The Instigator
Batman8214
Pro (for)
The Contender
extian
Con (against)

You can't be a theist and a scientist simultaneously

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  
Debate Round Forfeited
Batman8214 has forfeited round #2.
Our system has not yet updated this debate. Please check back in a few minutes for more options.
Time Remaining
00days00hours00minutes00seconds
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/16/2016 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 8 months ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 644 times Debate No: 95442
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (31)
Votes (0)

 

Batman8214

Pro

I would first like to that anyone that has accepted this topic. The first round will be acceptance and definitions only.
Pro is arguing that scientists cannot be theists.
Con is arguing that scientists can be theists.
The following rounds will have their main contentions, rebuttals, and final arguments.
I will be expecting reliable resources for both sides.

Definitions:

Theist- 1) The belief in one God as the creator and ruler of the universe, without rejection of revelation (distinguished from deism).
2) belief in the existence of a god or gods (opposed to atheism). http://www.dictionary.com...

Scientist- A person who is studying or has expert knowledge of one or more of the natural or physical sciences. http://www.merriam-webster.com...

Simultaneously- Existing, occurring, or operating at the same time; concurrent:
http://www.dictionary.com...

Feel free to add definitions if you think they are necessary
extian

Con

I would like to thank Pro for the opportunity to discuss this topic. Pro's definitions seem acceptable to me, so I will not offer any others for now. I am assuming that Pro has BoP, since the resolution is presented as a negative proposition and I would only need to show that it is not a necessarily true statement, but I will allow Pro to clarify this point.

I'm looking forward to the debate!
Debate Round No. 1
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 2
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 3
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 4
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 5
31 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Heirio 8 months ago
Heirio
When Stephen Colbert is speaking with celebrities, I highly doubt he is thinking about how he believes in God. He still believes in God, he's just not thinking about it at that time.
Posted by Heirio 8 months ago
Heirio
You also don't have to be consciously thinking about a belief to believe in it. When I do maths, I'm not thinking about how I long fantasy books, but that doesn't mean I don't believe they're great. I still believe they're great, I'm just not thinking about it at that time.
Posted by Heirio 8 months ago
Heirio
You don't seem to understand what entails in theism. Theism isn't a physical act, it is a belief.

The fact that you keep parroting the same things and then calling me stupid for not believing simply shows how flawed your reasoning is.

Your idea is as follows:

*Isaac Newton walks to his home.* "Hm, God is real. He created us all." *Isaac Newton does the science* "How stupid I must have been! Even though this work is unrelated to religion, I see now that there is no God!" *Isaac Newton goes to the pub and stops doing the science.* "Hm, God is real. He created us all."

Just because a guy does science it does not mean he suddenly loses his faith and becomes an atheist.

I recommend you learn more about logic and reason and definitions, since it seems you are devoid.
Posted by canis 8 months ago
canis
" When Isaac Newton formed his theory of gravity, he was being a scientist, obviously." ...(Yes a scientist not a theist. That would be useless)...... "However, just because he was doing important science work, it didn't mean he had lost his faith in God"... (Right why would anyone lose the abilety to dance, when doing math ?).... "and then regain it right when he stopped doing the science."" ....

True, just as this is still true.

"if your science is about facts..A god is irrelevant...If you make a god relevant..you are not a scientist.
I am out. You are to stupid to understand the most simple things..Sorry.
Posted by Heirio 8 months ago
Heirio
"Yes that is what I proved...Think you overlooked "simultaneously" right from the start..You can sit...And you can stand...but you can not do both simultaneously..."

You don't seem to understand, because it's quite clear you didn't prove that. I shall use our friend Isaac again.

When Isaac Newton formed his theory of gravity, he was being a scientist, obviously. However, just because he was doing important science work, it didn't mean he had lost his faith in God and then regain it right when he stopped doing the science.

He still believed in God while he was being a scientist. Thus, he was a theist and a scientist simultaneously.

The same with Pascal: When he was working on the physics of pressure, he did not suddenly turn into an atheist. He was still a theist.
Posted by canis 8 months ago
canis
Yes that is what I proved...Think you overlooked "simultaneously" right from the start..You can sit...And you can stand...but you can not do both simultaneously...
Posted by Heirio 8 months ago
Heirio
What are you trying to prove here?
Are you trying to prove that one cannot be both a theist and a scientist at the same time or are you not?
Posted by canis 8 months ago
canis
When he tryed to make a god relevant he was irrelevant to science..

""Though he was and still is renowned for his scientific pursuits, Newton was a serious student of the Bible and published several theological works. Even in his famed Principia, Newton exhibited his dedication to God.

This most beautiful system of the sun, planets, and comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being....This Being governs all things, not as the soul of the world, but as Lord over all; and on account of his dominion he is wont to be called Lord God "pantokrator," or Universal Ruler....2
Scientific inquiry, which then existed as Natural Philosophy, could not exist apart from "the Maker," according to Newton. In fact, science was the perfect realm in which to discuss God.

Since every particle of space is always, and every indivisible moment of duration is every where, certainly the Maker and Lord of all things cannot be never and no where....God is the same God, always and every where. He is omnipresent not virtually only, but also substantially; for virtue cannot subsist without substance."It is allowed by all that the Supreme God exists necessarily; and by the same necessity he exists always and every where....And thus much concerning God; to discourse of whom from the appearance of things, does certainly belong to Natural Philosophy.3
Though he lived before Darwin, Newton was not unacquainted with the atheistic evolutionary theory on origins. He was convinced against it and wrote:

Blind metaphysical necessity, which is certainly the same always and every where, could produce no variety of things. All that diversity of natural things which we find suited to different times and places could arise from nothing but the ideas and will of a Being, necessarily existing.4
Posted by canis 8 months ago
canis
"Newton, as a theist, would have believed that it was God who set the laws of gravity in place. Therefore, to him, God is relevant to the existence of these laws."
God is irelevant to his laws
https://en.wikipedia.org...
Posted by canis 8 months ago
canis
This is still true: "if your science is about facts..A god is irrelevant...If you make a god relevant..you are not a scientist.
This debate has 6 more rounds before the voting begins. If you want to receive email updates for this debate, click the Add to My Favorites link at the top of the page.