CreateDebate


Debate Info

12
18
Yes No, God is 100% made up
Debate Score:30
Arguments:13
Total Votes:31
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 Yes (6)
 
 No, God is 100% made up (7)

Debate Creator

debateleader(1350) pic



Can you have a scientific purpose for believing in God?

Yes

Side Score: 12
VS.

No, God is 100% made up

Side Score: 18
3 points

Well if you can bring up the fact that pretty much every civilization had some spiritual belief- whether in God, kami spirits, or whatever- than even if you don't have conclusive proof that religion exists, you can respect it as something that has a major place in society. Then there's the fact that the Bible or the Quran or the Old Testament are filled with examples of miracles and it's a stretch to say that every single one of them was from hallucinations or made up.

None of this is full proof that God exists of course; just that some spiritual entity may live among us and we have always given it a strong place in society. This doesn't really mean that He/She/It is perfect though; for all we know, it can be malevolent and hates us.

Side: Yes
3 points

Well if you can bring up the fact that pretty much every civilization had some spiritual belief- whether in God, kami spirits, or whatever- than even if you don't have conclusive proof that religion exists, you can respect it as something that has a major place in society.

Argumentum ad populum. This is an acknowledged logical fallacy. Simply because many believe an assertion, it is not necessarily true. Whether it must be respected or not (and I believe not), is irrelevant.

Then there's the fact that the Bible or the Quran or the Old Testament are filled with examples of miracles and it's a stretch to say that every single one of them was from hallucinations or made up.

Can you demonstrate, logically or otherwise, that any single miracle (which are by definition in conflict with some scientific law, principle &c;.) in any of these works actually happened?

Failing that, do you acknowledge that the probability of any one such event happening may be attributed a probability of effectively 0, unless first the existence of a God is proven?

And, accepting the previous axiom, that miracles cannot happen in the absence of a God, and that no miracle has been proven to have occurred; do you accept that a book describing such miracles cannot be submitted as proof of the existence of God?

None of this is full proof that God exists of course

I submit that none of it constitutes any form of proof whatever, complete or otherwise.

just that some spiritual entity may live among us

Nor, I submit, does the body of articles that you present prove even that. You have perhaps demonstrated that many people, or some people, believe that such a being exists, and that there might be some aspect of the human nature that impels them to that belief.

This doesn't really mean that He/She/It is perfect though

Perfection is a necessary prerequisite for a state of divinity, which is a state ascribed to the concept of God that I presume to be the subject of this debate.

or all we know, it can be malevolent and hates us.

The books previously described by you all assert that this is not the case, and are therefore entirely irrelevant to the argument for the existence of a morally ambiguous spirit.

Side: No, God is 100% made up
Bohemian(3861) Disputed
1 point

Then there's the fact that the Bible or the Quran or the Old Testament are filled with examples of miracles and it's a stretch to say that every single one of them was from hallucinations or made up.

No, not really. People thousands of years ago like to tell tall tales. Telling stories was a principal means of human relation as well as explaining unknown phenomena before the development of modern science. Every culture has it's stories, it's no more likely that the stories of the Hebrews are true than the stories of any other culture on earth.

Side: No, God is 100% made up
3 points

Well, science won't lead one to conclude that God exists, but it could lead certain people to believe in God for different philosophical reasons (why a Physicist is more likely to believe in God than a Biologist).

But I will say that scientific efforts used to be by very religious people (still today, with the Human Genome Project and all). It comes from the religious and thinking man's efforts to discover God and his creation.

Now, with how much we know, it is far less likely for a scientist to be religious, but it isn't completely out of the question.

Side: Yes
2 points

Sure, but not for the reason you might think.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nYwWZ9QTNLE

Evolutionary Advantage of Religion
Side: Yes
1 point

God has created this world. All science is the knowledge of his ways.man created robot and god created man.man created rockets to see his creations like solar systems and galaxies.man created microscopes to see his creations like unicellular organisms.

Side: Yes

Believing there's a God? Maybe there is some science to be found out.

Side: Yes

I think a scientific attitude can augment one's belief in God.

Side: Yes
5 points

Science does a perfectly fine job of explaining the universe without the need for a God. To implement such a being would violate Occams razor. As far as I know, there are only two scientific arguments for the existence of God: The cosmological, and the teleological. Both have been rebutted successfully on numerous occasions. Seriously, I can't believe William Lane Craig still uses these as two of his arguments. Why has no atheist bothered to rebut them? Anyway...

The cosmological argument states, essentially, that everything that begins to exist has a cause. The universe began to exist. The universe had a cause (note that I am using the Kalam cosmological argument, set forward by WLC). That cause was God. A problem with this is that the conclusion does not follow from the premises. Even if I accept the premises, I don't have to accept God as the first cause. But we can go further. Quantum mechanics allows matter to be "spontaneously" created, completely eliminating the need for a necessary being to start it all off. As far as I'm concerned, Kalam is a dead argument.

The same with the teleological argument, or the argument from design, stating that the universe's complexity is too detailed for nature to have ordered it. So God must have designed it. Again, this is not evidence for a God, Complexity does not mean design. The watchmaker analogy is worthless, it is ignorant to compare man made design to the absolute design of everything ever to have existed. Furthermore, the ultimate Boeing 747 gambit states that a designer complex enough to create everything would require a designer more complex than him, and so on to infinite regress.

That leaves no truly scientific arguments left, I think. But if I'm missing anything, let me know.

Side: No, God is 100% made up

Furthermore, it is quite evident that the teleological argument also commits the lottery (or gambler's) fallacy. This is because the fact that it is quite unlikely or improbable that a universe like ours could occur, it still doesn't mean that the existence and/or characteristics of the universe are not due to chance. For example, if I were to buy a Lotto ticket, along with, say, 10 million others, and win £3000, my chances of winning were one in 10 million. Now, it was very improbable that I would win, but the fact that I won doesn't mean that someone rigged the lottery in my favour because every one else had 1 in 10 million chances to win.

Side: No, God is 100% made up
3 points

The debate title and the answer dichotomy are incongruous. The lack of supernatural influence in humanity's scientific discoveries does not necessitate god's nonexistence.

-

Anyway. Scientific purpose for believing in say...the Judeo-Christian god? Are you out of your mind? Scientific discoveries were set back CENTURIES in the name of that god. That god's teachings DIRECTLY CONTRADICT scientific knowledge.

And the notion that a supernatural being has to use natural processes is absolutely absurd.

Side: No, God is 100% made up
2 points

Don't you think you should at least clarify the question?

'Can you have a scientific purpose for believing in God?'

I don't even know what you're asking.

But God does appear to be 100% made up.

Side: No, God is 100% made up
1 point

The only purpose for science is to observe and understand the universe via the scientific method, there is no other purpose.

Side: No, God is 100% made up