Quantcast

Jump to content


Photo

NJARD: Not just another religious debate


  • Please log in to reply
9 replies to this topic

#1 Raui

Raui
  • 5687 posts


Users Awards

Posted 03 November 2007 - 10:32 PM

Okay well as Alex has posted a debate about god but I thought I'd create a topic that follows a bit more interesting set of rules. The rules of the debate are:
If you are going to post in favor of religion you must include scientific related texts/objects in your argument.
If your going to be posting against you must include religious related texts/objects in your argument.
Any personal attacks/flames and you'll be warned.

There's three objectives to this debate, 1 is to attempt to disprove or debunk the existence of a god/s. 2 is to see if you can do this while using your opponents arguments against them. 3 is to see if you can do it without me warning anyone. I'll start by going against religion;

Not one mainstream religion supports the theory that we weren't made to be here or we weren't made here. Why is it that we as humans are destroying our Earth then ? We don't fit in with any food chain, we dominate the world in leaps and bounds when it comes to technology, don't tell me its from eating red meat, theres many animals that eat red meat and they aren't nearly as intelligent as us. Sumerian religion actually states that we are genetically engineered from another planet in our own solar system that was caught by our sun so it has a clock-wise direction like a comet and not an anti-clockwise direction like the other planets to serve as slaves. Its existence is proven if you observe the effects of its gravity it has on Neptune and Uranus in particular. So if theres something out there why haven't we seen it ? Well maybe thats because its too far away to see. The bible actually tells a condensed version of this same story of 'fallen angels' falling from the sky and had kids with the women of Earth.

Now what if we misunderstood the angels in the night sky with a phenomenon we in the 21st century are actually a bit more accustomed to, UFOs. Big step you might say, Raui have you been smoking crack ? Others may argue that we have only seen UFOs for the past say 70 years well your actually wrong, for as long as historical documentation has been around theres been reports of weird objects in the sky, even drawings of them ! I'm not saying that these objects are of alien origin, I am describing them properly as unidentified flying objects. Which means I can't say if they were alien space craft. Before you call Occam's razor, I personally believe that its a more explainable explanation than flying humans with wings.

#2 Sweeney

Sweeney
  • 1230 posts


Users Awards

Posted 03 November 2007 - 10:57 PM

I would say that this is the last time I will say this... but it probably won't be;

You cannot scientifically disprove the notion of a God, or a supreme being, or an intelligent designer, because they exist outside of nature, and science does not comment on the supernatural.

#3 Raui

Raui
  • 5687 posts


Users Awards

Posted 03 November 2007 - 10:58 PM

No but you can disprove the supernatural with science wink.gif

#4 Sweeney

Sweeney
  • 1230 posts


Users Awards

Posted 03 November 2007 - 11:04 PM

QUOTE(Raui @ Nov 4 2007, 06:58 AM) View Post
No but you can disprove the supernatural with science wink.gif

Only if it isn't really supernatural, aka, natural.

I phrased that badly. Let me reiterate;
Science can disprove supernatural explanations for natural phenomena.
It cannot disprove supernatural phenomena themselves.
If a deity exists solely as a supernatural being, then it's existence cannot be disproven.

#5 Raui

Raui
  • 5687 posts


Users Awards

Posted 03 November 2007 - 11:06 PM

QUOTE(Sunscorch @ Nov 4 2007, 05:04 PM) View Post
Only if it isn't really supernatural, aka, natural.

I phrased that badly. Let me reiterate;
Science can disprove supernatural explanations for natural phenomena.
It cannot disprove supernatural phenomena themselves.
If a deity exists solely as a supernatural being, then it's existence cannot be disproven.


How do you know god is a being though ? God could be an unexplainable force like gravity for all we know.

#6 Sweeney

Sweeney
  • 1230 posts


Users Awards

Posted 03 November 2007 - 11:29 PM

QUOTE(Raui @ Nov 4 2007, 07:06 AM) View Post
How do you know god is a being though ? God could be an unexplainable force like gravity for all we know.

Gravity is not unexplainable blink.gif

Besides which, your point further shows that God is not disprovable.
In order to disprove something, you have to know what it is that you are trying to disprove.

Hypothesise, postulate, theorise a working model for a naturalistic God, and we'll work on a disproof.
Otherwise, this "debate" is just as pointless as the other one.

#7 Raui

Raui
  • 5687 posts


Users Awards

Posted 03 November 2007 - 11:32 PM

QUOTE(Sunscorch @ Nov 4 2007, 05:29 PM) View Post
Gravity is not unexplainable blink.gif

Besides which, your point further shows that God is not disprovable.
In order to disprove something, you have to know what it is that you are trying to disprove.

Hypothesise, postulate, theorise a working model for a naturalistic God, and we'll work on a disproof.
Otherwise, this "debate" is just as pointless as the other one.


Yes I know I was merely saying what if god was a force like gravity. The actual point of this debate was to see if one could use what their opponent was going to say and use that against them in a non flamey way tongue.gif

#8 Sweeney

Sweeney
  • 1230 posts


Users Awards

Posted 03 November 2007 - 11:38 PM

QUOTE(Raui @ Nov 4 2007, 07:32 AM) View Post
Yes I know I was merely saying what if god was a force like gravity. The actual point of this debate was to see if one could use what their opponent was going to say and use that against them in a non flamey way tongue.gif

I have, haven't I?
Incidentally, that's the point of every debate, especially in the rebuttal sections of formalised debates.

Regardless, my point still stands that no scientific argument can be made for the proof or disproof of a supernatural being.
Simply because science, by defenition, only deals with natural phenomena.

#9 Raui

Raui
  • 5687 posts


Users Awards

Posted 03 November 2007 - 11:44 PM

QUOTE(Sunscorch @ Nov 4 2007, 05:38 PM) View Post
I have, haven't I?
Incidentally, that's the point of every debate, especially in the rebuttal sections of formalised debates.

Regardless, my point still stands that no scientific argument can be made for the proof or disproof of a supernatural being.
Simply because science, by defenition, only deals with natural phenomena.


Oh course Joe ! You & I can talk about quite a lot and not have a cross word, I just mean with others wink.gif yes your point does still stand I'm just interested in how people try to explain it tongue.gif

#10 Sweeney

Sweeney
  • 1230 posts


Users Awards

Posted 03 November 2007 - 11:57 PM

QUOTE(Raui @ Nov 4 2007, 07:44 AM) View Post
Oh course Joe ! You & I can talk about quite a lot and not have a cross word, I just mean with others wink.gif yes your point does still stand I'm just interested in how people try to explain it tongue.gif

I think I lost track...
I never know what to say when someone does a reversal of tack on me tongue.gif


1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users