frame

Howdy, Stranger!

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

DebateIsland.com is the largest online debate website globally where anyone can anonymously and easily debate online, casually or formally, while connecting with their friends and others. Users, regardless of debating skill level, can civilly debate just about anything online in a text-based online debate website that supports five easy-to-use and fun debating formats ranging from Casual, to Formalish, to Lincoln-Douglas Formal. In addition, people can improve their debating skills with the help of revolutionary artificial intelligence-powered technology on our debate website. DebateIsland is totally free and provides the best online debate experience of any debate website.


Communities




Do you believe in God? Religion vs Science

2»



Post Argument Now Debate Details +

    Arguments


  • ErfisflatErfisflat 1675 Pts   -   edited July 2017


    @Sylynn
    Let me guess, you haven't read it.  Any open minded, critical and unbiased thinker who examines the evidence for a flat, stationary earth, then eventually becomes a flat earther. Some call it the great awakening from the great deception.

    Can you think of a good reason why you think you are a monkey on a spinning ball? Because you taught so at a vulnerable age? ABC's, world's a ball, while simultaneously being taught to ridicule anyone questioning the status quo?
    Or maybe you watch a little television programming. How many scientific experiments can you perform that empirically and conclusively demonstrate evidence of curvature or axial rotation? 





    Feel free to post there if you think you can prove the ball. You've never personally seen it for a reason.
    LogicEvidence
    Pseudoscience: noun; a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method.

    Scientific method: noun; 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.

    The highest form of ignorance is when you reject something you don't know anything about.

    Wayne Dyer
  • ImbsterImbster 149 Pts   -  
    @Sylynn
    Just read and all the science you've learned pretty much fits on the model.
    Also people can believe in both god and science but the guy who made this just pretty much limited it to two choices. Kinda like donut only or coffee only offer situations but you want both but your friend is saving money.
    Erfisflat
  • SylynnSylynn 71 Pts   -  
    @Erfisflat - Before I even consider humoring you on this. Do you even care what science says about it? Or do you simply consider it nonsense since it doesn't fit to your agenda?
  • ErfisflatErfisflat 1675 Pts   -  
    Sylynn said:
    @Erfisflat - Before I even consider humoring you on this. Do you even care what science says about it? Or do you simply consider it nonsense since it doesn't fit to your agenda?
    There  no conclusive evidence that we are on a ball, it's all been satisfactorily debunked, pure pseudoscience. The question is, do you even care what science says about it? Actual science?
    Evidence
    Pseudoscience: noun; a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method.

    Scientific method: noun; 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.

    The highest form of ignorance is when you reject something you don't know anything about.

    Wayne Dyer
  • ErfisflatErfisflat 1675 Pts   -  
    Imbster said:
    @Sylynn
    Just read and all the science you've learned pretty much fits on the model.

    Which model?
    Pseudoscience: noun; a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method.

    Scientific method: noun; 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.

    The highest form of ignorance is when you reject something you don't know anything about.

    Wayne Dyer
  • RodinonRodinon 67 Pts   -  
    The author is probably not intending this, but the very question is loaded.  God created every physical thing, all matter, )not all things we created from the matter.)  God also laid down the laws we seek to understand when we study using science.  If science is narrowed to just a few ideas about events in the past that, if true, preclude God from existing, then science really only includes abiogenesis, materialistic origins of the Universe, and a few specific philosophical ideas.  Ohm's law, the laws of thermodynamics, chemistry, math, and all sorts of physical laws that I use everyday, I certainly believe in.  I also believe in God.  Besides science ideas that are based on secular humanistic philosophy, what do people who believe in God disagree with?
  • SilverishGoldNovaSilverishGoldNova 1201 Pts   -  
    God
    I am no longer active on DebateIsland or any debate website. Many things I have posted here and on other sites (Such as believing in the flat Earth theory or other conspiracy theories such as those that are about the Las Vegas Shooting or 9/11) do not reflect on my current views. 

    https://docs.google.com/document/d/1p6M-VgXHwwdpJarhyQYapBz-kRc6FrgdOLFAd3IfYz8/edit

    https://debateisland.com/discussion/comment/18248/#Comment_18248 (Me officially stating that I am no longer a flat-Earther)
  • RollTide420RollTide420 73 Pts   -  
    The way this thread is worded is very loaded and biased, as it implies that religion is inherently anti-science. Science is the study of the observable universe, and the "science" that disproves the Bible is not based on experiments and proofs like most science, but is instead hypotheses which are just accepted since we have no way to test them (carbon dating, macro-evolution, big bang, etc.)To say religion vs science implies that if God isn't part of the observable universe, he doesn't exist. Actually, there is plenty of evidence for a being which exists outside of our universe, although for this post, I'll stick to the strongest, which is the nature of time and causality. All modern physics is based upon the Principle of Universal Causation, which states that a) everything must have a cause, b) a cause must precede its effect) and c) a cause must be sufficient for its effect (ie. you can't move a 20lb weight with 10lbs of force). This principle is considered to hold true for everything in our universe. However, if we assume that nothing exists outside our universe, we get a paradox. Either at some point there was a first cause, which would, by definition (see "first") would not have a cause. OR we have a never ending chain of causes which goes backwards in time infinitely. If the first is true, then something exists outside of the observable universe, which proves my point. The second option is impossible. First off since time can be observed and measured, it would need a cause, and since a cause must precede its effect, and that which has no beginning cannot be preceded, time itself had to have a beginning. Furthermore, the idea of an infinite backwards chain in time is mathematically impossible. Negatives cannot be physically expressed. You cannot have negative fingers or negative toes. Money can only be expressed as negative when viewing a balance, however negative bills worth a negative weight in Gold cannot be found. Since time is physical (its a factor in several physics equations such as distance divided by time equals speed)
    and can be observed, measured, and calculated, it cannot be negative (it can be expressed in a negative in the same since that if you have 10 fingers and add negative 2, you now have 8. Its really just taking away, not dipping below zero which is what I mean when I say negative). And even if negatives could be physically expressed, the number line is still problematic in a world with no beginning. In such a world, the number line begins at negative infinity, and ends at infinity. On a number line to get from negative infinity to infinity, you must cross zero. Zero is a unique number, and its considered the starting point of numbers. Its the only number you can't divide by, its the only number where you get the same result when you multiply by it by other numbers(0) or use it as an exponent (1). Its the only number that has no effect when its added or subtracted. Its pretty easy for a trained mathematician to look at a graph and see where zero is in the place of a variable because many graphs display weird behavior at this point (for instance a standard parabola starts to go from a negative to positive slope at this point). All number lines have a point zero, and in a universe with no beginning, where would point zero be? And most importantly, infinity is not a true number but a concept. Numerically, infinity can never be reached. So if the universe were infinitely old, the it would have taken an infinite amount of time to reach the present. Since infinity cannot be reached, we shouldn't have been able to reach this point if the world were infinitely old. Its not as problematic on the positive side of the line, as its understood as an idea, and true numbers can be used to describe any point, infinity is only used as a shortcut so that we don't spend an eternity expressing simple ideas. An infinite chain of causes going back in time is impossible scientifically and numerically, and therefore there was a first cause. Since nothing in our observable universe can happen unless caused, something must exist outside the observable universe, it must have preceded time, and must have more force and energy than what can be found in our universe, otherwise the cause would not be sufficient for the effect. Science is the study of the observable universe, and Science hasn't proven God for the same reason that math hasn't proven the that ain't is considered grammatically incorrect. Entirely different subject. Anything which exists outside of the observable universe is outside the domain of science, however when deeply analyzed science does provide us with plenty of reason to believe that something exists beyond what can be observed by science.
    inc4tErfisflatEvidence
  • FredsnephewFredsnephew 361 Pts   -  
    There is no correlation between religion and science.
    There is no opposition between religion and science.
    Science is simply the systematic observation and study of ourselves and our surroundings.
    Religion is simply an unproved theory regarding the origins of ourselves and our surroundings.

    The existence of a god can be argued until we are blue in the face.
    But the existence of a god can never be proved.
  • VaulkVaulk 813 Pts   -  
    @Fredsnephew, agreed, additionally the existence of god can never be disproved...at least not by science.
    "If there's no such thing as a question then what kind of questions do people ask"?

    "There's going to be a special place in Hell for people who spread lies through the veil of logical fallacies disguised as rational argument".

    "Oh, you don't like my sarcasm?  Well I don't much appreciate your stup!d".


  • George_HorseGeorge_Horse 499 Pts   -  
    There is no proof for a God. I believe in science rather than an imaginary being.
    "Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God? " ~Epicurus

    "A communist is like a crocodile" ~Winston Churchill

    We're born alone, we live alone, we die alone. Only through our love and friendship can we create the illusion for the moment that we're not alone.~Orson Welles
  • I don't necessarily agree with the fundamental aspect of this question as it suggests that religion and science can never coexist or even that they are inherently separate from each other. I see a lot of people talking about proof in here. In a topic like this, there can never be any "proof" leaning one way or the other. The best anyone could do is provide supporting evidence.The existence of the earth defies probability. Years ago, famed astronomer Carl Sagan announced that there are two necessary criterion for a planet to support life: the right kind of star and the planet must be the right distance from that star. That meant that there should have been an innumerable amount of life-supporting planets in the observable universe. Therefore, scientists were optimistic when they launched the S.E.T.I program (search for extraterrestrial intelligence) equipped with a vast array of satellites in order to pick up anything that resembled an encoded signal. Over the years the silence from the universe was deafening. It was then that they realized that the early estimations were no longer tenable. Today, the number of stipulations for a planet to support life have risen to 200+ all of which must be met perfectly or else the whole thing falls apart. Mathematicians have come to the conclusion that the earth is a 1 in 700 quintillion oddity. At what point do we recognize that it requires far MORE faith to assume that it all "just happened" than to believe that an intelligent force ensured that all of these criteria were met? However, the fine-tuning required for the earth to exist is nothing compared to the requirements for the Universe to exist at all. Scientists now know that the four fundamental forces: the gravitational force, the electromagnetic force, and the strong and weak nuclear forces needed to be determined within one millionth of a second after the creation of the universe ( be it by the Big Bang, God, whatever) and any slight modification of the values of the forces would have resulted in the Universes non-existence. for example, if the ratio between the electromagnetic force and the weak nuclear force were altered by the tiniest most inconceivable fraction stars could not form and the universe would not exist.

    The fine-tuning of the laws of physics and chemistry to allow for advanced life is an example of extremely high levels of CSI in nature. The laws of the universe are complex because they are highly unlikely. Cosmologists have calculated the odds of a life-friendly universe appearing by chance are less than one part in 1010^123. That"s ten raised to a power of 10 with 123 zeros after it The laws of the universe are specified in that they match the narrow band of parameters required for the existence of advanced life. As an atheist cosmologist Fred Hoyle observed, "a common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a superintellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as with chemistry and biology." The universe itself shows strong evidence of having been designed. Studies of the cell reveal vast quantities of biochemical information stored in our DNA in the sequence of nucleotides. No physical or chemical law dictates the order of the nucleotide bases in our DNA, and the sequences are highly improbable and complex. Moreover, the coding regions of DNA exhibit sequential arrangements of bases that are necessary to produce functional proteins. In other words, they are highly specified with respect to the independent requirements of protein function and protein synthesis. Thus, as nearly all molecular biologists now recognize, the coding regions of DNA possess a high "information content" where "information content" in a biological context means precisely "complexity and specificity." Even atheist zoologist Richard Dawkins concedes that "biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose." Atheists like Dawkins believe that unguided natural processes did all the "designing" but intelligent design theorist Stephen C. Meyer notes, "in all cases where we know the causal origin of "high information content," experience has shown that intelligent design played a causal role." The scientific method is commonly described as a four-step process involving observations, hypothesis, experiments, and conclusion. In this regard, ID uses the scientific method to claim that many features of life are designed"not just the information in DNA. After starting with the observation that intelligent agents produce complex and specified information (CSI), design theorists hypothesize that if a natural object was designed, it will contain high levels of CSI. Scientists then perform experimental tests upon natural objects to determine if they contain complex and specified information. One easily testable form of CSI is irreducible complexity, which can be tested and discovered by experimentally reverse-engineering biological structures through genetic knockout experiments to determine if they require all of their parts to function. When experimental work uncovers irreducible complexity in biology, they conclude that such structures were designed.

    This method has been used to detect irreducible complexity in a variety of biochemical systems such as the bacterial flagellum. Moreover, the more we discover about the cell, the more we are learning that it functions like a miniature factory, replete with motors, powerhouses, garbage disposals, guarded gates, transportation corridors, and most importantly, CPUs. The central information processing machinery of the cell runs on a language-based code composed of irreducibly complex circuits and machines: The myriad enzymes used in the process that converts the genetic information in DNA into proteins are themselves created by the process that converts DNA into proteins. Many fundamental biochemical systems won"t function unless their basic machinery is intact, so how does such complexity evolve via a "blind" and "undirected" Darwinian process of numerous, successive, slight modifications? Since cellular language requires an author, and microbiological machines require an engineer, and genetically encoded programs require a programmer, increasing numbers of scientists feel the best explanation is intelligent design.
    Vaulk
  • JoePineapplesJoePineapples 138 Pts   -   edited September 2017
    To begin with, the options here are a false dichotomy; If you do not believe in any gods it does not mean that you have to believe in/follow science.

    I'm an atheist (in the very basic literal sense), I was born without belief in any of the thousands of gods and I just stayed that way. There's simply never been anything presented to me that would give me reason to believe in any of the gods.
    SilverishGoldNova
    I don't get a great deal of free time, for this reason there may be long periods between my posts.
    Please don't expect me to respond with insults and memes, I don't have time for it.
    Please don't expect me to respond to Gish-galloping, I don't have time for it.
  • RodinonRodinon 67 Pts   -  
    Science is only considered pure nowadays if it does not entertain certain ideas that would allow the consideration of certain philosophies.  At the same time, philosophy has been officially expelled from science as a laughable pursuit for people not into "hard" science.  Well, guess what.  The philosophy you bring into a scientific investigation certainly does have an effect.  The geneticists were all persecuted under Stalin, (a purely atheistic environment in the USSR, though I am certainly not accusing atheists of all being Stalin) and crazy ideas like breeding the bourgeois tendencies out of plants and people were seriously studied.  That's how we ended up with the domesticated fox, by the way.  But my point is, your passions and thoughts about the world MUST be considered before science is taken seriously.  An atheist and a Jew and a Hindu are all equally as likely to be biased toward confirming, because they are all human, or at least not overturning their prior views on morality, purpose, God, etc.  Because Existential crises are inconvenient and bothersome.  It's much more comfortable to assume you are right and throw out any result that contradicts what you already believe is true.  Not to say people don't ask the hard philosophical questions the physical sciences CAN lead them to.  It's also very easy to accuse everyone you disagree with of being unable to change their minds, while you are a paragon of truth and accuracy.  You know, because you're not biased or anything.
  • WakeWake 124 Pts   -  
    At what point does God and Science have any differences?
  • JoePineapplesJoePineapples 138 Pts   -  
    Wake said:
    At what point does God and Science have any differences?

    They're different in every single way. One is a supernatural all-powerful being, the other is a method of study and experiment used to determine/observe outcomes and behaviour.
    It's like asking "at what point does a horse and a rainbow have any differences?"

    You do tend to get some theists trying to say "ah but people worship science" but this is simply untrue.
    People only worship science in the same way they inhale a sandwich.
    I don't get a great deal of free time, for this reason there may be long periods between my posts.
    Please don't expect me to respond with insults and memes, I don't have time for it.
    Please don't expect me to respond to Gish-galloping, I don't have time for it.
  • I'd say a god is more likely with the numerous proofs against evolution and the big bang in mind.

    Wake said:
    At what point does God and Science have any differences?

    I have no idea, what is the difference between a can of soda and the moon? They're both very different things.
    I am no longer active on DebateIsland or any debate website. Many things I have posted here and on other sites (Such as believing in the flat Earth theory or other conspiracy theories such as those that are about the Las Vegas Shooting or 9/11) do not reflect on my current views. 

    https://docs.google.com/document/d/1p6M-VgXHwwdpJarhyQYapBz-kRc6FrgdOLFAd3IfYz8/edit

    https://debateisland.com/discussion/comment/18248/#Comment_18248 (Me officially stating that I am no longer a flat-Earther)
  • realDuganrealDugan 7 Pts   -  
    I personally think that this question is composed not of two substitutes, but two complements.

    Let me elaborate. Religion and science can actually be used together. For example here are the dictionary.com definitions of religion and science (note***there are more than one definition for both of these terms).

    Religion (n.)
    a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects.

    Science (n.)
    systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation.

    Religion is merely what we believe to be true. It is a "set of beliefs and practices" that by nature cannot be proven because they are based upon beliefs, i.e., the practices stem from something we believe to be true. So yes, we believe something to be true, but how do you know it is true? Well, you have science.

    Science is what we get after we believe something to be true. Meaning, in order to prove something to be true, you need "observation and experimentation" to gain evidence. Once we have the facts, evidence, and other means to justify our belief, we can seek to prove it. Once proven, it can be called a "truth", which by definition would mean it is not false, right? Wrong.

    You see, 2+2=4. By nature this is true, it can never be false. Religion and science, though, are by nature not true. They are both "man" made, which means they are prone to human error. Religion is constantly changing and so is science. One day coffee is good for you, and who knows, the CDC might come up with some new "science" saying that it is bad for you, therefore it is not truth. It is subject to being changed.

    I guess what I am trying to say is neither religion nor science is reliable because both are man made an constitute no truth. Yes, I am saying that science is merely all "truths" that have the potential to be disproven. I am a Christian, and I believe that the Word of God is true. Not only do I believe it is true, I believe it is ALL true. Every last word. I believe God created the world, and I believe there is scientific evidence that He did (I want to mention this without getting to heavily into this claim). Therefore, I strongly believe that religion and science are complements, not substitutes.

    I think we view religion and science as if it were on a "straight line" spectrum. The idea is that as you look more in depth at the topics, religion and science move farther and farther away from each other on the line.

    Instead, we should view religion and science as if it were on a "circle" spectrum. The idea here is as you look more in depth at religion and science, they move farther away from each other eventually leading back to one another.

    The answer is not religion, and it is not science. God created the world, that is how I answered the polling question. But just as He created the world, that opened up the opportunity for us to worship (religion), and learn (science). They go hand in hand. 


  • NightwingNightwing 54 Pts   -  
    Mathematics is man made too. The reason we can trust equations to produce specific results is because we designed mathematics that way.

    Science and mathematics are two different systems. Science is an open system. A new theory can be inspired for anything. If it is falsifiable and has been tested, that's good enough for science. Mathematics, on the other hand, is a closed system. It is defined by axioms. From those formal proofs define the entire world of mathematics. Along with the power of the formal proof comes the power of prediction. Science can only describe, it cannot predict. It must turn to mathematics to predict.

    Logic is a closed system, like mathematics. It is built the same way...by us...again starting with axioms. Like mathematics it has the formal proof and the power of prediction. It is not possible to prove a god or gods exist or don't exist using either science, mathematics, or logic.

    Religion is simply some initial circular argument. The other word for the circular argument is 'faith'.

    Personally, I believe God exists. That is a statement of faith. That is all the explanation I need.

    Logic
  • LogicLogic 279 Pts   -  
    @Nightwing I agree, And disagree. On your last part  "Personally, I believe God exists. That is a statement of faith. That is all the explanation I need." I agree. But on : "Mathematics is man made too. The reason we can trust equations to produce specific results is because we designed mathematics that way." You can't really put 2 fingers up on each hand and move 2 to the other hand, and get 3 or 5.
  • NightwingNightwing 54 Pts   -  
    Logic said:
    @Nightwing But on : "Mathematics is man made too. The reason we can trust equations to produce specific results is because we designed mathematics that way." You can't really put 2 fingers up on each hand and move 2 to the other hand, and get 3 or 5.
    The concept of what we call three or five comes out the basic axioms of mathematics, which define 'zero' and 'one', and the concepts of 'addition', 'subtraction', 'multiplication', and 'division'. This provides for the entire number line through a series of proofs.

    Assigning values to fingers is not mathematics. That actually comes out of logic, another closed system we designed.


  • EvidenceEvidence 814 Pts   -  
     
    inc4t said:
    Timeless debate of all time.  Please vote and explain your position.

    Hello @inc4t I voted science, and not religion.

    Our Creator is real, and has to be sought out, sought after, which indicates science.
    Religion demands "blind faith", just ask any Muslim, JW, Mormons and especially Catholics, these specifically demand blind faith.

    The God of the Bible is revealed as fact, so is God a fact? If so, then He cannot be taken on blind faith. There is no "fact" in "blind faith", only blind, unquestioned acceptance. If that was Gods will that we should accept Him on blind faith, He would not have given us free will, or said:

    Jerimiah 29:
    11 For I know the thoughts that I think toward you, says the Lord, thoughts of peace and not of evil, to give you a future and a hope. 12 Then you will call upon Me and go and pray to Me, and I will listen to you. 13 And you will seek Me and find Me, when you search for Me with all your heart.

    Isn't that what we do in science, .. seek for answers till we find it? If anyone can show me why God would require us to accept any god, of the religion of the country you were brought up in on blind faith, please show me?

    Now Religion, like the Christian Religion that I was brought up in taught me that I must accept God on blind faith, and that the denomination I belonged to, was the "true way", the "only way", because they told me; "only one road leads to life, one door, one gate, one path!"

    I remember them ask me: "Do you believe that this path (ACC Nazarene at that time) is the only true path to Heaven, to God?"

    I answered: "Well I don't know, I never been to any other church/denomination, so how would I know?"

    I was then told by the 'Elders' that; "I was not ready yet", and that "I should pray more", and "listen to the preaching more carefully, then when I'm sure this was the only way, that true road, then come calling again!"

    But woe is me, the more I studied, the more I prayed, the more I "listened to the Sunday preaching", the farther I went from the church, .. or as they would tell me; the farther I strayed from the truth, and from God! I started to question if this denomination even knew God? So many questions unanswered, yet I was told to accept their unanswerables on blind faith. because "Abraham had faith", .. see? So much faith, that he was willing to sacrifice his own son to God.

    Say what? I was asked to take a Religion, particularly the Christian Religion with such blind devotion that I would be willing to kill my own son for it?

    But I knew that: "Abraham spoke to God, he knew it was God because God made a promise to him and Sarah, .. and it came to pass! So how would I know that you guys are speaking for God? Besides, God didn't speak to me either!?"

    This is when they told me "You have gone far enough. Don't you believe that us Ministers and Elders that you, and your parents and grandparents grew up with were ordained by God? Didn't you read in the Bible that you are to respect and honor your Elders because they as slaves, as Shepherds of the flock will answer for you, and everyone in the Church before God?"

    This troubled me so much that I fell back into the world, and eventually they excommunicated me.

     For thus says the Lord of hosts, the God of Israel: Do not let your prophets and your diviners who are in your midst deceive you, nor listen to your dreams which you cause to be dreamed. For they prophesy falsely to you in My name; I have not sent them, says the Lord.
  • NightwingNightwing 54 Pts   -  
    @Wake
    "At what point does God and Science have any differences?"

    At the point of the test of falsifiability.

  • Oswald_MosleyOswald_Mosley 108 Pts   -  
    I personally believe god and science are carefully intertwined. I believe things such as the big bang theory can be easily explained by such things like god releasing gases to create the universe but I do believe in things such as evolution. 
  • EvidenceEvidence 814 Pts   -  
    Vaulk said:
    @Logic,

    To answer your question:
    Logic said:
    Why would a theist make something that isn't compatible with his religion? 
    Answer: Science is the study of the natural world...plain and simple.  The ideology behind a supremely powerful being who can defy all the laws of the natural world is by definition "Supernatural" and therefor stands distinctly separated from Science and beyond Scientific understanding.  So essentially, whoever created the Scientific Method (Whoever you believe made the most contributions to its establishment) didn't create a Religious incompatibility but merely made it so that one could not be used in conjunction with the other as they are in different realms.

    And secondly:

    Logic said:
    And god doesn't have to be in the realm of the super natural alone, Why not the realm of the un seen? 
    Answer: I've found no reference to the "Realm of the unseen" that isn't a supernatural reference.  Granted you cannot see gravity but that doesn't make it supernatural, this is a faulty comparison because Gravity, while it cannot be observed directly (Similar to air), the effect of Gravity can be observed and experienced.  You can test gravity, you can formulate hypotheses and then experiment to verify its existential nature. 

    In this, I'm afraid that we may have to agree to disagree, God or "A God" is a supernatural being by definition no matter how hard anyone wants it to be otherwise.  I don't believe anyone from the Scientific Community would disagree either.  Not to say that Science cannot be applied to what's in front of us that may be the result of something Supernatural...I think this is where Science and Religion meet very well. 

    And I agree that no twisting of words is required to bring Science and Religion together however, this doesn't make it so that anyone can use Science to formulate theories regarding God.  To date I actually haven't seen any scientific study aimed at theorizing God at all, most Science regarding the supernatural is used in an attempt to prove or disprove it all-together...never to explain the existence of God...but that might have something to do with Science and the Supernatural being separated by definition.
    Supernatural:
    1. (of a manifestation or event) attributed to some force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature.
    "a supernatural being"
    synonyms:paranormal, psychic, magic, magical, occult, mystic, mystical, superhuman,


    This "supernatural god" sounds like a magician, not someone who creates by Intelligent Design.

    Gravity is most definitely 'supernatural', because it can;
    1. expand the vacuum of space (magic)
    2. and also at the same time choose one quantum gas particle (redshift), and attach itself to it, then over billions of years draw other particles to that one particle and create planets and suns.
    3. it can slow the expansion of space down, and reverse itself where now it will pull your entire universe into one huge ball of mass,
    4. it will continue gravitating the huge ball of mass smaller and smaller, until it pulls it back to a singularity, and then back into the 'nothing'.

    Now that's magic, not science/Intelligent design, because no one has witnessed such a thing as this magical gravity that can do opposing things.
    Erfisflat
  • EvidenceEvidence 814 Pts   -  
    Fr3ak said:
    There is no evidence or proof of the existence of any sort of god. Because of this, I believe, as a rational person, that there is no god, however I am open to the existence of one if you can prove to me beyond the shadow of a doubt that there is a chance one exists. However, the only arguments I have had are very easily disproven and do not even come close to beggining to prove the existence of a god. The fact of the matter is that we have evidence to suggest that something such as the theory of the big bang is what created the universe. By observing our universe, the evidence leads to a logical conclusion. We cannot say for certain, it is just a theory, however there is more evidence to support whereas the no evidence to support the existence of a god.

    Feel free to challenge me to this and attempt to prove me wrong and try to prove god exists. Who knows, maybe you will come up with something original.
    @Fr3ak said: The fact of the matter is that we have evidence to suggest that something such as the theory of the big bang is what created the universe. By observing our universe, the evidence leads to a logical conclusion.

    Which universe are we talking about, the one created by Gene Roddenberry, or L. Ron Hubbard, George Lucas, or NASA? They all vary!?
    Erfisflat
  • EvidenceEvidence 814 Pts   -  
    There is no proof for a God. I believe in science rather than an imaginary being.

    There is plenty of proofs of god/gods on eBay.

    You "believe" in science?? Sounds like a religious comment to me, that's what atheists tell me anyways.

    I believe in an "Uncreated Creator God" because of science. Not the science fiction type of science, but the type that observes the world around us, and gives us an honest, unbiased description of what they see. The ones that provide "evidence with substance" and not the science that requires us to "believe" in them, or to put our faith in them/science, .. you know, the ones that tell us: to just "trust us, theses pictures are of Mars, taken by our Mars Rover that's there, .. really! See the red tint? This proves it's Mars. The pictures of the same scenery without the red-tint is here on earth."
    ErfisflatDrCereal
Sign In or Register to comment.

Back To Top

DebateIsland.com

| The Best Online Debate Experience!
© 2023 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
Terms of Service

Get In Touch