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

The question of God's existence is a scientific question.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/18/2016 Category: Science
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 482 times Debate No: 93855
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (4)
Votes (0)




I for one see the question of whether or not God exists as a scientific question. I think that this question should be taught in science classes using a scientific approach. That faith based or religious arguments should not be allowed to interfere with science.

In brief, religious arguments and faith based arguments should be kept out of the science class room while simultaneously the question of God existence should be looked through a scientific lens.


Hello, I accept your debate on this topic. As one who is of religious faith, I say that no, the question of whether or not God exists is not a scientific question.

In order to know if it is a scientific question, first you must know what classifies as a scientific question.

This is what classifies as a scientific question:
1: Does it have a real answer (meaning the question is not some paradox)

2: Can it be tested? (Through the scientific method)

3: Can it be proven wrong?

4: What kind of data can you collect

I will ask the question "Does God exist?" In order to see if it can fit into these questions

1: Does have a real answer

Yes, it does, you can come to a real conclusion if you are able to test this question.

2: Can it be tested

No, the existence of God cannot be tested, as classified in Abrahamic Theism is a being that is "Not-physical" (Spiritual), therefore, cannot be studded with physical tools and measurements. There is no way to test measure or see God.

3: Can it be proven wrong?

No, saying "God does not exists" is an irrational conclusion, because there is no way to test it, therefore, no way to prove wrong, just as the statement "God does exist" is an irrational statement because there is no way for humans of the physical plane to study a claimed to be Spiritual being. It is an unfalisifiable statement.

What kind of data can you collect?

Again, since you cannot test a being that is claimed to be Spiritual, there is no way to measure, or test the existence of God, therefore, there is no data to collect.

"Does God exist" is a question that should not be asked with an objective answer, since no one, even believers like myself, are entirely sure that God exists, they simply believe him to exist, which is why the question "Does God exist" is not the right question to ask, because the answer to that question must be absolute, and there is no way to apply an absolute to what is unknown by its very nature. The right question to ask is "Is the belief in God rational", because the question has a tone of individualism, which is what Abrahamic Theism is focused on.
Debate Round No. 1


My opponent took an interesting angle. Let's take the example of ghosts and spirits. There are ghost hunters, who attempt to put a scientific or evidence based approach to spiritual questions. Using cameras and machines in lieu of a holy person and ritual. Then, there is ESP (extra sensory perception) and science . [1] Impact, events that we would have surely saw as supernatural in the stone age, now have scientific explanations.

You could label a disease as spiritual in cause, but science often reveals the disease is caused by a pathogen. In fact, science has made great leaps and bounds over many so called spiritual or faith based fields.

Next, lets assume for a second that God is corporal in nature. Just as diseases were labeled spiritual, but yet had a physical presence in the form of microorganisms. Well, how would we look for any being with a physical form, lets say unicorns for example?

Well, we would look everywhere. Although we can't prove that unicorns don't exist, we can say we looked in locations x, y, and z and found no unicorns. This adds incremental evidence that unicorns don't exist. Just looking in your basement doesn't help much, but if seven billion people look in their basement and find no unicorns, this evidence adds up quickly.

Alright, how about Heaven, Hell, angels, demons, and so forth? Surely, they must have some sort of physical presence, despite what a spiritual person may claim. Well, we do the exact same search we did for God and unicorns.

Then, science looks at how humans got here, Abiogenesis and evolution, and find contradictory evidence between many religious beliefs. Science doesn't stop there, next scientists look at the big bang theory, multiverse theory, and evolutionary psychology. Soon we have a pretty good idea scientifically of why humans belief in God in the first place and how the universe was created.

Yes, absolutely this is a scientific question, we should look for evidence of God existing and explain just how little evidence there is to students. We may even find aliens who claim "yo we helped evolution along." Yet, the best way to find these aliens is through science. Even if the aliens don't exist, we can still say we tried methods of communication A, B, and C, yet no aliens responded.

This is a long winded answer to your question "2: Can it be tested

No, the existence of God cannot be tested, as classified in Abrahamic Theism is a being that is "Not-physical" (Spiritual), therefore, cannot be studded with physical tools and measurements. There is no way to test measure or see God."

My answer is if God exists, God may have a physical presence. The best way to find out if God has a physical presence is science.



I can see the angle that you argue from. You present my argument as Ignorance Fallacy, and you argue that there must be a way to test the existence of God, we just have not found it yet.

"Alright, how about Heaven, Hell, angels, demons, and so forth? Surely, they must have some sort of physical presence, despite what a spiritual person may claim."

To the religious person God, and all of the other things mentioned above do not have physical manifestations of any kind in the universe. No Abrahamic text has identified any of the above to have any sort of physical presence.

This presents the problem of testing the existence of God or any other object claimed to be spiritual: There is just nothing to look for, there is no start.

Where unicorns and other kind of things like ghosts are said to be summoned and attracted to the physical plane by some sort of ritual, God, Satan, angels and demons are only said to exist in a manifestation that effects the individual's emotion, where they are "brought great joy and peace" by the presence of God and "given great fear and anger: by the presence of the "enemy" (demons, evil presence).

The terms to try to see if God or any other spiritual thing claimed to exist by Abrahamic theism is just too ambiguous to pinpoint and be able to test, no matter how advanced we are in technology, or science.
Debate Round No. 2


Your texts make many claims, but are they true? What evidence do you have to back up the claims within the texts? Is any of the evidence scientific?

Scientists are interested to know whether or not God exists. The reason being is if God created the universe this would explain a lot. Also, if God didn't create the universe this would also explain a lot. The point is whether of not God created the universe profoundly affects science. This is a question science can't just ignore. Why, wouldn't scientist look for answers about the nature of the universe?

In conclusion, scientists need to look for evidence if God exists or not because the answer profoundly affects science and the way the universe works. Don't confuse this issue with religion and faith based approaches. Students in science class should be taught about what evidence and lack of evidence science has on God. Thanks for the debate.


The claims I make are based on what the nature of what something "Spiritual" actually is; and is the reason why there is no evidence of Ghosts, Unicorns, or God, and cannot be tested is because things that are spiritual are intangible, meaning there is no way to detect these things, under any circumstances, by any physical means; even by tools that enhance physical senses such as telescopes or "special ghost cameras" to be more extreme.

The reason why spottings of ghosts, unicorns and God have been debunked is because they are too ambiguous to pinpoint, and to actually prove as real, as I said before.

The question of whether or not God exists is irrelevant to science because science would continue to study the universe as it does now. There would be no changes to how science approaches and answer's it's questions. The proven/unproven existence of God makes no change to how the universe functions as it does now, so the scientific method would not change.

Science teachers should not waste their time trying to answer a dead-end question of something that cannot be pinpointed, instead of focusing on learning what can be and has been proven with solid evidence.

The existence (or rationalism of the existence) of God is a question that is, and should be left as, a question for Philosophy, and has no place in the Physical Sciences.

It was very fun debating with you, thank you.
Debate Round No. 3
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by missmedic 2 years ago
When a scientist says "God does not exist," they mean something similar to when they say "aether does not exist," "psychic powers do not exist," or "life does not exist on the moon." All such statements are casual short-hand for a more elaborate and technical statement: "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 2 years ago
nothing to do with evidence
Posted by 42lifeuniverseverything 2 years ago
*science didn't prove the atom
Posted by 42lifeuniverseverything 2 years ago
This makes no sense and here is why.

Science explains things. It doesn't prove them. For instance, science did prove the atom existed because absolutely no one knew it existed until it was discovered. Instead, science explained why molecules acted in a certain way by using the atom as an explanation.

Science cannot prove anything, let alone God's existence. So the real conclusion using the scientific method that a science class would come to is "wow this world is complicated, and we cannot prove why it exists".

No votes have been placed for this debate.