CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
In short: Zero objective evidence for theism. Growing body of research indicating that theism is an evolutionary byproduct, the disposition for which is identifiable in particular genetic sequencing.
That's "science vs. religion" while in actuality religion and science are two sides of the same coin. When arguments are used against religion or visa versa, both sides cancel each other out anywhere you look. For example, there is also zero objective evidence for the material world or the fact that we have bodies.
Albert Einstein. Out of My Later Years. pg. 24
"Even though the realms of religion and science in themselves are clearly marked off from each other, nevertheless there exist between the two strong reciprocal relationships and dependencies. Though religion may be that which determines the goal, it has, nevertheless, learned from science, in the broadest sense, what means will contribute to the attainment of the goals it has set up. But science can only be created by those who are thoroughly imbued with the aspiration toward truth and understanding. This source of feeling, however, springs from the sphere of religion. To this there also belongs the faith in the possibility that the regulations valid for the world of existence are rational, that is, comprehensible to reason. I cannot conceive of a genuine scientist without that profound faith. The situation may be expressed by an image: science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."
"Though I have asserted above that in truth a legitimate conflict between religion and science cannot exist, I must nevertheless qualify this assertion once again on an essential point, with reference to the actual content of historical religions. This qualification has to do with the concept of God. During the youthful period of mankind's spiritual evolution human fantasy created gods in man's own image, who, by the operations of their will were supposed to determine, or at any rate to influence, the phenomenal world. Man sought to alter the disposition of these gods in his own favor by means of magic and prayer. The idea of God in the religions taught at present is a sublimation of that old concept of the gods. Its anthropomorphic character is shown, for instance, by the fact that men appeal to the Divine Being in prayers and plead for the fulfillment of their wishes."
Einstein was against mono-theism but pan-theism is also a form of theism.
No, not religion against science. I see how you thought that so I revised the sentence. I meant the "arguments cancel each other out", i'm saying thats because there is unison between religion and science. any argument given against religion can be countered by the same argument in support of religion. i gave examples contrasted with what Jace said.
Anyone reading this can look at my record. I have always identified myself as a pro-science unitarian universalist. There is no reason for me to be disingenuous about what I have said.
Fact is that in this last exchange Cartman misinterpreted my response and after being corrected is now trying to throw up a smoke screen to confuse people.
That's exactly what science vs religion means.
"science vs. religion" was my summary of what Jace said.
All i said in the original post was "science vs. religion. "
I should have said, "that's science vs. religion" - hence the exploited confusion.
How about using complete arguments that don't rely on us looking up your actual position?
Fact is that in this last exchange Cartman misinterpreted my response and after being corrected is now trying to throw up a smoke screen to confuse people.
False, you misrepresented your own argument and after I corrected you you decided to throw up this as a smoke screen.
"science vs. religion" was my summary of what Jace said.
All i said in the original post was "science vs. religion. "
I should have said, "that's science vs. religion" - hence the exploited confusion.
At least you admit that your post led to confusion.
I disagree, but I applaud you for being nice about it, and saying that it is your opinion in a polite way. Some people just get really aggressive... I like your method. :)
Saying that atheism is more right implies the existence of relative truths. For example, christians might say that whatever religion says about evolution is true to them but as an atheist aligned with more scientific perspectives, you should refute the existence of such relative truths. Thus you must say atheism is right (in regards to what is another to what is another matter) and theism is wrong, or you cannot use the word "right" as you risk being philosophically inconsistent.
First of all there is no evidence for God and as it is the theist who makes the claim the burden of proof lies on them. Furthermore the idea of an omnipotent being is impossible. If God can do anything then can he make a rock that is so heavy even he cannot lift? Either way he cannot be all powerful. Theism is essentially just having an imaginary friend. Also even if God does exist he is worthy of no reverence for allowing so much suffering to exist.
The fact that Theists are statistically less intelligent says it all really.
Theism must be correct because Naturalism is incorrect. So, this debate will simply disprove Naturalism.
Under Naturalism, one of three things is true.
1. Nature is past-eternal.
2. Nature came from nothing.
3. Nature created itself.
In order for nature to be eternal, this implies that the present is dependent on a literal infinite number of past events. We can mathematically disprove the existence of all infinite quantities by pointing to contradictions well-known within mathematics, such as Hilbert's Hotel and the Infinite Dartboard.
Nature coming from nothing is also a contradiction because the moment you state what created nature, you immediately assign that thing a property, and thus the "nothing" that created nature must have not been literally nothing.
Nature creating itself poses yet another contradiction, this time with identity. If nature created itself, then nature must have preexisted itself. If nature preexisted nature, then there must have been a time when nature existed before nature existed. You therefore end up with the awkward situation where nature both existed and didn't exist at one point. Since something cannot both have and lack existence at the same time, we end with a contradiction and thus an impossible scenario.
Thus, disproving naturalism, which means that the metaphysical must exist independent of the laws of nature.
Identical objections may be raised against the proposition of God, rendering your points against naturalism non-unique. Your "proof" is that because we remain ignorant about the origins of the universe your utterly unsubstantiated assumptive faith in God must be the true answer; this does not follow.
Your criticisms are predominantly founded on the problem of treating infinity as a quantity, rather than as a concept. Infinity itself is beyond the scope of our mathematics, generally speaking.
In order for nature to be eternal, this implies that the present is dependent on a literal infinite number of past events.
Not as such. Recall that the universe is overwhelmingly large- possibly not infinite, but far larger than we are able to measure, much less base calculations on. The current state of everything is based on a cycle of cause and effect. In a universe of sufficient size, with an infinite amount of time to work with, conditions that will eventually lead to the formation of a star system with at least one planet capable of supporting life as we know it and eventually generating said life are bound to arise occasionally- possibly even regularly.
We can mathematically disprove the existence of all infinite quantities by pointing to contradictions well-known within mathematics, such as Hilbert's Hotel and the Infinite Dartboard.
Emphasis on 'infinite quantities.' The term infinity itself is a concept that transcends all notion of quantity. Trying to treat infinity as a numerical quantity is non-sensical, and as such it is not surprising that mathematical constructs that attempt to do so create very strange results.
Thus, disproving naturalism, which means that the metaphysical must exist independent of the laws of nature.
Naturalism is not 'disproved' in this manner any more than 1=2 is 'proved' via a mathematical proof that hides division by zero with variables.
Why would there NOT be a God? This universe is so wonderful. You say it happened by CHANCE? Weird.
You could make that argument about any universe that exists. You think that just because something is complicated, and has things that can be interpreted as being beneficial, it must be created by a God you read about in some book that has only been around for approximately 0.000000142% of the existence of the universe?
You could make the same argument for an infinite number of universes. How does the fact that the one we are in happens to be one that can be interpreted as favorable prove the existence of a being that created the universe?
And if you knew anything about your opposition's argument, we don't argue that the world we are in now developed by CHANCE. As you would know if you studied evolutionary biology, whenever a new generation of a species is born, there will be natural changes (i.e., you are not the same person as your parents) and there will also be various mutations. Species that have mutations and features that are favorable will survive, keeping those traits alive, ultimately creating a species that is, as you say, 'wonderful.' That is the opposite of chance.
This argument you are making is fallacious. You claim that because the world we are in is (subjectively) 'wonderful,' then your explanation for said world must be correct. However, I could just as easily make up my own story of why the universe is so wonderful using the same evidence. This argument is incredibly flawed.
Casual speculation and naive endorsement of the entire universe do not even remotely constitute evidence in support of theism. Neither does an overly-simplistic and inaccurate reduction of one alternative non-theist viewpoint. Finally, just because something falls outside your realm of comprehension does not make it incorrect.
I think YOU saying that something you believe "falls outside my realm of comprehension" is a bit OTT, since I have done better than quite a few 16 year olds on a science test... and that was when I was NINE.
His statement did not indicate that you necessarily had something you didn't comprehend. It is a simple fact that just because someone doesn't understand something doesn't make that thing incorrect. If your statement was truly rhetorical you would have figured that out. Someone who realizes it is possible for there to be no god would acknowledge the idea of a godless reality and point out that it makes more sense for god to exist. If on the other hand they couldn't comprehend the idea of no god they would probably attack the other person for claiming they might not understand something.
You argued against his argument applying to you instead of arguing against the content of his argument. If it was truly rhetorical you would have continued arguing for your position instead of getting butt hurt about the possibility of not understanding something.
If it was truly rhetorical you would have continued arguing for your position instead of getting hurt about the possibility of not understanding something.
Because you lied about being able to understand a world without God. Instead of discussing a God you changed the subject to your science ability at age 9.
I could reply, but y'know, I'm gonna end this silly debate about whether my feelings were "hurt" because there really is no need. It IS pretty stupid considering you can't even see my face.
Well when people like me give extensive responses to your claims, you don't respond to us. Instead, you try to raise your own credibility by bringing up a story about when you were 9. If you respond to our actual arguments, then we can talk about the topic. When you don't, well, that's on you.
Basically, your sense of aesthetics is at least in part shaped by the world around you, and the opinions of those close to you. If the normal color of the sky was green, we'd consider a clear green sky to be beautiful in the same way we consider a clear blue sky to be beautiful.
In other words, any arrangement of characteristics on a planet that intelligent life with a sense of aesthetics arose on would yield a high proportion of individuals who see beauty in said arrangement. As such, this doesn't really constitute an argument for theism in favor of atheism.
