I remember watching intelligence squared a while back and this was one particular episode entitled 'Does science refute God.
For the motion you had renowned theoretical physicist Professor Lawrence Krauss and skeptic magazines Michael Shermer...
Against the motion you had nuclear science professor Ian Hutchinson and scholar Dinesh D'Souza.
For The Motion, The arguements where...
Why does there have to be an entity to explain the universe? To say that God created the universe doesn't explain anything and it's simply a placeholder that could be filled with any number of things.
Darwin's theory of evolution disproves the story of creation in the book of Genesis. We can see from evidence around us that the world is a Darwinian place where death and disease are constantly present and chaos seems to rule. This goes against the teaching of the world as a creation of a completely benevolent and all-powerful God. Either God is not all good, or not powerful enough stop these forces.
A belief in miracles goes against the facts and spirit of science.
We know that religions are man-made because they are culturally bound. They have evolved as a mechanism for social cohesion. If Religion is supposed to reveal "universal truths," why do they all assert conflicting "truths," i.e., there is no salvation except through Christ, Jews are God's "chosen people," Mohammed is God's one true messenger, etc.?
Arguments against were...
The existence of God is outside the realm of science. Science exists within the boundaries of time and space, within God's creation and God's plan.
God, as the infinite "transcendent other" can never be fully comprehended by a finite individual.
The idea that religion is antithetical to science is absurd. Evolution asserts that God made the universe and created life—it does not say how. It is perfectly compatible with science.
Miracles are inherently one-off events; science is incapable of investigating them.
For science to refute religion, it needs to come up with something better, and it hasn't. Science cannot disprove the existence of God, life after death, and a soul.
What do we all think?
For the record, the Motion for carried by quite some margain... 51% to 38% with the remaining undecided.
For what it is worth, I found the arguments of Krauss and Shermer very on point with facts rather than anecdotes and logical fallacies offered by the opposing side.
You can see from the argument against points of order, there are logical fallacies such as appeals to solipsism and arguments from ignorance.
Anyways, feel free to share your thoughts and I'll add a link to the YouTube video of the entire debate.
Subscription Note:
Choosing to subscribe to this topic will automatically register you for email notifications for comments and updates on this thread.
Email notifications will be sent out daily by default unless specified otherwise on your account which you can edit by going to your userpage here and clicking on the subscriptions tab.
I watched the video in its entirety. Hutchison and D'Souza struggled to support the god of the gaps. The Christian god is the god supported and prophesied by the Torah. Without the Torah the Christian god has no foundation. By admitting that god created the universe by the Big Bang and life evolving from a single organism they have refuted the god of Genesis.
This was something I noticed too, and having listened to D'Souza in a few debates I was going to avoid watching as he is fairly awful... I'm glad I did now... also Krauss was marginally less annoying and arrogant then usual which was a bonus.
Does science refute god? Yes, yes it does.
science certainly refutes god claims about the origin of the universe
It is not the aim nor the responsibility for science to "refute" god.
Science is in the business of discovering facts. Facts may indeed prove that there is no god and never was a god, but science isn't concerned with disproving a god.
I suppose that depends upon your definition of what god is.