frame
Howdy Debater!
Sign In Register


          
+ NEW DEBATE

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Do you believe in God? Religion vs Science

inc4tinc4t 101 Points
Timeless debate of all time.  Please vote and explain your position.
  1. Do you believe in God? Religion vs Science19 votes
    1. Yes I believe in God or Higher Power- Religion
      68.42%
    2. No - Science
      31.58%

Comments

  • YYCDebaterYYCDebater 3 Points
    God has not been proven in any way. Most attempts have come from philosophical contexts and rational arguments. Thomas Aquinas attempted to explain god, yet the ideas were very vague and there was a massive leap in his logical connections. They have also been disproven through other logical arguments. Same goes for the ontological proof of god. As proposition, the burden of proof lies upon you and there is not enough evidence to show that a higher power exists.
    melanielust
  • inc4tinc4t 101 Points
    Atheism has not been proven or disproven, neither was God.  It is a personal believe, and takes many shapes.  
    I personally believe in science.
  • ludil_hanzaludil_hanza 2 Points
    I believe in god and he is real.
  • A long time ago in a galaxy far, far away... AN EXPLOSION! Both sides can sound rediculous. I believe in a universal law of god rather than the possibility of a "big bang". My god, (i'm christian) is not some guy with a white beard on a throne. My god is more like gravity and cannot be seen here. Simple as that. I beileve a perfect, non random force would be more likely to have crested the universe rather than the big bang.
    SaltyDog
  • islander507islander507 64 Points
    @Brois_Nickalson , welcome back to the Island...
    You had some interesting debates and I hope things are well.
    I also believe in higher power, but just not sure what it is. We don't understand so many things, so for us to say with absolute certainty that we know exactly how things started is arogant.  I think there is a higher form of energy that holds things together, and what I think is most important is that we believe in something, and that something drives us to do the right thing. Whether it's fear of going to hell, or a desire of getting to heaven..that is one of the glues holding societies together and avoid anarchy. 
    I dont argue against the big bang, that maybe part of that higher power plan too. There is sufficient evidence that something like Big Bang did happen.
  • lehrun_37lehrun_37 2 Points
    I completely believe in god.
  • @islander507 , if at any poing in history ere was absolutely nothing then there would still be absolutely nothing and no laws of the universe would exist. If there was always something then it would be random and it would be illogical that we would exist since we are finite and such. It would make sence that if a god existed that it would have interacted with humanity. My argument for god jerry-condenced.
  • jerniahjerniah 2 Points
    Well, Boris Nickalson I do understand your point some what, but do not share the same opinion. Although, you made a great argument, but I disrespectfully disagree. Something had to trigger the creation of everything.
  • islander507islander507 64 Points
    @Brois_Nickalson , thank you for your compelling argument.  The point is that what we refer to as "God" is open to much interpretation.  I think you agreed on that in your earlier argument.  I argue that definition of "nothing" is open to interpretation.  
    It is all based on personal belief.  
    Science has demonstrated substantial theory supporting Big Bang.  As you earlier pointed out it will be too arogant for us to understand exactly what happened, but I still find Big Bang theory more compelling.
  • LogicLogic 178 Points
    The concept of god can be proven, Through rational thoughts. But to believe, Gives a better purpose. Gives a meaning.  And if you are right, There is a reward, If not, Then there really isn't anything next. Worth a leap of faith, If you ask me.
  • LogicLogic 178 Points
    @islander507  Some would rather believe, He who made the Big Bang explode. 
  • avivaviv 27 Points

    Yes I believe that God exists but I do not believe He is an entity of good or evil, these are human concepts. I think he created the universe for his own amusement like a computer game. Sometimes he helps or hurts some character or other out of curiosity, to see what will happen

    love2debate
  • agsragsr 276 PointsPremium Member
    Premium Member
    @aviv, interesting notion.  I believe that humans and arguably other intelligent creatures do lots of things for either amusement of self actualization.  What you call computer game of course can be a much more sophisticated simulation for another more intelligent life form.  
     
  • LogicLogic 178 Points
    I believe in god [Muslim].  But at the same time, I believe in science. God said in the qur'an 'The worst of creatures, Is he who doesn't use his reason'  The reason i believe is because there are miracles no 7th century illiterate man could have known. The scientific ones are overrated, The historical ones are truly amazing . http://islamiclearningmaterials.com/miracles-of-the-quran/
  • EmperorAZEmperorAZ 10 Points
    God must be real and have created something to start this universe, but then the universe probably just developed on its own according to science, so its really a mixture of both.
    agsraviv
  • LogicLogic 178 Points
    @EmperorAZ In islam, One of allah's name is Al Bari [The evolver] Created the universe, Let it grow. Created the single cell, Let it evolve.
    agsr
  • melanielustmelanielust 122 Points
    I don't believe in a god or any other higher power except the laws of physics that govern our universe. That being said, i can understand the argument that god was the cause for many unsolved scientific mysteries, such as why the big bang expanded, etcetera.
  • missmedicmissmedic 12 Points

    A lot of horrible things in this world get done for something greater then ourselves. Humans have invented thousands of gods over thousands of years and all have become myths when belief in them stopped. The only thing needed for gods to be true is belief. One need not own beliefs of any kind to establish scientific facts, observe and enjoy nature, or live a productive, moral, and useful life.

     Because of it's certainty religious faith is both arrogant and ignorant. Far from being arrogant the scientific method is one of humility. It acknowledges the limits of our current knowledge. It doesn't provide explanations or answers from a position of ignorance, but investigates the unknown in an attempt to reach understanding based on empirical evidence. Surely it is the superstitious or religious approach which claims to know the answers without any evidence except "faith" that is the arrogant approach.

  • VaulkVaulk 111 Points
    I personally believe in God, not because there's empirical evidence that he exists, but because I have faith in a higher power.  That and science has done a fairly decent job at providing evidence of "Intelligent Design" in the attempt at proving that the origins of the Earth and life itself were purely random.

    And to contest some of the other statements concerning Science, there hasn't been any proof that God doesn't exist.  I concede that the existence of God cannot be proven beyond reasonable doubt, but by definition, Science cannot disprove God and also cannot prove beyond reasonable doubt that the origins of the Earth don't involve God.  This is the great thing about theories, they're subject to change and therefor cannot ever be facts.  Hence the "Theory of Evolution", "Big Bang Theory"...ect, none of them are facts and none of them can be proven Scientifically.  And in regards to Laws of Science, even the Laws of Science can be and have been changed and are therefor not concrete.  Newton's Laws allegedly applied to all objects on the Earth, with the discovery of Sub-Atomic Particles (Which do not respect Newton's Laws) the well established first, second and third laws had to be changed to encompass previously undiscovered information.  This is where we got Quantum Physics and Quantum Mechanics...so not even Scientific Laws can be facts.

    Lastly,
    1. The Scientific Method is as follows: A method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.
    2. Science is the study of the Physical and Natural world through observation and experiment.
    3. Supernatural means: (of a manifestation or event) attributed to some force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature.
    4. The underlying goal of Science is not to make predictions, it is to develop an understanding of the mechanisms underlying the operation of the natural world.
    Source: https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/supernatural
    Source: http://sciencecouncil.org/about-us/our-definition-of-science/
    https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/scientific_method
    http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2008/03/15/science-and-unobservable-things/#.WQ9_89y1uUk

    So from our Scientific community we can logically deduce that:

    A.  Science cannot apply to the supernatural world, only the physical and Natural.
       
    B.  The Supernatural by definition excludes Scientific understanding and therefor nothing Scientific can explain it.

    C.  Since no one can observe what happened during the creation of life, the Scientific Method cannot be executed in creating a theory or hypothesis concerning how it happened.

    D.  Since the creation of life was not observed, cannot be observed, and cannot be tested then no experiment can be executed to further the theory of how it occurred.

    Simply put, Scientists have been tossing aside their very own code and systems for decades while trying to explain the origins of life.  Why?  Because you cannot attempt to explain the origin of life without conceding that it cannot be observed, tested or experimented.

    Scientist - Gentlemen, we have a theory on the origins of life!

    Scientific Community - Did you find a way to observe what happened?

    Scientist - No, but we have another theory on how to determine what would have been observed had we been there.

    Scientific Community - Did you test this theory?

    Scientist - No but there's no way to test it since we can't possibly know the controls, variables or measurements during the event, so we have a theory for that too.

    Scientific Community - Well did you at least experiment with this to try to recreate a comparable model?

    Scientist - No but everyone else who's tried to create an experiment for this has failed and we have a theory for that too.

    Scientific Community - So you didn't observe it, you can't test it and you can't experiment to make any real determination in regards to empirical facts?

    Scientist - If you wanted to put it that way, yes.

    Scientific Community - Well it sounds good to us!  Let's get this published!  By next year they'll be teaching this in Public School!







  • WhyTrumpWhyTrump 94 PointsPremium Member
    Premium Member
    Vaulk said:
    I personally believe in God, not because there's empirical evidence that he exists, but because I have faith in a higher power. 

    Simply put, Scientists have been tossing aside their very own code and systems for decades while trying to explain the origins of life.  Why?  Because you cannot attempt to explain the origin of life without conceding that it cannot be observed, tested or experimented.

    @Vaulk, great points.  So bottom line is this debate is all based on lack of conclusive evidence and unless one day we can actually further advance science it will remain an issue of personal faith.

    It will be fascinating to see what happens once/if science can actually create new life forms and replicate some of the facts.  Faith of many may get questioned 
  • VaulkVaulk 111 Points
    @WhyTrump , essentially yes.  The bottom line of this debate is simply this:  It requires leaps of faith to believe either side of the explanation for the origin of life.  Neither side can prove or disprove the other and we are all entitled to believe what we want.  Whether or not it ever becomes possible to prove beyond reasonable doubt what really happened...I don't know if that'll ever happen but until then I have my beliefs and respect others' right to have their own.
    agsrWhyTrump
  • WhyTrumpWhyTrump 94 PointsPremium Member
    Premium Member
  • AthiestHAthiestH 2 Points
    I am athiest and heres an example why
    Noah's Ark. Real in the bible not a mythical story. Never been found and there's a lot of mistakes there a huge amount of mistakes in this story. And Saying Because god wanted it or something is not a legitimate excuse.
    The ark is 450 × 75 × 45 ft and the journey was 1 year long. Here are the mistakes i have caught feel free to add more.

    No meat could be preserved for a year.

    Animals with Long gestational period could not survive.

    Animals from Australia could not have crossed to the ark or back and no fossils of Australian animals found in a crossing/

    Ants cannot survive with two ants. You would need a Colony.

    Seeds could not survive underwater neither could plants. And nobody could really collect them

    There are certain bugs that only feed on the eggs of  other bugs. How could either survive since one doesn't have food one doesn't have eggs

    Genetic bottle neck. No genetic diversity, everything would be SOOOO horribly inbred.

    How could you keep food fresh.

    Where would you get fresh water

    If it flooded continents, saltwater and freshwater animals would mix and not survive

    Underwater plants couldn't survive since there would be too much water and sun couldnt get though messing up the whole underwater ecosystem

    how Could bugs with week long life spans survive

    Dolania americana females have a 5 minute life span, how could they survive

    How would you get that much wood in the middle east

    How did Noah build that boat of that size with no prior knowledge, professional shipbuilders at the time couldn't make one nearly as big with it having problems,

    How did some animals keep instincts if there just feed.

     How would untrained people get poop out of a dangerous animals pen

    How would noah choose which animals survive out of that species, like i want those two llamas, the rest can just die.

    Other civilization at the time have no record of this event/

    No rock patterns showing wearing from so much water 

     
  • AthiestHAthiestH 2 Points
    I mostly agree with Vaulk but i think there a bit more evidence behind science
  • love2debatelove2debate 88 Points
    @AthiestH, that's right.  Similarly, Moses and opening of the Sea.  These are stories that cannot be proven by anything other than faith.
  • LogicLogic 178 Points
    The universe is too big [in my opinion] for there to be nothing out there.  
    i.e  God  i.e Aliens and so on so forth. 
  • AthiestHAthiestH 2 Points
    I think without a doubt that there is other life somewhere else in the universe
  • AthiestHAthiestH 2 Points
    I feel as there being around 4200 religions its impossible to find out which is actually right. If i had to pick a religion i would pick an ancient greek or roman one with zeus and everyone cause its so interesting to me.
     
  • LogicLogic 178 Points
    @AthiestH  Interesting doesn't always mean truth.  4200 religions, which many worship idols.  
    Some even trees and the sun. If you really want a religion, I think you should look for a monotheistic one.  Because if there is more than one god, Then god isn't all powerful.  I chose islam, Quite interesting numerical miracles. 
  • LogicLogic 178 Points
    Also, I urge every atheist on debate island to watch this, And the other 3 parts  
  • LogicLogic 178 Points
    @Vaulk Seems you don't know too much about the scientific method  B)

  • AthiestHAthiestH 2 Points
    Just because your religion is monotheistic doesn't make it better. A council of leaders can make more  thought about decisions. Also a brash or not logical decision is more likely to be made with one as feelings can cloud the brain. With a council you have to talk and make a decision and those kinds of rulings are unlikely 
  • LogicLogic 178 Points
    @AthiestH  But if a god needs more than one of himself to make a decision  he isn't all wise. You can't compare humans with gods, The analogy itself is logically incorrect.  A god is all wise, A human takes time to make a decision, while a god doesn't.  Also, i think you should watch the 4 parts of the video i gave.
Sign In or Register to comment.

Back To Top

Debate Anything on DebateIsland.com

| The Best Online Debate Experience!
2017 DebateIsland.com, All rights reserved. DebateIsland.com | The Best Online Debate Experience! Debate topics you care about in a friendly and fun way. Come try us out now. We are totally free!

Contact us

customerservice@debateisland.com
Awesome Debates
Terms of Service

Get In Touch