The Instigator
SNP1
Con (against)
Winning
3 Points
The Contender
logicalhuman
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points

The virgin birth is supported by science

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 1 vote the winner is...
SNP1
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/24/2014 Category: Religion
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 954 times Debate No: 46598
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (15)
Votes (1)

 

SNP1

Con

Pregnancy happens through sexual reproduction, not asexual reproduction. The virgin Mary would not have been able to get pregnant as her egg would not have been fertilized by sperm. Hypothetically, if it was possible for a virgin to give birth she would be unable to give birth to a son as she lacks the needed Y chromosome.

Rules:
1. Burden of Proof is on Pro
2. No new arguments in round 3
logicalhuman

Pro

Im not exactly sure what your position is on this debate. Here is my point of view. According to the bible, Mary was impregnated by god.No male (Y chromosome) was needed because the pregnancy was a "miracle".This debate is pretty abstract and subjective because it is based on what the christian faith believes. So in conclusion, The virgin birth is theoretically possible if you believe in God.
Debate Round No. 1
SNP1

Con

I am con, therefore I do not think science supports the virgin birth. You also say that there wouldn't need to be a Y chromosome, but the Y chromosome is required in order for a fetus to develop into a male, therefore there needs to be a Y chromosome present in the developing fetus. If there was no Y chromosome then the fetus would only be able to develop into a female. You also say that the debate is abstract and subjective because it is determined on the Christian faith, but that is not true. The question is not whether the virgin birth did happen, but whether the virgin birth is supported scientifically. Since God is not scientifically supported you cannot use God to scientifically support the virgin birth.
logicalhuman

Pro

Ok you're obviously thinking about this logically and naturally. From the natural mind standpoint yes a virgin pregnancy and birth is impossible. However the circumstances under which this conception occurred were supernatural. It was on purpose that Jesus be born to a virgin because if not, he would have had those natural (Adamic) sins which would make him unpure.So, God provided a miracle pregnancy for his son to be born in the human world .

We will never truly know if the birth was even real or if it was a story and that's why to look at it and say that it could happen takes faith in miracles and the power of god.
Debate Round No. 2
SNP1

Con

"you're obviously thinking about this logically and naturally"
The topic of this debate is that the virgin birth is supported scientifically, you took the side of pro and were supposed to show that it was scientifically supported.

"From the natural mind standpoint yes a virgin pregnancy and birth is impossible.. However the circumstances under which this conception occurred were supernatural."
This means that you agree with me that the virgin birth is not scientifically supported.

" It was on purpose that Jesus be born to a virgin because if not, he would have had those natural (Adamic) sins which would make him unpure."
This is not relevant to the debate topic.

"God provided a miracle pregnancy for his son to be born in the human world ."
This shows once more that you agree with me that the birth is not scientifically supported.

"We will never truly know if the birth was even real or if it was a story and that's why to look at it and say that it could happen takes faith in miracles and the power of god."
This is not relevant to the debate topic.

Pro has been unable to bring up supporting scientific evidence that the virgin birth would be possible. I have brought up that people reproduce by sexual reproduction and that a son would need a Y chromosome, which a woman cannot supply.
logicalhuman

Pro

All of of my previous comments were relevant. Science is explanations for natural things. The virgin birth is supernatural. You are trying to discredit the bible by saying that a virgin birth is scientifically impossible. It is scientifically correct that the virgin birth is impossible, science disproves god as well. You're basically saying " hey this apple tree isn't real , does anybody have any scientific evidence that the fruit can exist?" .. In conclusion the virgin birth = scientifically impossible . Science = logical sense of the brain. The brain=irreligious.
Debate Round No. 3
15 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by SNP1 2 years ago
SNP1
You would have to prove that God can do unscientific things then.
Posted by Jifpop09 2 years ago
Jifpop09
Of course its not supported by science. God can do unscientific things, which if you get deep, that can be science within itself.
Posted by SNP1 2 years ago
SNP1
logicalhuman accepted the debate where he would have to argue for the science behind the virgin birth. He has said that the virgin birth cannot be backed by science, therefore he lost this debate.
Posted by SNP1 2 years ago
SNP1
The_Gatherer, this was about the virgin birth of Jesus. What you have stated would almost certainly not have happened during that time period.
Posted by The_Gatherer 2 years ago
The_Gatherer
It is completely possible for someone to become pregnant without having intercourse, however it is also very unlikely and rare. Nevertheless there are ways in which sperm could easily be transferred to the correct area for it to happen, and it can and does happen.
Posted by Jonbonbon 2 years ago
Jonbonbon
Well, now we know that the person who accepted wasn't thinking purely on scientific grounds.
Posted by SNP1 2 years ago
SNP1
Which means that the debate should not have been accepted unless the person knew what points to make. There are hypotheses about how a virgin can get pregnant, however none of them have evidence yet and none of them can produce a son. I made this debate topic because I know about the side I am arguing, but I know I do not know everything. I was hoping someone whom was aware of some scientific evidence that I am not aware of would be able to argue his/her side. If the person that accepts the debate does know about any scientific evidence to support his/her side then I am not to blame for making this debate topic, they are for accepting it.
Posted by Jonbonbon 2 years ago
Jonbonbon
It's not what I think; it's what science says. Without a maximally great being that can interfere with natural processes, there's no way pro can win this debate.
Posted by SNP1 2 years ago
SNP1
Jakeross6: well someone did accept it.

Jonbonbon: This is a scientific debate about a religious topic. God has not been proved scientifically, therefore God cannot be used unless evidence is brought up that scientifically proves God's existence. It is only stupid if you think the virgin birth cannot be scientifically supported.
Posted by Jonbonbon 2 years ago
Jonbonbon
This is a stupid debate topic. For pro to win, you have to assume God exists or pro has to prove that. If con is to win, it must be assumed that God does not exist or con has to debate it. The sides you can pick end up being a truism depending on what the given conclusion on the existence of God is. Thus, this is a stupid debate topic.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Zarroette 2 years ago
Zarroette
SNP1logicalhumanTied
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:30 
Reasons for voting decision: The resolution involved arguing whether the birth is supported by science. Con argues that it defies science, Pro counters by arguing that the birth is supernatural. But then Pro argues, in later rounds, that the birth isn't natural, yet science deals with proving natural things, essentially negating the resolution.