CreateDebate


Debate Info

10
7
Yes No
Debate Score:17
Arguments:24
Total Votes:21
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 Yes (6)
 
 No (7)

Debate Creator

Doherty95(299) pic



Should God be treated like any other scientific hypothesis?

There are certain claims made about God, which can be tested. Does this mean God should be subject to the same scrutiny as any other scientific hypothesis?

Yes

Side Score: 10
VS.

No

Side Score: 7
4 points

Yes, I think the concept of god should be treated like any other scientific claim. There should be no special pleading for any idea, because the scientific method is the best way to acquire knowledge. However, we need to first agree on a definition of god that we can work with. This definition would need to allow for observation and testing.

Some concepts of god do not make any testable claims. For example, the deistic god is outside space and time. Such a god only created the initial conditions favorable for a universe to develop. The deistic god does not interfere in the natural processes of the universe and therefore cannot be perceived, and as any testing of a hypothesis will ultimately rely on observation and experiment (which themselves rely on nature's laws) then such a concept of god cannot be tested.

If we use another concept of god, say a theistic god, then I believe there are specific claims made about this god's interactions with the natural world that are testable. Such claims are, for example miracles such as faith healing or the power of prayer. For testable claims such as these, they should be treated as any other hypothesis.

Side: Yes

I don't think so here's why.

Over the time I've spent arguing, I've come across quite a few debates relating to religion, among other topics. Though unlike the other topics, the religious debates never result in someone changing their view, unless they entirely changed their religion. For instance, if the question asks is God real. Atheists say no, religious people say yes. No one switches sides, no one puts up an argument that the other side can argue with for this reason:

They are arguing on different premises.

To a religious person, believing God is perfectly logical to a non religious person it's extremely illogical. Who's right? With no proof, neither is, so they must be arguing on different terms.

Side: No
NMNMN(44) Disputed
1 point

It seems that you are trying to argue for science and religion being non-overlapping magisteria. It is not a view that I agree with, because religious doctrine does sometimes intrude into areas that are best suited for scientific investigation, areas such as the origin of the universe or the origin of life. When religion makes any claims in these areas, why should these claims not be subjected to the same scrutiny as any other scientific hypotheses?

"To a religious person, believing God is perfectly logical to a non religious person it's extremely illogical. Who's right? With no proof, neither is, so they must be arguing on different terms."

Please elaborate on this. Specifically, what are the different terms?

Side: Yes
-2 points
Quocalimar(6470) Clarified
1 point

There is more evidence for a logical God, than an illogical God.

I'd ask you to show me, but you wouldn't. Live and let live, I have stopped saying theist beliefs are illogical and you take that as a victory, you should just accept that atheist beliefs are logical as well, or at least don't accept it quietly.

There is no middle ground in religious debates, no compromise no changing sides. If we can't accept that they are both logical for different reasons then we should not even bother having these debates. The point of a debate is to reach a conclusion, yet religious debates never reach a conclusion. I gave a reason as to why I think but you are showing signs of not accepting it.

They are not on different premises.

Religion and physics, science, proof, or whatever you want to call it are two different things, that's why they are not to be compared, because only one can win, and only on their designated field so to speak.

None are wrong and both are right, to the degree that which we are debating.

In science religion is wrong. In religion science is wrong. See why they are different premises?

Side: Yes
1 point

No, because according to this logic Narnia should be treated as a hypothesis too.

Side: No
1 point

No, science strives to find answers for things. It finds the most logical explanation ( even if not entirely accurate) and calls it a theory. Science has disproved God and has proven countless things contradictory to the idea of God. So why would it allocate it as a valid hypothesis for anything?!

Side: No
Lynaldea(1231) Disputed
1 point

When, Where, and How has science disproven God? Try to name even 3 things. I see no evidence to disprove God.

Side: Yes
Jungelson(3959) Disputed
1 point

How did God come in to existence, if science has proven everything has had a beginning, this disproves God. Science has proven the earth and universe are billions of years old, contrary to what God supposedly did, and we also know that. We also know that dinosaurs did not exist at the same time as humans, contrary to what the Bible says. Adam and eve too, we know were not the first human beings. We know, though many people refuse to believe so, that evolution is not a theory, it is a fact. it has far too much solid evidence to be just a theory,. All this disproves he existence of God. But if you want more, sure thing.

Science has pretty much disproved the entire Bible, and the Bible being the only thing we have to prove God exists, well now we have no proof God does exist, However this does not prove God "doesn't" exist, so I left this out of the main bit. All of Gods magical powers are in no way possible, according to the laws of physics, a scientific thing. Maybe God did exist, maybe all the special little thing she did were right, but as far as science and physics is concerned, it is impossible.

I think that might be three, I don't know. My turn, I see no evidence to prove God. Mind helping me find some??

Side: No