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

Does Philosophy and Science Work Together To Support Belief In God?

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
Dhides3 has forfeited round #2.
Our system has not yet updated this debate. Please check back in a few minutes for more options.
Time Remaining
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/27/2018 Category: Religion
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 316 times Debate No: 113198
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (1)
Votes (0)




To first address this question, we must first prove does philosophy and science working together prove anything at all? Philosophy provides logical arguments with premises and a conclusion. For example, let"s use the argument, if I am a mortal, then I die. A logical argument is where if one can prove I am a mortal, then one can rationally conclude I will die. Now how does one prove I am a mortal? This is where science comes in. Through scientific data and observations, it appears I can get sick and if any of my organs fail, I die. So to conclude, I am mortal and I will die. As such we see that philosophy and science can work together. Philosophy presents the argument with its premises and conclusion while science helps prove or disprove any of the premises.

Now let"s move onto the question, can science and philosophy prove God? Let"s see the famous Kalam Cosmological Argument, the brainchild of Dr. William Lane Craig, a leading Christian philosopher:

Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
The universe began to exist.
Therefore, the universe has a cause.

There should be no objection to the first premise. It is common sense. Anything with a beginning should rationally have a cause, things do not pop out of nowhere if they had a beginning. Now the atheist would smugly assume this first premise invalidates God"s existence, but fail to recognize the definition of what God is. God does not begin to exist, God has always existed, a being outside of time and space. If the atheist argues against this statement, he or she sorely misunderstands just what God is and is attempting to twist God"s nature to advance their argument.

Now the second premise does see some opposition, despite many leading scientists supporting it. A common objection is the universe is eternal. However, science disproves this. According to the Second Law of Thermodynamics, a closed system will tend towards increasing disorder, or entropy until it reaches equilibrium. Given enough time, all the energy in the world will spread itself out on the universe evenly. Once the universe reaches this state of equilibrium where temperature and pressure are the same everywhere, there will be no significant further change. Scientists call this the "heat death" of the universe. This is the end of the world. With the assumption that the world will eventually stagnate into a state of heat death, then why if it existed forever, would it happen now? If the universe has existed for an infinite amount of time, it would have already reached the state of equilibrium. But it has not. This points to a beginning of the universe and unfortunately, an end.

Furthermore, it is impossible to have an infinite number of things which an eternal universe would assume (infinite past events). This is shown in the illustration of Hilbert's Hotel. It demonstrates that an infinitely occupied hotel is able to accommodate an additional infinite number of guests. This is an absurd idea. The skeptic could appeal to uncertainty claiming we just don"t know the nature of infinity. But then again, the concept of infinity is well-understood by many great mathematicians. These paradoxes result not from our lack of understanding, but how much we do understand.

Finally, we reach the conclusion. The universe has a cause to which God seems the only plausible answer. What else could have possibly created the universe which includes space-time, matter, energy, and more? Some say the Higgs boson particle or the collapse of a pre-Universe vacuum, but these theories have all been disproven by fellow scientists. The Higgs boson particle is still matter and part of the Universe. It did not just pop out of nowhere. A vacuum is still a thing and needs an explanation. It is either God or the universe came from nothing. So what seems to be more of a leap of faith, the universe from God or the universe from nothing?


I notice that you are currently debating this topic here:

Is this an accidental double post? If so, I'm happy to forfeit so that you are not unintentionally juggling two debates on the same topic simultaneously. If not, I'll continue on with 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
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by Dhides3 3 years ago
Nope, not a mistake. I have a class that is working on these debates and so we have a few going at the same time. Please respond, if you have time, and challenge my students! Thanks!
This debate has 2 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.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.