Nonsense. Science does not find evidence. Science does not evaluate data. People do. And there is plenty of empirical data supporting the conclusion that God must be. The correct way to state the idea you're trying to express is to say that science cannot conclusively affirm or falsify God's existence. True. So what? This does not mean that we don't have empirical data pointing to God's existence as interpreted by any reasonable person.
The atheist is wont to say, “Hey, that’s irrational!”
Oh, on what basis? Your opinion? It’s certainly not based on science, for science is merely the discipline of evaluating data and forming theoretical models of prediction about it subject to falsification. One cannot make a scientifically falsifiable assertion, either positive or negative, about non-empirical things. Human reason is not bound by the dictates of science’s limitations. To claim that it is, is in fact non-scientific, indeed, pseudo-scientific blather.
This theist understands the distinctions between science and theology.
Atheists are forever confounding the two. Science is not the beginning, let alone the end, of human experience and reasoning.
Finding and evaluating data is science.
And this empirical data you mention, where is it?
To believe in something and act on it- you need to be sure of it's truth, and truth is justified knowledge- to justify knowledge you need evidence. No evidence, the knowledge is not justified... it is not a valid certainty.
Actually your concept of 'God' exists, but I'm not going into that.
See, this is how I know your posts are full of bullsh*t
"There is plenty of empirical data supporting the conclusion that God must be"
"One can not make a scientifically falsifiable assertion, either positive or negative, about non-empirical things."
So... there is empirical evidence... but the human method for studying and evaluating it isn't allowed to study and evaluate the empirical evidence you claim to have.
Now, i'm no expert, but it seems like you're proclaiming the existence of evidence that you cannot prove exists because it doesn't. Which essentially makes your argument invalid?
And recognizing the distinction between science and theology is something this atheist understands. But i can define the difference without contradicting myself. Can you?
Science is a method for defining the natural world and by extension, the natural universe.
Theology is a psychological phenomenon.
for example Christianity the belief that a cosmic Jewish Zombie who was his own father can make you live forever if you symbolically eat his flesh and telepathically tell him you accept him as your master, so he can remove an evil force from your soul that is present in humanity because a rib-woman was convinced by a talking snake to eat from a magical tree.
Does this sounds reasonable? based of facts? Or it looks more like Harry Potter?
False. That's pseudo-scientific blather. Science has nothing to say about God whatsoever. Science entails the evaluation of empirical data. Period. If you're not talking about empirical data, you're not talking about science. And speaking of Occam's Razor, given the inescapable fact of the material realm's nature of infinite regression, God, in terms of origin, not materiality, satisfies Occam's Razor more readily.
You've missed my point entirely. Before I even begin, I am referring to personal Gods here, those which interact with the material world, like the god of the bible. Deistic gods (though they still fall to the razor) are not what I'm disputing.
Science never has, and never will actively dispute the existence of God. However, by sheer virtue of being so successful, the scientific method passively refutes the existence of God. Whilst God himself is not empirical, the things religious folk attach to him are empirically testable, and the only reason science gets so much shit is because these tests show that most religious lore is Grade A bullshit.
The great flood? Geology disproves that.
Young Earth? Isometric dating disproves that.
Every single creature on Earth living on one boat without dying? 1st grade biology disproves that.
It is not that God himself is empirically testable, but the feats attached to him are, thus meaning that science passively refutes the existence of God. Not actively.
And speaking of Occam's Razor, given the inescapable fact of the material realm's nature of infinite regression, God, in terms of origin, not materiality, satisfies Occam's Razor more readily.
How have you come to the conclusion that the material realm has an infinitely regressive nature? Because you should know that science most definitely states that currently our universe is very finite in its nature.
You also don't seem to be very up to date on modern physics. God is no longer needed to explain the origin of our universe. I implore you to read A universe from nothing by Lawrence Krauss, a physicist who explains the origin of our universe from more humble beginnings than an omnipotent, omniscient, invisible, flying space daddy.
Neil Degrasse Tyson regarding a seventeenth-century scientist's invocation of the Almighty to explain phenomena: Today secular philosophers call that kind of divine invocation God of the gaps—which comes in handy, because there has never been a shortage of gaps in people's knowledge.
Holes? What part of science don't you understand? What part of science suggest that it makes up stuff or doesn't use things from its surroundings to figure out how the universe works? Science is all about finding evidence, analyzing it carefully, and come to a carefully deduced conclusion based on the evidence found/presented. once so much evidence is presented then that's when things can be confirmed as fact. If there is a hole in a scientific theory that has based itself from evidence found that goes towards the theory, that doesn't mean that there is absolutely no evidence to suggest that theory. That just means that the theory may either have to re-evaluate itself or more evidence must be found, or something hasn't quite been deduced yet from the evidence provided. But holes in scientific theories are extremely rare, because rigorous thinking and deductive reasoning and logic goes into the theories, and the evidence that bases the theory comes from natural, and physical evidence. Take the theory of evolution for example, there has been a monumental amount of evidence that suggest changes in the patterns of a species bones over time. Proven techniques such as carbon dating and DNA testing have been used as well to harness evidence. If its been confirmed that there truly is a pattern, then you cant ignore that pattern, that would automatically confirm that it is at least mostly true, and not knowing exactly how the bone and DNA changes work over time from generation to generation doesn't mean that the entire theory is flawed and untrue. That just means that you have to figure out how the process works, what causes this pattern to occur over time in the many species that have existed on earth, because the pattern and changes over time in species is absolutely confirmed. even then science is really close to hitting the last nail to make the full theory of evolution as undeniable fact, as they have rigorously studied DNA and how it changes from generation to generation. so i ask, if you believe that there is a hole in the theory of evolution, what hole could there possibly be in something rigorously studied with careful deduction?
Science has not disproved the existence of God as it is impossible to prove Gods existence, although it has disproved some things from Religous texts all this has done has proved that these texts are incorrect but does not prove or disprove the existence of a Deity, thats something we wont know about until we die
Because it is a claim. Energy is often invested in disproving something. Many atheists think they are just being kind by not "proving" God doesn't exist. But they cannot. Many brilliant scientists retreat to a quiet place to ponder the missing pieces. And then they speak and say "there is no base to the universe least it just be truth. And then you get that creepy feeling like you are being watched and look over at the Book that claims to be inspired by the Living Truth and you wonder . . . . . .
This is off-topic. The resolution is "Science refutes god," not "Science can refute god" or "It is the responsibility of science to refute God." You can start one of those debates if you want and invite people here to participate, but that's not what I'm interested in and it won't get us anywhere in this debate.
TheAshman writes: "Science has not disproved the existence of God as it is impossible to prove Gods existence, although it has disproved some things from Religous texts all this has done has proved that these texts are incorrect but does not prove or disprove the existence of a Deity, thats something we wont know about until we die."
I have a few problems with this statement in an of itself. First, science simply cannot affirm or falsify anything that is not empirical in nature. Science's purview is simply limited to the empirical. Period. Second, science certainly hasn't falsified anything asserted by the Bible. Third, the idea that one cannot know that God exists right now is false. One need not prove to another that God exists in order to know for oneself that He does in fact exist.
You say science hasnt disproved anything from the Bible what about Creationism and Evolution? The title of the debate is does Science Refute God, all i've done is point out that it is not possible for Science to refute God regardless of anyones reasons for believing or not believing.
GOD IS REAL HOW DARE YOU SAY HE ISNT I AM AFFENSIVE BECAUSE HE IS AN AMAZING PERSON HE IS THE ONE WHO MADE THE WORLD. IF HE DIDNT MAKE THE WORLD WHO DID EXACTLY STFU AND READ THE BIBLE AND YOU WILL LEARN SUMTHING.
*Isn't, offended, didn't, something. Once again with the all caps, wonderful to see.
GOD IS REAL HOW DARE YOU SAY HE ISNT
Maybe because there is no real proof for the existence of God.
I AM AFFENSIVE
HE IS AN AMAZING PERSON HE IS THE ONE WHO MADE THE WORLD
Apart from the Bible, give me one reason why this is true. I'd like to hear it.
IF HE DIDNT MAKE THE WORLD WHO DID EXACTLY
The Big Bang is a commonly-cited alternative for the God story, more logical too. A combination of several factors is the reason why the world was created the way it was, simple as that. Over a long process, it slowly formed the way it was through various ways.
STFU AND READ THE BIBLE AND YOU WILL LEARN SUMTHING
The Bible cannot be used as a source as there is no proof to back it up. It is merely a story giving an example of how we might have been created, however since it is outdated and can be proven wrong, we don't need to use it.
Oh please, do enlighten. How can evidence of something essentially undefinable exist? I can see that there may be evidence that God could be, but there simply can not be evidence that got must be. That would exclude the existing notion that God may not be.
Because, if there were irrefutable evidence that god must be, there would be a significantly smaller community of atheists.
and as i understand, the community is growing by the day.
very weak argument. Really? Because most accredited scientists will agree that we don't have any evidence. Carl Sagan famously refused to "think with his gut." Richard Dawkins claim a "6" (de facto atheist) on his own scale. We simply don't have any evidence either way.
I'm pretty sure you're either an 11-year old troll or a duplicate account of someone looking to annoy others. Either way, you're getting on my nerves.
WHEN YOU GO TO HELL AND BURN TO ASHES DONT SAY A THANG YOU WILL BE NDER GROUND WHILE US CHRISTIANS WILLL BE IN HEAVEN ON GOLDEN STREETS,LIVING THE LIFE EATING GOLDEN APPLES,GOLDEN STEAKS,FLYING AND DRINKING WONDERFUL WATER.
Love the capitals on every letter. Anyways, where to begin.
WHEN YOU GO TO HELL AND BURN TO ASHES
According to the Bible, if Hell existed, I would estimate that 99.9999% of the population that ever existed would be there. I'd also be willing to guess you would be there too for some rather minor sin. Also, Hell is where you burn forever, not just instantly burn to ashes. Once you are dead, your body is either buried or burned, so it doesn't matter, the chances are, you're going to burn to ashes anyways.
DONT SAY A THANG YOU WILL BE NDER GROUND WHILE US CHRISTIANS WILLL BE IN HEAVEN
*Don't, thing, underground, will. Very fair, I would say, that because I have different beliefs from you, I deserve an eternity of suffering. May I ask, what about the other religions, do they also burn for an eternity? What about Judaism, based on the early iteration of the Bible, do they burn for an eternity? What about all the countless sects, do they burn for an eternity for not picking the right one which you have just suddenly declared as correct?
ON GOLDEN STREETS,LIVING THE LIFE EATING GOLDEN APPLES,GOLDEN STEAKS,FLYING AND DRINKING WONDERFUL WATER
If I wanted to go on golden streets, eat apples and steak while drinking wonderful water, I would go to a fancy restaurant. This is a vague description of what you perceive to be Heaven, although no one on this planet has been there to witness it, so you have no idea and are really just talking out of your ass right now.
In short, you're an angry troll with poor grammar and spelling.
No reason for disproving something that never was proven in a first place aka it does not exist. This is not how reasoning works, because if it would I could, for example, say that you are psychotic child molester and it's more less truth even with me bringing any evidence and it's on you to 100% disprove it.
do you see the flaw in this kind of thinking?
No reason for disproving something that never was proven in a first place aka it does not exist.
You can't prove it to be real or unreal, maybe your not familiar about how science works but you have to TEST things and this just so happens to be un-testable. Do you see the flaw in taking any strong and scientific stance on this?
It's very clear that no evidence has been presented to support either side of this debate. Anyone who claims other wise is basing their claim on subjective evidence and personal opinion. I, personally, find the notion of a personal god who intervenes in our lives to be ridiculous and naively anthropocentric. However, since we cannot currently speak knowledgeably on the subject, all assertions are subjective opinions only.
Where exactly was presented evidence supporting gods ?
Where exactly is the evidence disproving him? Oh, that's right. There is no evidence for or against god. None; zip; nadda; zlich. I'm an atheist, but I don't fall into the logical tar pit of certainty. Certainty is a myth; we cannot be certain, 100%, about anything, much less the existence of a deity. Even our gravitational rate is an average, and not precise the world over.
Science is a method for determining the relationships between matter in the physical world. Since god is by definition metaphysical, Science can offer no opinion on Him/Her whatsoever.
However, since thought and consciousness are physical processes, science may with the improvement of neuroscience be able to offer strong theories as to where our concepts of God stem from.
On a related note, I think the scientific advances of the last 400 years or so have shown that pretty much every observed phenomena is a physical process. If that's the case, where is there room for a metaphysical actor?
We don't need neuroscience to explain "where our concepts of God stem from." For crying out loud! The rational axioms of being are many and complex, and include the fundamentals of mathematics’ calculi and geometric forms. They are ontological in nature. But the immediate axioms are logical arguments that go to the problem of origin and the nature of the construct of divinity itself. The idea of God objectively exists in and of itself: it imposes itself on our minds in terms of origin without our willing that it do so. The irreducible primary of being is the inanimateness-consciousness dichotomy. The possibility of God’s existence cannot be rationally denied, and the idea of God, unlike the material realm of being, is not subject to the challenge of infinite regression. The atheist necessarily proves the cogency of these assertions every time he denies there be any substance behind the construct.
The source goes to the problem of origin, the inescapable necessity of causality! It’s not a mystery. It’s self-evident where the construct of transcendent origination comes from.
And what are you talking about? Of course “every observed phenomena” (necessarily empirical/physical) “is a physical process”! What else would observed/empirical phenomena be? LOL! “Where is there room for a metaphysical actor?” ORIGIN! But what you really mean by "physical process" goes to "natural processes." So, you're contradictorily asserting that science cannot affirm or falsify the metaphysical while you simultaneously, though it flies right over your head, presuppose a metaphysical naturalism which cannot be affirmed or falsified by science either.
God exists, gentlemen. Make no mistake about that. The fact that He created a self-sustaining system of materiality does not undermine His practicality or necessity in any, way, shape or form. It screams intelligence, forethought, design, intent, wisdom. The argument that would undermine His practicality or necessity would be a universe of unpredictability and chaos. Of course, if the latter were the case, we wouldn’t be around to apprehend the cosmos in the first place, given that life requires a high degree of organization and stability.
The irrationality of atheism, its unwitting, inherently contradictory and self-negating thought processes, never end.
The new atheism is destroying commonsense and science.
Okay, with the exception of the last few lines every time you post this, and I've seen it quite a few times, it is exactly the same. can you post the website you CTRL-C, CTRL-V this from?
I'd really like to see what ELSE they have to say, because they are obviously better suited to debate against than someone who spouts words they know little about.
I'm serious. it's an interesting concept and I'd like to know more about it.
Only... from people who KNOW what they're talking about.
Also, you speak of causality (or should i say, the people who write what you're copying do)
If God created us
Who created God.
There must have been an origin
should I say, a cause to the effect of his existence and by extension, our creation.
Do we call that being SuperGod?
maybe he's... InfiniGod.
Honestly, everything that exists had a point of coming into existence. So, where's God. If we needed someone to create us, he needed someone to create him.
It's an infinite line of Gods.
Or, you could just skip the step
and realize we created God to fulfill a need.
Science does not refute anything.
The essence of science is to observe and be observable; whilst making "claims of this or that".
Science cannot refute what it does not know.
Science cannot say that this or that exists without themselves proving that "it" does not exist.
Therefore, science cannot and does not refute God, in any shape or form.
Science does not have to, it's goal is not to say "this doesn't exist because I can show you this."
Science says "This exists, and I cannot say one way or another that 'this doesn't or cannot exist'"
It is not that science actively disputes and refutes its existence, rather it is that modern scientific theories do not require God to operate effectively, which one may consider a refutation, based on the fact that science is partially founded upon the premise that William of Ockham laid down many a century ago.
Science can't explain what was "before" the Big Bang, because that would necessitate the existence of time at that point in history which simply can't exist.
Time may even be a byproduct of observation, we don't know.
I think that the great mystery that is Time will be solved when we solve another great mystery, the mystery of Light.
No one knows WHY it behaves as both a particle and a wave
And no one knows exactly why time slows down from the third party observer's point of view when the speed of light is reached.
Now, i may be on to something here, or just be crazy, but time and light may be mutually inclusive.
Meaning that where there is no light, such as just before the point of explosion that is "the big bang".
I mean, with light, we can see back in time to the milliseconds after the big bang. we can't see farther, perhaps because it is impossible. to do so would be to see outside our own universe. As it stands, we can't do that.
Science has not disproved God since its Theories are still incomplete. Their theoretical claim s are still into question. An example would be Stephen Hawking`s theory of the Universe. We are still not sure if life did came from nothingness and that there is no time in the black hole.
ezekiel_roma, actually, the issue is whether or not life arose from non-living material via the processes of chemical evolution, i.e., abiogenesis, not whether or not life arose from nothingness! What in the world are you talking about?
And the notion of multi-cosmological domains or a substratum of just another layer of material origination with regard to a space-mass vacuum of quantum physics would not disprove the existence God in any way, shape or form. Indeed, I’m inclined to think that a multiverse scenario coupled with the generative potentialities of the gravitational energy of the vacuum of quantum physics beyond the reach of the explanatory power of general relativity are quite plausible.
For example, such a circumstance would be absolutely no problem for the Bible whatsoever except, apparently, in the minds of the pseudo-scientific and the theologically illiterate.
Can you say, "illusion"?
This is precisely why the blather of Hawking, Krauss and others does a disservice to science, academia and rational thought.
There once was an atheist operating under the illusion that greater scientific knowledge was the very solution to the problem of infinite material regression. But the more that we learned, the more he got burned by the fact that the problem went on without any definitive resolution . . . in spite of his materialistic delusion.
Science doesn't fill gaps. With every new answer it uncovers a multitude of new questions.
The atheist’s blather about the God of the gaps that he errantly attributes to theists is his fantasy, whereby he crams his own simplistic irrationality in the gaps that only get larger and more numerous all the time.
This shouldn't be Science Vs Religion, it should be Logic Vs Faith. Science, as many have stated before, lacks the ability to prove or disprove without solid, tangible evidence. Because the concept of God isn't tangible, science has no bear on it. God's existence is not something that can be proven though study of the Physical World. God's existence is something that can only be proven on the grounds of the human psyche.
Coming to think about it, Faith is to some degree logical. It's a psychological invention to put the mind at ease. There are some people, who without some form of faith in a higher power, would simply find no reason to continue existing. I believe that this is why mankind invented God.
Instead of Science Vs Religion, perhaps the argument should be "Is science the protegee of religion?". Consider the above, if you please.
I'm no believer in God, and I do have considerable respect for science. But no, science does not refute, or confirm, God. The scientific method is not intended for use on unfalsifiable premises or the supernatural.
That being said, science does constantly pull away the need to supernaturalize everything, so its understanding can lead to refutation of any supernatural explanation. But that is more like a side effect than a direct refutation.
As for me, I am not sure that science refutes God. Both of these things are connected with each other. How did science was created without people, and how did people came in without unexplained power? God created us, our imagination, science and so on and so on.
I am not atheist and believe in science also. But, anyway, there would be nothing without creation, so we can't say that science refutes God.
Welcome to CreateDebate
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.