The Instigator
Feyerabend
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
BethM
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

There is no research in science to back or deny the statement 'God Exists'

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: 5/2/2015 Category: Science
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 311 times Debate No: 74665
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (3)
Votes (0)

 

Feyerabend

Pro

Science has not geared up to prove or disprove the existence of God.
Religious belief is held to be OK as long as it does not interfere with scientific work.
Many areas of ordinary language lie outside the scientific domain. Terms like public good, free-speech culpability dream content also fall outside the scientific domain.
If there are no canons within science for dealing with religious statements how can science pronounce such statement false.
BethM

Con

I believe that their is proof through science that their is a God, and their is no maybe. It is either a definite Yes or a definite No. You will have to chose.
Debate Round No. 1
Feyerabend

Pro

Feyerabend forfeited this round.
BethM

Con

BethM forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
Feyerabend

Pro

Feyerabend forfeited this round.
BethM

Con

BethM forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
Feyerabend

Pro

The question I am raising concerns the scope of science, traditionally it has been held that science is to do with the material world. I have no problem with the idea that science should have total reign over the material. Where science does less well is in areas like first person cognition, or indeed the existence of non-physical beings. Religion posits lie outside the realm of science. It is right for Scientist to claim that religion has no place in materialist science but is it within the scope of science to state that' 'The Mona Lisa is aesthetically pleasing' is a true proposition and the proposition 'There is a God' is not.

Dawkin;s claim that 'there is no God.' is not of itself objectionable.
His view of Genesis misses the mark. Genesis is a later work than Exodus, It describes the need for Law hence all the focus on the sub moral behaviour of people prior to the exodus. The patriarchs of the Old testament are not regarded as examples to be copied in any way. All that they are held up as is people who have shown obedience to 'I am' the essential giver of the way things are, the Israelites were considered atheist by the Egyptians because they would not name their God, worship gods in any recognisable way, or accept the idea of an after-life. The laws were deemed to capture the best way dealing with reality. The Judaic world view is that in parting from the law, from addressing the world as objective, rather than the subject of the whimsy of a pantheon of Gods it was possible to thrive and minimise suffering. The Israelites blamed themselves for departing from the law when things went wrong, mistakenly attributing ignorance or rejection of the law as the cause of plagues and earthquakes.

Dawkin's may be right that science is better able to better promote happiness and guide behaviour, than religion but the original basis for the development of religion is a reach towards of how any why we should live in an objective
and unforgiving world. I for one would claim ethical right not to be the subject of a large-scale social experiment.

I would suggest that whether the is a God is a question that requires an assessment of God-talk the language game of religion and the material scientific language game of doing science. Dawkin's idea that the existence God could even be assigned a scientific probability is question-begging, there never can be a scientific proof of the existence or non-existence of God , 'God' does not lie within the scope of science and indeed it would be offensive to the Abrahamic religions to say so.

God is not a material force and is not a material entity.
The proper arena for such a debate lies within a more general rationalism.

I am a quietist because I do not see how this debate may be progressed and have difficulty in even understanding the meaning of swathes of religious statements. On the other hand I seem to understand some. Some statement such as 'The bible is the literal word of God the sole arbiter of truth' I believe I understand and take as rubbish the Bible is not a science book. When you say that you have to choice you are making a semantic statement about the area of debate, You are claiming to wit that bi-valency applies here what is your theory of truth and what is the on which you claim bi-valence applies here.
Wittgenstein a majot force behind the Logical Positivist movement argued 'That whereof we cannot speak thereof we must remain silent'. The limits of language are the limits of thought and vice versa..
BethM

Con

BethM forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by missmedic 2 years ago
missmedic
The argument to ignorance seems to be more seductive when it can prey on wishful thinking. People who want to believe in immortality, for example, may be more prone to think that the lack of proof to the contrary of their desired belief is somehow relevant to supporting it.
In science, you can only falsify something completely, not confirm it completely. Something is judged to be true because it stands to the test of falsifiability extensively enough to be unassailable. But failing one single test disqualifies a specific principle from being accepted.
Posted by debate_power 2 years ago
debate_power
Which God? The one of the Bible? I might be able to debate this.
Posted by vi_spex 2 years ago
vi_spex
god must physically exist in order for there to be any evidence
No votes have been placed for this debate.