Is God Beyond Science? - The Best Online Debate Website | DebateIsland.com - Debate Anything The Best Online Debate Website | DebateIsland.com
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 by activity 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.









Is God Beyond Science?

Debate Information

Everything we are or know is subject to the laws of science. Science cannot be changed, never lies, is not judgmental and is not biased.

The easy way out for theists, of course, is the vain excuse of "God (spiritual beings) is beyond science".

How does anyone know that "God is beyond science" except by making the assumption that God exists regardless?
Blastcat



Debra AI Prediction

Predicted To Win
Predicted 2nd Place
11%
Margin

Details +




Post Argument Now Debate Details +

    Arguments


  • You said it yourself, if I believe God exist, and he created all, than science was created by him. So he is not bound by the laws of nature.
    Plaffelvohfen
  • BlastcatBlastcat 362 Pts   -   edited September 22

    Everything we are or know is subject to the laws of science. Science cannot be changed, never lies, is not judgmental and is not biased.
    Science has changed and is still changing.
    We have had a lot of progress since the word was first coined.

    It was philosopher William Whewell who first coined the term 'scientist. ' Prior to that, scientists were called 'natural philosophers'.” Whewell coined the term in 1833. Of course, most people think that Newton and Galileo did science.

    We have come a long way from the Bible stories in Genesis.

    Dee
  • BlastcatBlastcat 362 Pts   -   edited September 22

    Things that do not exist cannot go anywhere, let alone "beyond" something. Theists would have to demonstrate that their god exists before we should trouble our mind about the OP's question.

    To me, the question is completely irrelevant if God doesn't exist.
    It's like asking if Voldermort is beyond compassion.

    Literary criticism at best.
    Well, I say that I can't tell if God is beyond science or not and I say that Voldermort had a lot of trouble expressing compassion.

    Opinions will vary.
    Dee
  • SwolliwSwolliw 1297 Pts   -  
    @JeffreyBlankenship
     than science was created by him

    That misnomer has been thrashed to death. Science is the definitive behavior of nature. 

    Even if God did "create" science why would he not be bound by its laws and how would you know anyway except by making an assumption to fit the never-ending shifting goalposts of "Where is God?"

    Dee
  • SwolliwSwolliw 1297 Pts   -  
    @Blastcat
    Well, I say that I can't tell if God is beyond science or not 

    Exactly, and anyone who does say that "God is beyond science" is merely quoting a meaningless, hollow throw-away line preached to them whilst they were sitting gaga eyed at the last brain-washing ceremony (church service).

    DeePlaffelvohfen
  • BlastcatBlastcat 362 Pts   -   edited September 24
    Swolliw said:
    @Blastcat
    Well, I say that I can't tell if God is beyond science or not 

    Exactly, and anyone who does say that "God is beyond science" is merely quoting a meaningless, hollow throw-away line preached to them whilst they were sitting gaga eyed at the last brain-washing ceremony (church service).


    lol.. have you ever heard of steelman argument?
    Or.. charity in debates?

    We don't have to make them look bad. We can examine the mistakes that they make in their thinking in their facts.

    I said that I can't tell because I have no evidence of a god... so maybe, maybe not, I can't tell. If they claim that God is beyond science ( whatever THAT means ) they have the burden of the proof for that claim.

    And first, they would have to clarify what BEYOND SCIENCE means.

    Lecturing, oops, baby, I did it again.
    Dee
  • DeeDee 4487 Pts   -   edited September 24
    @Blastcat

    @swolliw

    Swollow states anyone who says there  is a god  is irrational as they cannot prove their case , yet states clearly there is no god the burden of proof is squarely on him in this case to prove that there is no god just as he demands the same of a believer …..he cannot do this so is equally guilty of irrationality 

    I think you agree with his position or do you see also how irrational it is ?


    Blastcat
  • SwolliwSwolliw 1297 Pts   -  
    @Dee
    he cannot do this so is equally guilty of irrationality 

    I cannot do this unless you can explain how anyone can disprove something that is not proven in the first place.

    Let me know the parameters and conditions and I will be quite happy to disprove the existence of God. Does that sound rational?...Of course it does.

    Now, on the other hand, we have someone who says there is a God...if there is indeed a God, there will be evidence. But of course, such a person will not come up with evidence and try the blame game of....."Derrr, well, you prove there isn't a God"....Now, does that sound rational? No it doesn't, does it?

    And, I have better things in life to do rather than run around being expected to disprove any stu-pid thing that any irrational nit-wit cares to dream up...one of them being God or any other supernatural phenomenon for that matter.

     

    Blastcat
  • SwolliwSwolliw 1297 Pts   -  
    @Blastcat
    Lecturing, oops, baby, I did it again.

    No, no...lecture away...there is nothing wrong with it at all. That's my opinion but maybe I should head down to my local college...walk into a lecture in progress and yell out....."Hey you, it's bad manners to lecture".

    Blastcat
  • DeeDee 4487 Pts   -  
    @Swolliw


    I cannot do this unless you can explain how anyone can disprove something that is not proven in the first place

    What an utterly ridiculous statement 

    Stop deflecting you made a claim as in there is no god the burden is on you , this is pretty basic stuff buddy ….


    The definition of burden of proof is the responsibility of an individual or party to prove an assertion or claim that they have made. The burden of proof can apply to a variety of situations, such as a scientist claiming a theory, a civil case, or a criminal case.



    Let me know the parameters and conditions and I will be quite happy to disprove the existence of God. Does that sound rational?...Of course it does.


    The definition of burden of proof is the responsibility of an individual or party to prove an assertion or claim that they have made. The burden of proof can apply to a variety of situations, such as a scientist claiming a theory, a civil case, or a criminal case.



    Now, on the other hand, we have someone who says there is a God...if there is indeed a God, there will be evidence. But of course, such a person will not come up with evidence and try the blame game of....."Derrr, well, you prove there isn't a God"....Now, does that sound rational? No it doesn't, does it?


    The definition of burden of proof is the responsibility of an individual or party to prove an assertion or claim that they have made. The burden of proof can apply to a variety of situations, such as a scientist claiming a theory, a civil case, or a criminal case.


    And, I have better things in life to do rather than run around being expected to disprove any stu-pid thing that any irrational nit-wit cares to dream up...one of them being God or any other supernatural phenomenon for that matter.


    The definition of burden of proof is the responsibility of an individual or party to prove an assertion or claim that they have made. The burden of proof can apply to a variety of situations, such as a scientist claiming a theory, a civil case, or a criminal case.


    Two of your debates down oh and I reported your one calling all theists st-pid 
    Blastcat
  • SwolliwSwolliw 1297 Pts   -  
    @Dee
    ......oh and I reported your one calling all theists st-pid 

    Geeziz, that spelling was pretty stu-pid.

    I did not call any theist stu-pid....you erroneously inferred such but since you brought up the topic I would have to say that, yes all theists are stu-pid. 

    Those who vehemently believe there is a God are stu-pid because they are adamant about something that nobody has ever seen or heard. As for the others who say they are theists (yet know very well there is no God) only to curry favor or lead nit-wits up the garden path are these days, looking really stu-pid because religion as a scam is well past its use-by date.

    Blastcat
  • DeeDee 4487 Pts   -  
    @Swolliw ;

    I did not call any theist stu-pid....you erroneously inferred such but since you brought up the topic I would have to say that, yes all theists are stu-pid. 

    You did actually wait and see when it’s pulled like the other two …..now you’re saying you didn’t but they are …….that’s so you ….
    Blastcat
  • maxxmaxx 801 Pts   -  
  • SwolliwSwolliw 1297 Pts   -  
    @maxx
    Star Size Comparison 2 - YouTube@Swolliw

    Thanks for that enlightening piece of information. it is quite handy to keep up with the prices of pork.

    I was thinking more of a lobster telephone actually.

    See the source image

    Blastcat
  • BlastcatBlastcat 362 Pts   -   edited September 25
    You said it yourself, if I believe God exist, and he created all, than science was created by him. So he is not bound by the laws of nature.
    Do you believe in such a god?
  • SwolliwSwolliw 1297 Pts   -  
    @Blastcat
    My point exactly....what does a lobster telephone have to do with anything, namely Maxx's off the planet link
    https://debateisland.com/discussion/7497/e.com/watch?v=GoW8Tf7hTGA
    Unless I am missing something and you could enlighten me as to what the youtube video has in it that has anything to do with being beyond science, or the price of pork for that matter.
    Blastcat
  • NeopesdomNeopesdom 129 Pts   -  
    @JeffreyBlankenship

    >>>...science was created by him. 

    If we go by this dictionary definition:

    SCIENCE - knowledge about or study of the natural world based on facts learned through experiments and observation Merriam-Webster

       Science is a human activity not needed by God since He knows everything to begin with. In other words God does not need to learn anything through experiments or observation, God is all knowing, If God needed science then He would not be God. What we learn through science is the way God created the physical universe, science however fails when we consider things beyond the physical and that is what is meant by saying "God is beyond Science". Science will never find God, because He is outside of His physical creation (apart from when He came as a man), only the physical aspects of His creation can be observed and experimented upon.
    PlaffelvohfenDee
      “Never argue with an id'iot They will drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.” ― Mark Twain
  • BlastcatBlastcat 362 Pts   -  

    Science is a human activity not needed by God since He knows everything to begin with

    how did you arrive at this conclusion?

  • NeopesdomNeopesdom 129 Pts   -  
    >>how did you arrive at this conclusion?

    CONCLUSION - a judgment or decision reached by reasoning. Specifically by inference which is by definition a conclusion reached on the basis of evidence and reasoning.

      “Never argue with an id'iot They will drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.” ― Mark Twain
  • @Blastcat. Yes I do.
  • dallased25dallased25 67 Pts   -  
    You said it yourself, if I believe God exist, and he created all, than science was created by him. So he is not bound by the laws of nature.
    That's called playing tennis without the net. You are rigging the game so you win no matter what. If this god is not bound by the rules he created, then we should see violations of these laws regularly in clear demonstrations of its presence. For example miracles or prayers being answered. Yet instead what we see is the laws of physics working consistently over and over and all claims of miracles being either fabrications, embellishments (someone claiming to have been cured miraculously...even though they received medical treatment), or unproveable. Prayer studies have been shown to work at the rate of chance, which is what we would expect if there was no god and we see no violations of the natural order. So either god is a part of the natural order and does not violate the rules it created, or it exists outside of it and does not interact with the natural order in any measurable sense. Either way, it is a belief that doesn't make any sense given what we actually see in reality and doesn't align with any of the available evidence. 
    Swolliw
  • SwolliwSwolliw 1297 Pts   -  
    @dallased25
    Either way, it is a belief that doesn't make any sense given what we actually see in reality and doesn't align with any of the available evidence. 

    Exactly, and to say that "God is beyond science" is making a wild assumption in the first place. If I were to be cynical I would say that theists are trying to move the tennis net to some obscure place where nobody can lob a ball over it.

Sign In or Register to comment.

Back To Top

DebateIsland.com

| The Best Online Debate Experience!
© 2021 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