact" that the universe revolves around earth. ALL the evidence pointed to this, until we gained a new way of acquiring information: the telescope. Galileo was able to offer evidence (for the first time) that the earth actually revolves around the sun. So, all science is dependent on truth, however, scientific evidence can point away from what is actually true, because science does not determine what is true. IF science does not determine what is true, then what does? Well an atheist would say there is no absolute truth, only reality and what is "experimental" truth. A theist (like me) would say, however, that there is absolute truth, and absolute truth is defined by God. SO, by definition, God cannot be in contradiction with science, no matter where the current scientific evidence is pointing, because current scientific evidence does not always point towards truth.

C2): Science is not a criterion for God

Following from my previous argument, science is not something that God needs to fit in to, because God controls what science is, not vice versa. Science is not necessary to prove the existence of God, because God knows that even if science unequivocally proved the existence of God, it is not what is necessary to convince someone to follow him. Science is not necessary to prove the existence of God, because people do not follow ideals because of any amount of science. Science is not necessary to prove the existence of God, because science is not enough. So, God decided that there is no way to "scientifically" prove whether he exists or not, because it is not enough to change someone's heart. The only thing that can change a person's heart is the Holy Spirit, and the Holy Spirit accomplishes this outside of science. So, don't blame my God for your science's inability to prove his existence.

C3): Rebuttals

A. The Universe Never Began
i. God is outside of time. My opponent argues that the universe never began, because time dilation proves that all time is existent simultaneously. However, that is in no way contradictory to the existence of God. Part A: God sees all time at once. According to my opponent: "An external observer would perceive all states of time." God can perceive all states of time at once. (1 John 3:19-20) God knows everything, including every choice that you will make. That may seem against free will if God already knows what actions you are going to perform. That leads me to point B: There are two types of knowledge. The first type of knowledge is to just know something. The second form is knowing where to find a piece of information. God has access to all knowledge, every secret, every yearning of your heart. And, God can contain all of this knowledge at the same time. However, he does not need to "remember" information, he just has to "remember" where he can get it. So, there is no contradiction between God knowing the future and free will, nor is there a contradiction between God and current scientific evidence.

ii. No full conclusion. You do present evidence that says that 1. the definition of beginning, 2. particles can be entangled, 3. An outside observer sees a static environment 4. time dilation exists. However, these do not contradict because: B-theory does not say that the universe cannot be created (because if a person makes a pot, the pot comes into existence, but does not begin; creation and beginning are not the same thing); God exists everywhere inside the universe, and outside the universe (just as if you stick your hand in the pot, you exist in the universe of the pot, but you are still outside of the pot); God does see both a static and time-driven environment; and time dilation has nothing to do with the existence of God (also, time dilation can only move you forward in time at a greater or lesser rate, not backwards, that's why it is not called time travel).

To put this in a syllogism:

1. Beginning requires time to flow in a static line.

2. B-theory does not allow for time to flow in a static line.

3. God created the universe

4. Creating does not mean beginning

C. God can create the universe whether B-Theory is true or not.

B. The Bible is Wrong
i. Premise 3: The Bible teaches us about science in the time of Joshua. When talking about reality, Stephen Hawking says that "there is no picture- or theory-independent concept of reality." This means that what reality is, is all that we can sense. At the time Joshua 10:12-13 was written, the only sensible information pointed to the idea that the sun revolved around the earth. Therefore, Joshua's reality was only that which he possibly could have observed, and in that reality, the sun did revolve around the Earth. Don't hear this and believe that I'm saying that the Bible is not the words of God. See, God breathed does not mean God written. Every single exact word is not a specific word of God, such as when you take notes on a lecture, you don't write down exactly what your teacher states, you are just writing all of the main ideas, so that you are prepared for the test. So, the idea that God is trying to convey through Joshua is not that of a scientific fact, but that of an observation. If the earth stopped rotating, you would not say "Oh my! The earth has stopped rotating!" You would be much more prone to say "The sun looks like it hasn't moved in a while... (a bit later)... the sun has definitely not moved, because the shadows aren't moving... (even later)... all right, what's going on here, why isn't the sun moving?" because, from our perspective, the sun is what moves, and not the earth. Joshua really did ask God to stop the sun in its movement, because the Amorites worshipped the sun, and to see the sun obey God was really their god calling himself not god. So, in all practicality, the sun did stop moving, and the moon stopped.

ii. I'm going to turn this argument, however, into something in my favor. Many cultures have myths about a day that was longer than all the rest (or a night for the Maya and Maori). For example, the Greeks have a myth about the sun chariot moving too close to the earth, and the day being longer than all the others. The Maya, however, have a story about a night that was longer than all the others. In these other religions, this was just a random event. In Judaism (and Christianity), this event has meaning, and has a purpose. So, all these other religions tell us that it happened, and the Bible tells us the real reason, because God made "The sun and moon [stand] still in their habitation."

In conclusion, God is a necessary part of science, because he determines what science is. Also, God does not need to be scientifically provable, simply because it will have no effect. B-theory, which is supported by scientific evidence, does not conflict with the existence of God, because to create and to begin are not the same thing. Finally, the Bible is not wrong, because it is the pure and perfect word of a pure and perfect God, and there are no contradictions between what is true and what is taught in the Bible.

[1] quote by Stephen Hawking


Con’s C1: God is necessary for science

Con says God is necessary for science because science depends on absolute truth. Which only the theist can account for. However, truth can be from the nature of something. The very nature of existence contains logic , like existence = existence, it’s not existence and nonexistence at the same time, ect. This is the basis of absolute truth. It can easily be accounted for on an atheistic worldview. However Con just asserts God is the the creator of truth. He does nothing to demonstrate that, making his case a bare assertion fallacy.

Con’s C2: Science as a criterion for God

This isn’t a contention at all. It’s a rebuttal to an argument I never made. It doesn’t matter if science doesn’t need to prove God to convince someone or if there is no scientific evidence in support of God. All that matters is if scientific evidence contradicts God. For example, many people think homeopathy works. It isn’t necessary for someone to be convinced scientifically that it does, nor has science proven homeopathy works. This doesn’t mean homeopathy doesn’t contradict current scientific evidence. Con’s entire C2 is an irrelevant straw man fallacy.

The Universe Never Began

Con’s first rebuttal is an absolute strawman. I never made the argument that God cannot be free and omniscient. Nothing I said suggested it either. His only other argument is that something can be created, but not begin. Christian Philosopher Dr. William Lane Craig disagrees.

“On a B-Theory of time, the universe does not in fact come into being or become actual at the Big Bang; it just exists tenselessly as a four-dimensional space-time block that is finitely extended in the earlier than direction. If time is tenseless, then the universe never really comes into being, and, therefore, the quest for a cause of its coming into being is misconceived." [1]

He has also said

“[On a B theory of time] There is in the actual world no state of affairs of God existing alone without the space-time universe. God never really brings the universe into being; as a whole it co-exists timelessly with Him.” [2]

So, I would negate premise 4 as being incoherent. The definition of creating is

Bring (something) into existence: [3]

So Con is saying the universe didn’t begin, but it was brought into existence. Nothing is ontologically created on the B theory of time either, otherwise “(ii) t is the first time at which e exists” would be true.

However, all I have to do is cite Genesis 1:1

“In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.”

The bible itself says things begin. Furthermore, time dilation would show the past exists. Because to a future clock in space, the clocks on earth are in the past.

The Bible is Wrong

Con here says the bible is just making an observation of what happened. However, Con would have to reject the bible. 1 Timothy 3:16 says

“All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness,”

If the bible speaks in an untrue observational matter, then it’s not useful for teaching. Furthermore my other verse is ignored. Habakkuk 3:11 states

"The sun and moon stood still in their habitation: at the light of thine arrows they went, and at the shining of thy glittering spear."

The sun doesn’t live in the sky, it lives in space.

Con’s rebuttal is an ad hoc moving goal post fallacy. No matter what scientific error is brought up, Con could use the exact same excuse. If the bible said “The moon is made of cheese” he could say it was just an observation.

Your argument of long day stories would only work if you show the all originated from the exact same time period. I couldn’t find a date on either of the stories Con talked about. Although he claims all of these other religions claim it just happened. This is false. The Maori say a man named Maui stopped the sun [5]. He directly contradicts himself, because he says why the Greek story has the sun stop, although I couldn’t find the day slowing in the story of the greek Phaethon [6]. Furthermore, how would all of these sun stopping commands just happen to correlate with everyone stopping the sun at once? Why assume the biblical God did this and not the gods or people of other cultures?

Con’s first argument is refuted. His second argument is irrelevant. His rebuttal to my argument is based on misunderstandings and his rebuttal against my second is full of ad hocs.

My arguments remain standing.

[1]Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology pp 183-184






Debate Round No. 2


davidmgreen forfeited this round.


Con forfeited.

*Sad face*
Debate Round No. 3


davidmgreen forfeited this round.


Alright then.....
Debate Round No. 4


davidmgreen forfeited this round.


davidmgreen you instigated this debate.
But when it came to post, you arrived late.
Now I'm writing this poem
Oh your FF would upset David Bohm
Roses are red
I've never seen a violet, so I'm not sure what color they are.
I'm going to drown my sorrows in a bar.
But I'm too young.
I'll just play it the cow dung.
This poem is getting off topic.
Davidmgreen was too busy sipping his drink in the tropic.
Why you no post?
Perhaps you became a ghost.
That would be sad.
I'm going to end this poem quick because the readers are probably getting mad
Don't lie
and who the hell is fluttershy?
Debate Round No. 5
11 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by n7 2 years ago
Yeah, it's too bad how often people forfeit.
Posted by Fanath 2 years ago
Not a very surprising outcome to be honest.
Posted by L.D 2 years ago
The way one interprets the Bible is the most important thing here. However, I do not want to say much as i am not sure if the debate is over or not. I will return with my conclusion once it is in fact finished.
Posted by davidmgreen 2 years ago
Start in round 1
Posted by n7 2 years ago
Can I make my arguments i n round 1? Or is it for acceptance only?
Posted by Hematite12 2 years ago
Oh. I might accept then.

Thanks :)
Posted by davidmgreen 2 years ago
That's part of the debate, the scientific and historical validity and authority of the Bible
Posted by Hematite12 2 years ago
Are we assuming the bible to be taken literally for the purposes of the debate?
Posted by davidmgreen 2 years ago
Fanath God being the Judeo-Christian God of the Bible
Posted by Fanath 2 years ago
Define god.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by XLAV 2 years ago
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro was able to rebut Con's arguments and Pro's arguments were unrebutted and misunderstood by Con. Argument points goes to Pro. Con also forfeited round 3-5. Conduct goes to Pro. Pro provided better and more reliable sources. Con's only source was a Stephen Hawking's quote. Sources goes to Pro. Spelling and grammar is a tie.