The Instigator
EthyWoo
Con (against)
Winning
5 Points
The Contender
ViceRegent
Pro (for)
Losing
4 Points

Without The Christian God Science is "not possible"

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 3 votes the winner is...
EthyWoo
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/27/2016 Category: Religion
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 667 times Debate No: 85625
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (21)
Votes (3)

 

EthyWoo

Con

VinceRegent I challenge you to this debate due to your statement and a poll, and i quote "Without the creator-Christian god science is not possible"

I now invite you to defend your view.

You can have round 1 to accept AND make your point.

Statements must be backed up with logic of some kind (obviously)

Accept the challenge and prove your point.
ViceRegent

Pro

Without the Christian God, you cannot know if your senses provide you an accurate picture of reality nor can you know if nature is uniform, both of which are prereuisits for science to have any meaning.
Debate Round No. 1
EthyWoo

Con

Before I start my rebuttal allow me to further clarify your point.
Please answer all questions.

1 - How does god (in particular the Christian god) help you to know if your senses provide an accurate picture of reality?

2 - How does god help to figure that nature is uniform?

3 - Why the Christian god? why not the Muslim god or any other god?
ViceRegent

Pro

Because the Creator has made reality understandable through our senses to carry out His command that we dominate it.

Because the Creator has made nature uniform.

Because there is no other God than the Christian God and only the Christian God deals with Creation in a comprehensive philosophical sense.
Debate Round No. 2
EthyWoo

Con

Okay well.

1 - You where NOT born believing in god, this much is certain, you learned of god at some point in your life, whether it be through reading the bible, going to church, learning of god from your parents etc. the thing is Vince that you learned of god THROUGH your senses. (sight) if you read the bible, (hearing) if your parents talked to you about god, (sense of touch and feeling) if you "felt" or "discovered" god.

This means that your whole argument has turned back on itself, you cannot say that your knowledge of god isn't a completely solipsist view. therefore you cannot say with impunity that "god" can tell you that your senses are true and accurate.

2 - "Because the Creator has made nature uniform" Which you can only say after consulting your senses which i have just shown cannot be relied upon (based on your original argument) god or no god.

3 - You know about your gods description of creation because you consulted your sense of sight and read this information (i would presume) in the bible. again your argument falls to pieces.

Somebody who believes in god is just as able to be buying into solipsism. believing in god dosnt diss include you and make your senses any more valid, because you discovered god through those senses in the first place.

I have successfully rebutted your claim and await you reply.
ViceRegent

Pro

1. If you wish to assert that you are no longer arguing against the Christian God who states the opposite. Do you wish to argue against a non-Christian god, fine, but then you lose the debate against me.

2, Is that true? Prove it? And you err. God communites His truth through nature and spiritual means. The fact that you are dead to the spiritual things does not mean they do not exist.

3. No, I know because God revealed this spiritually to His children.

But you have departed the debate. Assume God does not exist. You cannot raationally know if your senses are trustworthy and that nature is unform.
Debate Round No. 3
EthyWoo

Con

You can assert things but this dose not make them true. where dose god state the opposite? in the book which you use your senses to read. don't straw man me i Am arguing against your god.

"Through nature", you interact with nature using your senses.
"Through the spiritual" is quite remarkable that you ask me, no you tell me to "prove it" yet you then basically tell me i cannot understand how YOU get your information because I am "dead to the spiritual" that is major hypocrisy and again a personal attack which you are fast becoming known for on this site I dare say.

okay you just "know" because god told you so. with that logic i just know your wrong because budda told me so, your argument is nonsensical and ridiculous.

I have shown that god makes no difference to the proof of our senses and therefore that god has no bearing on science.
I rebutted every claim you made and you dodged my points and claim me being ignorant.
Game over, feel free to say what you wish you have lost this debate. I wonder how the voting will play out.
ViceRegent

Pro

Unfortunately, you refuse to engage the very debte you asked for, chosing instead red herrings based on your ignorance of the Christian faith. You continue to be unable to tell me how you rationally know that your senses paint an accurate picture of reality or how you know nature if unform without God. Given this, my argument stands. You lose.
Debate Round No. 4
21 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by missmedic 1 year ago
missmedic
Lost again did yea. Maybe it's your lack of argument.
http://www.sfu.ca...
Posted by whiteflame 1 year ago
whiteflame
*******************************************************************
>Reported vote: Jevinigh// Mod action: Removed<

4 points to Con (Conduct, Arguments). Reasons for voting decision: I wasn't impressed with Ethywoo's performance but Pro just gave the tired all theist-2-step in regards to knowing the spiritual. I consider it that Ethywoo made the only real attempt at debating.

[*Reason for removal*] (1) The voter doesn't explain conduct. (2) The voter has to justify giving points to one side and not just state why they didn't give points to the other. That requires analyzing the specific argument(s) of Con, which the voter didn't do.
************************************************************************
Posted by canis 1 year ago
canis
OK, this dude could not prove me wrong...
Posted by ViceRegent 1 year ago
ViceRegent
Ok, this dude had three chances to prove his claim and failed every time. Moving on.
Posted by canis 1 year ago
canis
Hi. That is you arguing against proof...
Posted by ViceRegent 1 year ago
ViceRegent
Does this dude not know how to make an argument? Good grief.

I am willing to wage big bucks he has never even seen the inside of a college science or philosophy classroom, let alone have studied the issue.
Posted by canis 1 year ago
canis
Well. All science. You could start with Newtons first law..
Posted by ViceRegent 1 year ago
ViceRegent
Still awaiting proof, knowing that that which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
Posted by canis 1 year ago
canis
Logic. Cornflakes are no relevant to snowstorms...Prove it..
Posted by ViceRegent 1 year ago
ViceRegent
Prove it.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by condeelmaster 1 year ago
condeelmaster
EthyWooViceRegentTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: My basic reasoning here is this: Pro had the burden of proof. Pro's argument was based on belief, which is obviously not logical, thus his argument is invalid. Then, Pro wasn't successful in proving his stance. Ergo, Pro lost the debate. Con arguments were almost not existent, but the burden of proof was in Pro's hands. I feel there was no real argument from neither of the parties. Although Con had some interesting ideas, He didn't give an argument for them. Both competitor were basically saying "this is true because this is true". The conduct point goes to Con because he was more respectful. Pro was hostile and violent in his speech.
Vote Placed by 64bithuman 1 year ago
64bithuman
EthyWooViceRegentTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Certainly not the finest defence of either side - but certainly EthyWoo was at fault, spending much of the debate throwing out questions and diverting away from the question at hand. Was the debate about the act of 'coming to faith'? No. Was the debate about the faith claim at all? Con spins his tires for four rounds while Pro simply defends a position that Con barely tries to attack. As somebody who regularly argues Con on this point - I must say this was very poorly argued. I'd like to invite Pro to debate me on this topic if he wants a better fight. Spelling and grammar declined slowly on both sides.
Vote Placed by Bolas 1 year ago
Bolas
EthyWooViceRegentTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:10 
Reasons for voting decision: Spelling and grammar of each participant lacked closer to the end. Words were misspelled and punctuation seemed lacking. To be honest neither side made very convincing arguments. They both seemed to be, "Because it is" type of arguments. Neither side used sources. Those are my reasons for keeping both sides tied in those aspects. When reading Pro's argument he seemed more hostile and the connotation of how I read it made it seem to me that he was not being very polite to his opponent. I understand both points of view and read both arguments closely. My reason for giving Con the point of better conduct is that he tried to have Pro answer his questions to better build his debate argument. Con also did not insult or give a hostile feeling to his opponent while reading. That is why I give one point to Con.