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.
You can share this debate in three different ways:
#1
#2
#3
Paste this URL into an email or IM:
Click here to send this debate via your default email application.
Click here to login and CreateDebate will send an email for you.
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, 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.
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.
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?
Belief in God, in the general sense, ought to be logical for any person, hands down. Why? Because why not? There is more evidence for a logical God, than an illogical God. How? Curiosity reigns. Curiosity is the fundamentally sound fact/notion/essence, [of] that human beings are curious, and this precise fact is why we are here now, with religion/spirituality and science and X, Y, Z being prevalent. Without curiosity, none of previous mentioned aspects of life would exist. And so therefore, since curiosity brings about particular values to a human being, they should be accounted for; neither being less logical than the other; they are both logical. There is nothing within the science realm that points against religion (no numbers, no stats, no "evidence") and the same with nothing within religious realm being against science; they both are on a quest to understanding the universe and life, in general.
And so, to answer your question, yes God should not be "tested" per say (how can anyone "test" God? That is pull 'it' from the "heavens" and "test" 'it"). What can be tested scientifically would be "miracles", "prayer", "chance", "the brain while 'on the high of spirituality'", "the goodness", the "indifference of good man", "the fact that mankind has morales and ethos", things like this. Which obviously ties into sociological potentiality and psychological fundamentals. Let us begin with what we both share commonalities, not the differences.
They are not on different premises. They both are of a human being to help guide the human being. None are wrong and both are right, to the degree that which we are debating.
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?
Curiosity exists - 1 reason. Beautiful complexity (nature + the unfortunate downside of this complexity) exists - 2 reasons. Life exists - 3 reasons. As far as we know, there is no other true life in existence (though I do believe the Universe is too large for no other life to no exist, theoretically, we haven't encountered it) - 4 reasons. The existence of evil - 5 reasons. The existence of good (significant) - 6 reasons. In this life, nothing is perfect - 7 reasons. Human beings exist - 8 reasons..... There are more, that is just the start.
I do accept that atheists beliefs are logical, I thought I had already expressed that; they're logical only in the sense that "no one knows for sure", as agnostic views. However, atheists do not have any evidence to suggest anything I've given reason to believe, is non existent or fact. Prove me wrong.
They are both logical, as I have already explained. I do accept reality, do you?
Religion and science are on a quest to understanding the truth, in their respective ways, at the very least they are similar in that regard. Prove me wrong.
In religion science is not wrong, who says that? I believe in science and I am "religious", more spiritual though. In science religion is wrong because they're worried about numbers (evolution vs creationism), they're also worried about science not being the frontrunner...These are hardly evidences for against the notion that science and religion are similar.
Sorry to say it but those examples suit science better. Which means if we were going to have this argument we'd jump to how science proves those things better, and science would win. Stick with faith, it's definitely more suited to religion.
Atheists beliefs are logical because, if you look around the world and see all of the different religions that means you are taking religion as a whole, and they don't add up to one another, then you compare it to atheists know and it falls short.
The reason though that they are both logical as you go on to say, is because as I had said before, they are operating on two different points.
They don't clash, they don't need to be mixed. You can't argue religion with a scientist, you can't argue nuclear physics to reverend.
I don't know who said it, but I do know that science, (from the point of view of those who take it seriously) is ignorant of the facts of reality, and what does 'is blind' mean? Is it saying that it's being pointed nowhere, or in the wrong direction?
The saying suggests that religion without science entails ignorance due to the fact that what science brings to the table is in fact valid and is empirical; religion ought to account for this. And on the other side, science is blind without religion due to the fact that science cannot know everything; and therefore, to account religious values into play ought to not be taken for granted by the science community because religious thought and actuality exists, therefore science without religion is blind. Blind to what? To inevitability.
Science is blind without religion because it underestimates the reality of the actuality that any and all religious views ought to be accounted for; as far as the existence of at least one God, amongst many.
In short, science must realize that religion, in general, is inevitable.
Just to add, when Einstein said that he wasn't on about Christianity, Judaism and other religions of that sort.
Here are a couple of quotes from his letter to philosopher Eric Gutkind.
"The word god is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honorable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this. "
"For me the Jewish religion like all others is an incarnation of the most childish superstitions."
Also a couple of quotes which would suggest what he actually meant by religion in this quote.
"I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it."
"A knowledge of the existence of something we cannot penetrate, of the manifestations of the profoundest reason and the most radiant beauty - it is this knowledge and this emotion that constitute the truly religious attitude; in this sense, and in this alone, I am a deeply religious man."
Doherty, did you not read my posts? Obviously not. Either that, or you simply do not understand the greater and bigger picture. Do you not know how to connect dots and read between lines?
I digress...
It's unfortunate to have to explain every single detail about my writing when you pointed out what you think I missed. In this case you thought I was strictly speaking of "religion" and "the religious" in the judaism, or any other religion for that matter versus the spirituality of the human psyche and the inevitability that curiosity brings to the human genome.
It's okay Doherty, not everyone can clearly see and understand the actuality and realities of life, at least not as easily as others. Don't fret Doherty, you'll get there one day....maybe.
All I did was make sure you understood that einstein did not mean religion, to be anything to do with God.
This was your response to chuz-life.
Science is blind without religion because it underestimates the reality of the actuality that any and all religious views ought to be accounted for; as far as the existence of at least one God, amongst many.
In short, science must realize that religion, in general, is inevitable.
This made me think you didn't that is why I responded. Once you start mentioning God, you go away from what Einstein meant by the quote. All I was doing was making sure you understood that Einstein was using the word 'religious' in a different way to what it is usually used.
If you were not talking about God than the quote you used was unnecessary in this debate.
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?!
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??
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.
How did God come into existence? I don't know. Yet, apparently you claim to know this due to...what? Science has not proven the universe "had a beginning", you mean the big bang? Do you mean evolution? If science did prove the Universe had a beginning, this ties in with creationism, does it not?
Ah, so you use the christian bible as the means to this discussion? Okay, so in genesis it states God created "everything" in six days, and so you take that as literal 6 days? Ever consider the "big bang" was the "6 days"? Or ever consider the "6 days" are actually 6 billion years? Who knows exactly how to interpret the numbers. The numbers mean very little, in my opinion; it's just fuel for debate of statistics, not quality.
There are "reptiles" in the bible, the snake to name one. I'm sure you know who that is refereed to. Other than the snake, there are mentions of "giant dragons". Go figure.
In my opinion, "Adam and Eve" are not to be taken literal in the timetable sense, but in the sense of "And then within the process of life, there were humans"; a metaphor, if you will...whether there names were John and Nancy....matters not.
I believe in evolution and I believe there is at least one God. To me, evolution is another way of looking at a "process of life", and life obviously had a process. Even to the "creationist" (that is, the "bible" creationist), animals came before humans. Go figure.
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.
Science has proven what it believe disproves God, to their liking. The Bible is a book written by many humans believed to have been "spoken to by God". There are many books that are left out of the "modern bible", and has been shaped over and over throughout the years, this is apparent. However, science has not disproven that many people, even Jesus himself, actually existed. There is controversy, it's up to the person to decide whether or not any of the events in the bible took place. The bible is not the only source of evidence for Gods existence (I will get to other evidences later)
You then go on the explain how because what God is, its essence, is not "scientifically possible", that it is somehow, impossible, based upon human standards of scientific method? There is a problem with that. You're using what we think we know of the Universe and adapting it to what we think God is. That's a tough one to "quander", and I disagree with.
I think that might be three, I don't know. My turn, I see no evidence to prove God. Mind helping me find some??
1. Curiosity exists; humans are allowed to choose; if humans did not have choice, perhaps there would be no reason to believe in God, or not. (Regardless of Gods existence, if humans all "knew" without a doubt, we'd have no room for curiosity and would simply "know" and "be".
2. Complex beauty exists, including the "ugly, disease, cancers, death, ect" existing, it is all complex nonetheless. The human brain is the most complex thing that humans have ever studied thus far, in my opinion and many scientists opinion. How strange and exciting that our very brains are researched and viewed upon this way. Nature is beautifully tragic and complex.
3. Choice, if there were no choice (true free-will, true choice), there'd be no reason for dispute; we'd all most likely be the same exact creatures, dressing the same, talking the same, believing in the same things, ect. However, there is dispute, which means there is choice.
4. The Universe and all its glory - Obviously the Universe ties in with No. 2 on this list, and to further the "glory" part of this particular point. The Universe is so vast and amazing the human being has trouble comprehending it all. Science is on a quest to understanding all that is can know, and I am all for that. I believe in science and all its glory. However, I do not believe science will achieve what it wants, and that is to ("logically") understand the entire Universe as it is; I feel this is impossible, yet science will continue to grow and continue to understand. Further, nature is nature and nature can be very unexpected and with uncertainties there lie the issues. If the Universe wanted us to know it to it's fullest in the scientific way, there'd be no doubt in anyones mind. Yet, there is uncertainty, there is doubt. This is not doubt in God, this is doubt of the human being and all of our faults. Which brings me to the next.
5. Human Error - If humans were perfect, without error, with nothing but goodness and no evil, then perhaps we'd have no choice to "have faith and believe in God" or not. The fact that humans are not perfect, yet beautiful put together, tells me that there is something else beyond what meets the eye and natural consciousness.