I saw this debate topic on a youtube video showing a debate between Larry Krauss and some other creationist.

The question isn't "does god exist", the question is "does science refute god?". A side question for this topic could also be "how does god/religion affect schools and the world and is religion good for america?"

I apologize for my grammar mistakes in advance.


My position:

Does science refute god?

Well... what does refute mean?

re-fute
verb
prove (a statement or theory) to be wrong or false; disprove.

Does science disprove god? Does science have enough evidence to completely annihilate the idea of an existence of a god? The answer is yes. God is completely disproved over and over again in science books, religious debates, etc. Science does not have the burden of proof that religion has. Religion should be seeking to disprove their god before naming it true. If they used the scientific method they would find that supernatural things are highly unlikely, and the science completely refutes god.

Evolution refutes god.
The age of the earth refutes god.
False predictions and prophecies in the bible are proof that a god is highly unlikely.

--

Anyway, can science and religion/spirituality work together? Does science refute god ?
For this discussion lets use the Christian god.
In Christianity, God is the eternal being who created and preserves the world.
(From Wikipedia)

Discuss.

We need a definition of 'God' before we can proceed.

For this discussion lets use the Christian god.
In Christianity, God is the eternal being who created and preserves the world.
(From Wikipedia)

Zed you bring up a good point that you can't prove the existence of god or the non existence because it cannot be studied. But what is likely? And shouldn't we assume that our claim is false until proven true? We can study what is likely and what isn't likely. Science and god cannot work together simply because science makes god seem highly unlikely.

Yes. But their are different gods in many religions: Buddhism, Islamic, Zoroastrianism and many more. Are you just gonna debate only the Christian god? Or different god theory over different time frames.

For this discussion it'll be good to just debate using the Christian god.

Quote from Xenomaru

Zed you bring up a good point that you can't prove the existence of god or the non existence because it cannot be studied. But what is likely? And shouldn't we assume that our claim is false until proven true? We can study what is likely and what isn't likely. Science and god cannot work together simply because science makes god seem highly unlikely.

You didn't ask what was likely, or what was good epistemic practice. You asked what could be proved.

the scientific theory of evolution rejects god. that isn't a refutation, though; it's just another (arguably better) guess - it makes more rational sense, to a certain point, and is therefore more likely to the logical-minded.

my personal view is that it's impossible to know for certain how we came to be, and it is therefore pointless to speculate about it or religiously hold beliefs about it. what's the point in guessing? focus on living. be a nice dude, and if there happens to be afterlife i'm sure they'll let you in - even if you didn't spend your whole life metaphorically sucking the right diety's dick

I think the debate should be on the idea of a God instead of the Christian/Abrahamic God so that fruitful discussion can occur instead the usual Antitheist Legion Vs. Westboro Baptist Church mess. It doesn't make any sense to focus on one religion simply because you are familiar with it.

There is no "idea" of a god outside of religious scripture, might as well pick one that most of us are familiar with for the sake of brevity.

Except the simple answer to the title question is "No." so it doesn't really matter either way.

Quote from Exilement

There is no "idea" of a god outside of religious scripture, might as well pick one that most of us are familiar with for the sake of brevity.

I meant the existence of one, my bad. The idea that a God/gods exists; does science refute it? That is the question.

Except the simple answer to the title question is "No." so it doesn't really matter either way.

But yeah this.

Science proves that we had no answers back then to explain why things happened and they made up this "god" to explain the answers that we can get now... Example would be stars, the earth revolving around the sun (or in those times the sun revolving around the earth), how we came to be, solar eclipses, ect and we can explain them without this "god" now

Quote from I Pwn3d Jo0

Science proves that we had no answers back then to explain why things happened and they made up this "god" to explain the answers that we can get now... Example would be stars, the earth revolving around the sun (or in those times the sun revolving around the earth), how we came to be, solar eclipses, ect and we can explain them without this "god" now

Are you saying that, hypothetically, if the people back then had the kind of knowledge we had today, the existence of god would have a much weaker presence or if that presence would exist at all?

Yes... I'm bad at explaining things if you haven't caught onto that already

Can science and god coexist? ex: god created the big bang/evolution etc...

Is it likely? Or does science simply refute it/contradict the idea of a god/gods