The Instigator
ProfessorCodex
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
TK085
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points

Can the God of the Christian Bible be proven through science

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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/20/2019 Category: Religion
Updated: 4 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 311 times Debate No: 119966
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (8)
Votes (0)

 

ProfessorCodex

Con

I ask my opponent to simply state that they agree to the following rules in their first reply, As this first round will simply be made to lay out the ground rules. No arguments shall be given in this round.

I ask my opponent to
1. Prove that there is only one creator/ god.
2. Test, Demonstrate and assert this god.

Rules.
1. No so-called scientific methodology will be allowed since the bible did not present any to prove its god's existence.
TK085

Pro

Can the God of the Christian Bible be proven through Science? Is asking - is the idea testable, Or, Are there are series of tests that can be used to ascertain the validity of this belief.

I'm not too sure, But I'm willing to start to put an argument together and we can try and figure it out.

Your rule 1. Disqualifies your own question though. How to prove something scientifically without the scientific methodology?
Debate Round No. 1
ProfessorCodex

Con

- I actually think a better title of this debate would have been "Is there scientific proof of the Christian god", So that's my bad.

- But let's just discard that first (and last actually) rule, As I sort of. . . Worded that incorrectly as well, But anyways

Onto the debate:

So now, The question of this debate in short, Is "Is there scientific proof of the Christian god", I say there is none. Why, Because there is none for it, And a whole lot of evidence against it.

And if such god in such self existed, Wouldn't he or she leave a mark that could be not scientifically explained to prove their existence, So the community wouldn't be swerved from believing everything was specially designed for its environment, Etc, Etc, Etc.

The current theory is that the bible was written by imbigident savages who claimed that they were "speaking for god" in order to control everyone, And looks like they had succeeded.

Now, Let's take a look at what science really is. "The intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment. "

The existence of any God is non-observable and has to be accepted on faith, And can not be experimented. The process of both Macro AND Micro evolution (which is the most accepted theory by Atheists like myself), Have both been directly observed, As well as experimented. So therefore, We have more evidence to back up, Whilst the existence of God has no evidence, And therefore shouldn't be considered as a theory, As it has no evidence.

A miracle is defined as something that breaks the laws of human nature, And therefore are impossible. Most religious folk will say, "we have never seen an ape produce and non ape, Therefore evolution can't be true". We have never seen water turn into wine either, Therefore miracles can't be true.

So can the existence of the Christian God be proven through science? I say no, As it has no evidence, Has to be accepted on faith, And we have evidence that proves miracles to be impossible.

I know this is poorly constructed, But it's 45 minutes past midnight when I am publishing this.
TK085

Pro

TK085 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
ProfessorCodex

Con

In forth following

There is simply no reason why we need a God to explain the natural wonders of the universe
If we can have something built upon evidence, Then why should we need to have as much faith required to believe is magical sky genies.

That's really as much more I can add before you post some arguments.
TK085

Pro

TK085 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
ProfessorCodex

Con

ProfessorCodex forfeited this round.
TK085

Pro

TK085 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
8 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Posted by MindSwimmer 4 months ago
MindSwimmer
Maybe backwardseden's arguments are worth copying
Posted by it_is_me 4 months ago
it_is_me
This is copied and pasted from Backwardseden's debate (https://www. Debate. Org/debates/The-god-of-the-bible-does-not-exist/3/).

Therefore ProfessorCodex is either:

1. Backwardseden setting up a new account
2. Another atheist who thinks that Backwardseden a good person to model
3. A parody account
Posted by missmedic 4 months ago
missmedic
Since science is not itself a metaphysical enterprise, The arguer cannot apply science to a metaphysical argument.
Posted by omar2345 4 months ago
omar2345
"It is a guess"
Yes
Posted by Athias 4 months ago
Athias
In backwardeden's debate with me named, "the god of the bible does not exist, " these were his rules:

Prove that the god of the bible exists

1. Prove that there is only one creator/ god.
2. Test, Demonstrate and assert this god.
3. No so-called scientific methodology will be allowed since the bible did not present any to prove its god's existence.
4. Chapters and verses only please from either the KJV, NIV, NLT.

5. For extra credit, Prove that any god has ever existed.

6. Dsjpk5 is disqualified from any voting procedures for this debate.

In his debate with is_it_me, These were his rules:

1. Prove that there is only one creator/ god.
2. Test, Demonstrate and assert this god.
3. No so-called scientific methodology will be allowed since the bible did not present any to prove its god's existence.
4. Chapters and verses only please from either the KJV, NIV, NLT.

5. For extra credit, Prove that any god has ever existed.

6. Dsjpk5 is disqualified from any voting procedures for this debate.

In this debate, These are ProfessorCodex's rules:

<strong>1. Prove that there is only one creator/ god.
2. Test, Demonstrate and assert this god.

Rules.
1. No so-called scientific methodology will be allowed since the bible did not present any to prove its god's existence. </strong>

Not to mention, The immediate attempt to shift the burden of proof, The implication of the scientific method while simultaneously outlawing it, Gives me reason to believe that ProfessorCodex and backwardseden are one in the same. It is a guess, But then again, I'm not certain that any of you are who you say you are given the anonymity afforded to everyone who joins this forum. So uncertainty is redundant.
Posted by omar2345 4 months ago
omar2345
@Athias

"ProfessorCodex is another pseudonym taken on by backwardseden"
It does remind of a debate like what he did earlier but it is still a guess since we do require additional information. Guess you can call it an educated guess.
Posted by Athias 4 months ago
Athias
@omar2345: This debate is a farce. ProfessorCodex is another pseudonym taken on by backwardseden in, I presume, An attempt to hash out his oft repeated proposition and his logically inconsistent stipulations. I mean, The stipulations are the same as backwardseden's. (He didn't even bother to reword them. )
Posted by omar2345 4 months ago
omar2345
@ProfessorCodex

Most likely Pro would use pseudo scientists to site as their sources.
If they would state a credible theory they will then take a leap of faith to say it is God. Basically an argument of ignorance. Just because we don't know what created laws or gravity it is God. Which is a bad argument since there is no evidence involved in speculating. At best it might be an educated guess but there would be flaws in their theory which I hope you find out if they go through that way.
Third option would be if they actually prove the existence of God but highly doubt it would be the case.
No votes have been placed for this debate.