The Instigator
Alexander_The_Great
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Leftii
Con (against)
Winning
7 Points

There is absolutely no scientific proof of a God's existence.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+3
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...
Leftii
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/12/2011 Category: Religion
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,453 times Debate No: 19252
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (13)
Votes (1)

 

Alexander_The_Great

Pro

Surprisingly, many people say that there is proof that a God exists. I see it everywhere.
Pro will argue-There is no proof of a God's existence.
Con will argue- that there is proof of some form of a deity.

Here is a definition of proof.
Proof- evidence sufficient to establish a thing as true, or to produce belief in its truth.
Leftii

Con

I would like Pro to define "God", as God is the word used to describe a creator as opposed to a divine creator. As Pro has not defined it, I have, by default, won the debate, as proving that there is a scientific creator, e.g. gravity, is a simple task. However, I shall be lenient and use the definition of divine creator.

First, some questions:
1) What created the universe?
2) If the big bang, what created that?
3) If Pro knows about M-theory, what created gravity?

If there is an area in science that is untouched, the most accepted theory explaining that area is considered the proved theory as it contains necessity.
:Theory -> Evidence -> Necessity -> Acceptance -> Proof*:
Divine creation is necessary, as it provides a theory which fills in an untouched area of science; what created the universe?

If my opposition can provide an alternative theory, which contains necessity, then divine creation would be disproved and the area would be either theory's to be accepted.

*Whether this can really be considered proof is debatable. What is proof? Is it acceptance or is it certainty? In this debate, we can assume that proof is acceptance (note that religious acceptance is different to scientific acceptance), as if proof were certainty, it would be impossible to prove any theory.
Debate Round No. 1
Alexander_The_Great

Pro

Alexander_The_Great forfeited this round.
Leftii

Con

Unfortunately, Pro has forfeited, leaving me with nothing to base my arguments on. Since they have gone undisputed, I am on a "home run for glory" as it were.
Debate Round No. 2
Alexander_The_Great

Pro

Alexander_The_Great forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
13 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by KRFournier 5 years ago
KRFournier
God chooses to act according to his will. He is perfect in righteousness and knowledge, so when he acts differently than expected, it should not automatically be deduced that he is not there. He is not a lever that can be repeatedly pulled to get the same result. When he does not act as expected, it is perfectly rational to conclude that he had good reason to act differently and that the said action is consistent with his nature.

Indeed, if we're being scientific about things, controlled experiments simply attempt to confirm a hypothesis. If God does not smite you for spilling seed, it simply shows the hypothesis--God smites all who spill seed--to be incorrect. That's it. It says nothing about His existence.
Posted by Ragnar_Rahl 5 years ago
Ragnar_Rahl
Explain the consistency of le seedspilling policy, or le prayer response.
Posted by KRFournier 5 years ago
KRFournier
Consistent, yes. Mechanical, no.
Posted by Ragnar_Rahl 5 years ago
Ragnar_Rahl
"You are applying a system that requires uniformity of behavior against something with a will"
That argument doesn't work when God is supposed to be perfect. Perfect implies consistent.
Posted by KRFournier 5 years ago
KRFournier
Both of you just made my point for me. You are applying a system that requires uniformity of behavior against something with a will. "God didn't automatically do what we expected, so he must not be there."

It's the wrong tool for the job. I'm not saying that science doesn't have it's place, but it is disingenuous to say that only science has the final say on the matter, especially considering that metaphysics falls largely within the domain of philosophy.
Posted by Kinesis 5 years ago
Kinesis
"Okay, so how do you do a "controlled experiment" to confirm a proposition regarding the existence of God?"

I recall a controlled experiment studying the effects of prayer on sick patients. As I recall, it didn't turn out too well for you guys. :P
Posted by Ragnar_Rahl 5 years ago
Ragnar_Rahl
For example, if the God is described as smiting people for spilling their seed on the ground, spill your seed on the ground with no more justification than the other guy had and see what happens. :)
Posted by Leftii 5 years ago
Leftii
Unlucky Cameron.
Posted by KRFournier 5 years ago
KRFournier
Okay, so how do you do a "controlled experiment" to confirm a proposition regarding the existence of God?
Posted by Ragnar_Rahl 5 years ago
Ragnar_Rahl
Science is not the "Study of nature" but a method for studying propositions by controlled experiments. Druidic mysticism no doubt attempts to "Study nature" but it is not scientific.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by KRFournier 5 years ago
KRFournier
Alexander_The_GreatLeftiiTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeit.