CreateDebate


Debate Info

8
6
Refutes God(s) Closer to God(s)
Debate Score:14
Arguments:25
Total Votes:24
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 Refutes God(s) (5)
 
 Closer to God(s) (7)

Debate Creator

xMathFanx(673) pic



Science Refutes God(s) vs. Science as a Path to get Closer to God(s)


Refutes God(s)

Side Score: 8
VS.

Closer to God(s)

Side Score: 6
3 points

Hello x:

Science doesn't refute God.. Science is silent on God.. Science WOULD have a position on God, IF science could INVESTIGATE, but you can't investigate a BELIEF..

excon

Side: Refutes God(s)
0 points

Science refutes gods. Science is a path to get closer to God.

Yet, God is closer than our breath.

Side: Refutes God(s)
AveSatanas(4237) Disputed
1 point

What a bunch of nonsensical rambling .

Side: Closer to God(s)
TzarPepe(327) Clarified
1 point

Perhaps that perception has more to do with your current paradigm than any objective reality.

Side: Refutes God(s)
0 points

Impossible to predict. There is no way to say for sure at any point in time before one of the two actually happen. But if I were to make a judgement on the gods of popular religions, then definitely science refutes god. Science rips apart most of the stories and statements regarding reality in general, in the bible as well as the Koran. The most scientifically consistent religion is hinduism, and even that has ridiculous tales such as a decapitated boy being brought back to life by attaching the head of an elephant to his body etc. Point is science and religious gods are like oil and water

Side: Refutes God(s)

Bit of both... I like to study the grandness of the simulation that fate has made for me.

The aliens appreciate it also and are far beyond us in scientific advancement, it can't be a coincidence.

So yes, science studies the beautiful majesty of fate and the simulated reality it's currently running but I know ways you can use science to deny god.

Side: Closer to God(s)
xMathFanx(673) Clarified
1 point

When you say "god" though, you are referring to a very different god than traditional, correct? You are reffering to the "engineer(s)" of the simulation? They are not necessarily supernatural?

Side: Refutes God(s)
0 points

No, my god, my fate it wants reality to work kindly together in harmony.

It doesn't want its reality to fight itself in any way. Therefore, it is morally motivated in a similar way to the God many love.

Side: Closer to God(s)
1 point

Read The Case For a Creator, and be the judge...................................................................................................................

Side: Closer to God(s)
0 points

You clearly do not understand your topic itself......Goodluck being confused.

Side: Closer to God(s)
xMathFanx(673) Clarified
3 points

You clearly do not understand your topic itself......Goodluck being confused.

Enlighten me

Side: Refutes God(s)
jeffreyone(1137) Clarified
0 points

By adding (s) to God, you break into another dimension(religion) where the argument doesn't belong as far as you want to talk about specifically God that can be acknowledged or disputed in science.

In religion there can be many referred to as gods and then God(without s, adding s blends gods and God and you give God competition with an (s)).

An atheist can pretend to do that out of ignorance and pretend not to know the difference.

But to maintain your debate firmly and solely in/about science, you are going to have to ignore what religion says the number of God(gods) there are and focus on the natural universe, how it came about and you will get a group in the scientific field studying the beginning of the universe called creationists.

The creationist God(similar to pantheism) is just the Mind behind the existence of the universe as opposed to the believe the darwinist evolution(specifically).

They have rights to oppose a proposed theory but doesn't mean the rejection of science itself(or entirely) as these people are scientists themselves who study the natural environment also. The validity of their knowledge, exposure, experience endorsed with certificates of their qualifications at the acme in their fields does not invalidate for simply opposing a theory.

No scientist has proven the non existence of a mind behind the existence of the universe.

People do not even pay attention to what they say to understand and for proper scruitinity(they are very opened to it unlike the other one) whereas the other one is choked down every kids throat forcefully through their school syllabus whether they believe it or not; that is what is fetching them marks and they must oblige, whiles creationism is being strongly antagonised for no strong and specific reasons.

Your debate shouldn't have been made, nothing has been refuted by anyone.

Darwism is just a theory, it is not even practical.

Lord have Mercy.

Side: Refutes God(s)
-2 points