CreateDebate


Debate Info

68
33
Dagger to the divine heart Science is a damp squib
Debate Score:101
Arguments:42
Total Votes:119
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 Dagger to the divine heart (23)
 
 Science is a damp squib (19)

Debate Creator

phuqster(123) pic



Is science killing god?

Is god suffering a slow death?

This idea (sub-debate) sprang forth after a post on the "Do you believe in a God" debate.

As science has pushed further forward, gods are being pushed further back suffering a slow and painful death. To me, gods are finally dead, but who is responsible for the murder? Science? There are still large numbers of believers, ranging around those that refute science, those that incorporate it into their beliefs and those that don't care either way. With belief seemingly as popular as ever (if not arguably more) was Nietzsche wrong?

Dagger to the divine heart

Side Score: 68
VS.

Science is a damp squib

Side Score: 33
5 points

It's clearly evident that as science has evolved and we begin to learn more and more about the world around us, the concept of gods has changed dramatically from literal beings to metaphysical entities.

The gods of old were all concerned with filling in the gaps in our understanding. The extent to which these gods are involved in distinctly human concerns, such as crops, death, fertility, etc, demonstrates a complete lack of supernatural divinity. At the time humans had no way of explaining how the sun evidently moved across the sky, how crops would grow at certain times of the year, and other such things which today we take for granted.

As scientific understanding has evolved, the concept of god has had to become far less specific. This is because many of the things that were explained by gods has now been overtaken by simple natural processes. The things that we have trouble understanding now are very complex concepts, such as what happens when we die, how the universe first came to exist, etc. Gods are still being used to explain these things, as we can't yet satisfactorily explain them with natural processes. Because the science involved has become far more complex, as have the gods. God is now a metaphysical entity, existing in infinite realms with infinite powers, and certain human qualities such as love and understanding. It's not enough any more to pull the sun across the sky; our gods have to be able to allow us to live after we die and have a plan for us all. This is quite simply a comfort to many people who hate the thought that when you die, you're dead.

Regardless, the trend shows that the placement of a god in the gap of our understanding will always be superceeded, eventually, by a scientific and natural explination. It happened when we realised we weren't the centre of the universe. It happened when we discovered evolution. It happened when climate and weather analysis realised that we could predict natural disasters. Just because the gods have become more complex, eventually science will wittle away at all they have until there is nothing left.

God IS dead, and science has been caught red-handed.

Side: science and religion cannot coexist
Lifsiksdeath(19) Disputed
1 point

I can not agree with this because:

You are assuming a God could not exist because human undarstanding is increasing to proove certain religions wrong and explain things that couldn't be explained in the past.

For god to be a god:

1,He has to exist

2,He has to be superior to humans.

Science has prooved many but not all and not the most "important" religions wrong,they have simply put alternative theories to god.

Therefore science has only killed god's that never existed,they can nor proove that god doesn't exists nor proove his existance.

Since god has to exist to be god,this isn't enough to make your point valid.

Side: Science is a damp squib
PungSviti(552) Disputed
2 points

"For God to be God...." :) I love a religious persons circular logic and tautology

It is fair to say that Scientific inquiry has killed of a huge percentage of what has historically been thought to be essential qualities of God by the Big three religions (Abrahamic) - but the religious lot always just jump onto something that they think has a greater shelf-life and say that that really was always what "God" meant. It is funny that in that sense religions seems to be evolving (something no religious person will want to admit) or devolving as the case may be.

I am not sure if science can kill something that lives in the heads of poorly educated people, for the only thing that they need to keep him/it alive is some self deluding and charged emotionality around the concept. Their God can always be saved from death by vagueness. But I am worried that these people are really gonna devolve to the point that they become so different that it will be harder and harder to bridge the knowledge gap. That could have dire consequences.

Religious people surely are copulating faster then others though. Thank "God" that they have much less control over their offspring than they realize.

I sure hope that the concept of God will die as a serious point of view. DonĀ“t mind us keeping the concept for entertainment purposes though.

Side: Dagger to the divine heart
1 point

Who says the God of Abrahamic religions is any less real than the gods of the Romans? Who said that this self-contradictory god ever existed? You are arguing based off no logic or evidence to back you up. Who says we are not superior to God? I agree with the first arument, as I believe God served simply to answer what we could and still cannot answer, such as what, if anything, happens after death.

Side: Dagger to the divine heart
1 point

I am thankful to you for such fabulous site and unique comments. I have visited such smashing site after a long time.

Supporting Evidence: testking 350-001 (www.real-testking.com)
Side: Dagger to the divine heart
1 point

The topic is unique and interesting.I think science is not killing the God. Its the human and their thinking is killing the concept of God.

Supporting Evidence: testking 640-802 (www.real-testking.com)
Side: Dagger to the divine heart
1 point

According to my point of view. The science is not responsible for all of that.Its going to happen due to the conservativeness of the human beings.

Supporting Evidence: vcp-410 (www.real-testking.com)
Side: Dagger to the divine heart
1 point

Thank you for sharing superb informations. Your website is very cool. I am impressed by the details that you have TOP 1 Oli Sintetik Mobil-Motor Indonesia on this blog. It reveals how nicely you perceive this subject.

Supporting Evidence: TOP 1 Oli Sintetik Mobil-Motor Indonesia (blog.seoservice360.com)
Side: Dagger to the divine heart
omnidave(96) Disputed
-1 points

I disagree that science is killing religion. People with skeptical minds have always been around, they just kept their opinions to themselves because religious people threatened them with physical harm or imprisonment for non belief. It's liberal democracy that's allowed people to speak their minds and research areas that traditional authoritarian believers opposed. The true believers will always believe in superstition or religion; science cannot stop the power of irrational belief. Some humans naturally will believe in the supernatural; imagination cannot be suppressed. Religion will always be with us, no matter how far science progresses, so science is not killing religion. In most of the world today the government (except in some Islamic countries) no longer enforces religious doctrine and law, so atheists and doubters no longer have to hide and can openly state their views.

Supporting Evidence: Why Humans Believe in Gods (jmm.aaa.net.au)
Side: Atheist Don't Hide Anymore
3 points

I view current beliefs in the same light as those beliefs in the early fertility goddesses, sun (and season) gods, gods that put alcohol into wine, threw lightening bolts and gods born from virgin birth. That is: that their gods only existed where human understanding ended, which was (is ever) only a temporary barricade.

As a Darwinist and atheist, my initial vague atheism being solidified after learning about evolution, I believe that god is firmly in the coffin. And, for me it was Darwin who did the ground work, allowing Dawkins (among others) to eloquently hammer the final nail.

I can't see how believers can understand evolution and refute it or allow it to exist without forcing their god to the furthest of reaches to await a slow death.

Supporting Evidence: God of the gaps (en.wikipedia.org)
Side: Darwin is a murderer
2 points

No that it is not possible....how can you kill imaginarry things???

Supporting Evidence: Torrents (www.btscene.eu)
Side: Dagger to the divine heart
1 point

In my own heart, no. Unless there is legitimately evidence that God doesn't exist, I will believe in Him.

That being said, science is killing organized religion around the world. People fail to realize that God is not some magical being that controls everything, but is a divine overseer who ensures good triumphs over evil.

Side: Dagger to the divine heart
ledhead818(637) Disputed
1 point

"People fail to realize that God is not some magical being that controls everything, but is a divine overseer who ensures good triumphs over evil."

If this is true, god seems to be doing an incredibly poor job.

Side: Science is a damp squib
Uspwns101(444) Disputed
1 point

God does control everything however God will bring the triumph of good over evil at judgement day, he did not say that he will do it whenever you so please.

Side: No
1 point

God i hope so. One can only hope...and post here to make people come to the dark side. I.E. Burn in hell foreverandeverandeverandeverandeverandeverandeverandeverandeverandeverandeverandeverandeverandeverandeverandeverandeverandeverandeverandeverandeverandeverandeverandeverandeverandeverandever. And ever.

Side: Dagger to the divine heart
1 point

SCIENCE ORIGINATED FROM MUSLIM BUT WESTERNERS STOLEN THE INVENTION AS THEY STOLEN

AMERICA FROM NATIVES

STOLEN SLAVES FROM AFRICA

AUSTRALIA FROM THE ABORIGINALS

Physicist Jim Al-Khalili travels through Syria, Iran, Tunisia and Spain to tell the story of the great leap in scientific knowledge

WATCH FOR YOUR KNOWLEDGE
Side: Dagger to the divine heart
Uspwns101(444) Disputed
1 point

Science did not originate from Muslims if youre going to say that you should more accurately say it originated with the Greeks and the Romans. WHY? Because the Muslims studied the GReek and Roman teachings for inspiration. Science has always existed different cultures have merely advanced or enhanced it. Natives technically did not understand the concept of land ownership so we could not steal it. Slaves from Africa were sold to colonists and slave traders by Africans in Africa.

Side: No
1 point

Debt Management Company offering debt help to tens of thousands of indebted people. We initially offer debt advice and then the option of a full range of Debt Solutions.

Supporting Evidence: debt management companies (www.eurodebt.com)
Side: Dagger to the divine heart
1 point

God is the man, I don't think that he can die! It would be impossible! Debt Advice Scotland

Supporting Evidence: Debt Advice Scotland (www.debtscotland.net)
Side: Dagger to the divine heart
1 point

Slaves from Africa were sold to colonists and slave traders by Africans in Africa.

Supporting Evidence: jocuri ben 10 (www.jocuriben10.eu)
Side: Dagger to the divine heart
10 points

I'm not going to argue science over religion or religion over science. The argument is becoming progressively more mute as science attempts to become "religious" and religion as such aspires to be more "scientific". Science is as much theory and speculation as religion is superstitious and imaginative. They both begin from the human impulse "to know" but they also both fall short of the end to which they offer themselves as means to (ie. absolute or complete knowledge.)

Not that there is anything wrong with this. Both science and religion offer a asset to the human experience in the effort to not only make sense of the world and events around them but also to engage peacefully with those with whom we share this existence with. At the same time, they have both in various ways proved ultimately detrimental to that process as the multiple religious conflicts, the disasterous potential of our bombs, and the totalitarian ideological programs that have evolved from both of them will attest.

Science will always, like religion, pursue a monopoly on knowledge and, as has been pointed out already in this argument, to "fill the holes" where religion formerly resided. I don't know about you, but the idea that the human species will one day have a complete and absolute knowledge of any and every facet of our existence and all the "holes" where our knowledge was once incapable of venturing are then filled and covered over, is terrifying. In the same way, the "believer" who so confidently lays claim to the absolute knowledge of the "God" or "gods" who currently occupy these "holes" as a result of the Enlightenment projects, the industrial age, and the rise of technology is equally as problematic and terrifying as the ambitious scientist.

Metaphysics, in one way or another, is a vital component of the human condition. So also is the scientific method to the acquisition of stepping blocks for the ascent of human knowledge and understanding. The claiming of "factual" conclusions and the concession of the nuances and spaces in the cosmic vibrations of existence are both equally important to our experience of this thing we call life.

The danger and death starts when the conflict is set between the two and they are made to clash. The collision creates tension and thus violence.

Although, in the past we have argued that the clashing of particles and ideas is the condition for new birth, I think it is time for humanity to respect the unchartable depths of our imaginations and dream in the belief that this does not have to be the case.

Side: Science is a damp squib
maxy21(6) Banned
1 point

A religion is a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a supernatural agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.

Supporting Evidence: Promotional Merchandise (www.phoenixcorporategifts.com)
Side: Science is a damp squib
2 points

Science is not able to kill God. Science is about explaining observed phenomena, none of which can specifically disprove God.

What science may succeed at is dismantling literal religious interpretation. But with fanatics constantly downplaying science (global warming, evolution, etc.) that day may be far off.

Side: Science is a damp squib
phuqster(123) Disputed
1 point

By kill I meant it in the way which Nietzsche did, once he has become irrelevant.

We need not totally disprove gods, only find out the truth about what remained in the realms of gods; which makes them irrelevant. Which I think has happened already. Once our eyes were opened to evolution our origins were no longer in the domain of gods. For me there is nothing left, dead.

Side: Dagger to the divine heart
1 point

during the enlightenment scientists were using science to try and understand God.

many scientific theories were created while trying to learn more about God and his works.

scientific progression teaches you about the Universe, but does nothing on theism itself. even though atheism existed then, they were deists. all science did was create alternative theories to God.

Side: Science is a damp squib
phuqster(123) Disputed
1 point

"all science did was create alternative theories to God."

Right... which if proven correct makes the god theory null? Thus killing him - as stated above? You've posted this argument on the wrong side of the debate.

Side: Dagger to the divine heart

science is merely the act of observation and has nothing to do with the supernatural,therefore the argument between religion and science is a non argument

Side: did god allow science
1 point

Yet religion attacks science. Therefore science defends itself by disproving God.

Side: Dagger to the divine heart
1 point

well, this is a topic , I love to discuss. God , everyone knows he exists. No one has seen but yes he exists. You can also see him, if you truly follow him and walks on his way of true and right things.

You will come to know about him after your death. Science also fails sometimes , then God put life in dead people.

Thanks

http://www.moviesonclick.com/

Side: Science is a damp squib
1 point

God is above human science thereby human science or should I say "mortal" science thereby it cannot kill him.

Side: No
1 point

Metaphysics, in one way or another, is a vital component of the human condition. So also is the scientific method to the acquisition of stepping blocks for the ascent of human knowledge and understanding. The claiming of "factual" conclusions and the concession of the nuances and spaces in the cosmic vibrations of existence are both equally important to our experience of this thing we call life.

The danger and death starts when the conflict is set between the two and they are made to clash. The collision creates tension and thus violence.

How? There is nothing in science that either proves or disproves God. In fact, if someone would like to explain how this experiment could even be set up, I would like to hear about it.

If anything, science ultimately encourages new forms of spirituality. For example, check out how followers of the Law of Attraction validate their beliefs with quantum physics.

Supporting Evidence: Themes (freethemewp.com)
Side: Science is a damp squib
1 point

Science has already killed god I think...what do you think? Trust Deeds

Supporting Evidence: Trust Deeds (trustdeeds.org)
Side: Science is a damp squib
1 point

I have read this post and if I could I want to suggest you few interesting things or advice.

Supporting Evidence: last minute deals holidays (www.lastminutedealholidays.me.uk)
Side: Science is a damp squib
1 point

both are for all human beings...we cant debate on this topic....

Side: Science is a damp squib
1 point

I don't thing that is possible to kille something that does not exist.

Supporting Evidence: strona internetowa (www.jakpoderwacdziewczynex.pl)
Side: Science is a damp squib
0 points

How? There is nothing in science that either proves or disproves God. In fact, if someone would like to explain how this experiment could even be set up, I would like to hear about it.

Sure, science can and has contradicted specific mythos of certain religions. Many followers have come to the understanding that the point of mythology is not litteral truth, but rather figurative truth.

If anything, science ultimately encourages new forms of spirituality. For example, check out how followers of the Law of Attraction validate their beliefs with quantum physics.

Side: Science is a damp squib
xaeon(1093) Disputed
5 points

"How? There is nothing in science that either proves or disproves God. In fact, if someone would like to explain how this experiment could even be set up, I would like to hear about it."

It's not about having a specific experiment for proving or disproving gods. It's simply about the change that religion has undergone through history to try and be compatible with science. Science is pushing religion away from the explained (sun moving across the sky, crops growing, etc) into areas that we can not yet explain. This trend will continue, and eventually religion won't have a grasp on areas such as the beginning of the universe or life after death. Science is evolving, whereas religion is clutching at straws fighting to survive.

"Sure, science can and has contradicted specific mythos of certain religions. Many followers have come to the understanding that the point of mythology is not litteral truth, but rather figurative truth."

Well, that's convenient, because if they didn't than they'd have to accept that their religion is wrong. When we explain the literal truths with science, obviously religion is going to move across to areas where science is not so firmly grounded. Whenever religion has become remotely literal in its interpretation, science has contradicted it. Remember, hundreds of years ago people belived that god created man and woman in the garden of eden. Evolution has now proved that this false. They were wrong then, and just because they have moulded their beliefs to be compatible, they're still wrong now.

"If anything, science ultimately encourages new forms of spirituality. For example, check out how followers of the Law of Attraction validate their beliefs with quantum physics."

This is extremely debatable. I would say that science is breaking down religion at every new discovery. People will always try to validate their beliefs in some way, and misunderstanding and twisting science to do so has become the norm in religious circles. People constantly twist and misunderstand evolution to try and disprove it. The same is true in regards to your example; quantum physics doesn't, in any way, validate the law of attraction. There's no tests performed to the scientific method, there's no credible evidence to show that quantum physics behaves in the way proponents of the law of attraction claim; nothing. They validate their beliefs with misunderstandings, outright lies, anecdotal evidence, etc. There's nothing scientific about it, and to claim so makes a folly of science.

Sorry, but there is no supernatural phenomenon backed-up by science.

Side: Dagger to the divine heart
1 point

True, no one experiment could disprove god. However, traits of God can easily be disproven. For example, if God is all powerful, can he create a rock that he cannot lift? But if he is all powerful, then he could still lift the rock. Therefore, since the creation of said rock or if said rock existed, nothing can truly be all powerful, even God. That is how god can be disproven, by braking him down into what makes him up and disproving each piece.

Side: Dagger to the divine heart
-1 points

Those that want to believe that science is 'killing God' have an indefensible position because their initial premise, "There is no God" is not provable.

The spread of cynicism and disbelief is not a proof; it is merely a current trend. Disbelief is popular among certain segments of the population, but no one has cited any evidence that scientists are becoming convinced by their own research that God is dead.

God exists. Our acceptance or rejection of His reality does not change His mind. He is gracious to all. The fact that we can communicate our ideas as we do on this forum is an evidence of His grace. He allows us to struggle with OUR reality. We are the ones trying to find the truth -- not Him.

Just one example of scientific evidence that the unique Creator is particularly interested in man. Only man out of all the mammals on earth that have a similar respiratory system can speak. Air from the lungs is pushed into the larynx across the vocal cords -- and produces not only sound, but words that contain complex, abstract ideas. Such as "How can I know God?" With same physical apparatus, when a person finds peace and happiness in the discovery of God, his heart appropriately can add to those words, melody. So that words are turned to song.

Those who choose not to believe in God can not sing His praises. Disbelief is an ironic proof of God because it shows that man is granted by Another the ability to see, to reason, to acknowledge, to follow, or to reject His gifts and His kindness.

Side: The burden of proof is on the atheist
phuqster(123) Disputed
3 points

"Disbelief is an ironic proof of God because it shows that man is granted by Another the ability to see"

Ironic proof in your own head only. And how is the burden of proof on the Atheist, the de facto position is disbelief, no one is forced to prove all of their possible non-beliefs.

"When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours"

Side: Dagger to the divine heart
1 point

"When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours"

Precisely.

Side: Dagger to the divine heart
1 point

The initial premise that a god must exist is unprovable. Tell me, do you believe in the possibility of no god? What about more than one god? You cannot prove them anymore than I can discredit them. This is about choice. Science is killing god because religion will not adapt. Science allows the possibility of God. Religion has the issue with science. You should research. Mankind evolved and developed language through our hunting and need to communicate. It was an advantage over other species, and that is why we have higher intelligence. What if I am happy without God? I do not need to praise some divine being up in the clouds who does not interact. Anyone who claims to here a "divine voice" should go get a physchiatric evaluation.

Side: Dagger to the divine heart