194 comments

• Comment Link Thursday, 23 May 2013 10:51 posted by H H Markley

  I by accident watched this debate late last night. This was a non-debate because the opponents of "does science refute God" were representative of a premodern 19th century theology. The proponents were versed in modern quantum physics. The opponents had no familiarity with modern 20th Century theology and its existential approach to religion. I doubt that the producers of this show sought good thinking theologians. They ohly wished to create a specious debate. The great 20th Century theologians are of course dead: Paul Tillich, the Niebuhr brothers, Bultman, and Bonhoeffer. A few of their adherants are living - Marcus Borg, a few seminary professors, Rob Bell and some others like myself. Ciao,

• Comment Link Thursday, 23 May 2013 02:56 posted by Michael

  Man made god

• Comment Link Tuesday, 21 May 2013 14:40 posted by john32

  A very big deception of the devil is to get you to debate God, Christianity and other religions. This is one of the surest ways to ensure, that you will never experience real salvation and eternal life, and all the wonderful things God has predestined for you.
  
  Let us just suppose (for those who do not have faith), that even if you argue and debate, and finally, even if it is a long shot, and you finally are logically convinced (by the way, there are many books,eg by thomas equinas that logically prove the christian faith) that there is a God, and that He is the christian God. Does it mean you are going to heaven, just because you are mentally or intellectually convinced that Jesus is God??????
  
  Not at all. Not unless you have a spiritual experience called being born again.A logical belief in Christianity will prevent you from experiencing the Real Deal, that is a Spiritual Salvation in Christ in the following ways:
  
  The devil was once a mighty archangel, and presently with billions of demons, evil spirits, unclean spirits, etc with a far superior intelligence than humans.Each human being is assigned to tens, if not hundreds of evil spirits and demon hordes, that would love for you to deny their existence. For if you deny their existence, then surely you will deny God's existence. It is extremely easy, 1,2,3 steps for Satan to deceive humans in more than a thousand ways.
  
  Don't even think you can compete with satan intellectually. However, he has no control over your heart, and what you choose to believe.And that is the loophole, which God has opened up for you. The faith route is the only way you can bypass Satan,and his cronies who guard the intellectual gates of the human mind.
  
  When you get in to the logic debate about God, few important things to consider in SPIRITUAL WORLD which is what actually matters:
  
  1) You could be tempted to fall into the dungeon of SPIRITUAL PRIDE, as you are tricked into judging Almighty God, which is a fool's folly.Spiritual pride was the reason, for satan's downfall. Also for man's downfall, in garden of eden, as eve sucumbed to the temptation about being as knowledgeable as God.
  
  This could also result in the person who is logically convinced that Jesus is God, as an intellectual knowledge of the truth, will become a STUMBLING BLOCK for a real SPIRITUAL SALVATION experience.
  
  2) It could also lead to DECEPTION as the person, cannot find God in the intellectual domain, but only in the Spiritual domain. God's thoughts are far higher than yours, mine and the devil's, so you have to trust Him at His word. As it is written in the bible:
  Trust in the Lord with all your heart and lean not on your own understanding.
  
  God is spirit, only a spiritual born again experience can save the person, and the first thing to do is to humble ourselves. Second, we need deliverance from demonic spirits of unbelief that hold people as captives. This can be done if the person humbles himself/herself and receives Jesus Christ into the heart. Deliverance can be done even online, and specific prayers can set the captives free.
  
  I speak from experience. Not here to argue with anyone.
  
  Simple challenge for those who are sincere: Ask God to open your eyes, and to reveal Himself to you.Ask in JESUS name.Simple. Try it. IT WORKS

• Comment Link Wednesday, 15 May 2013 21:20 posted by Arjay

  I didn't realize until watching the debate how shallow the iqsquick process is. It'd have been a more valuable experience to watch the panel questioned by a skilled interviewer such as Charlie Rose. Viewers don't need 'bread and circus' before and after polling to indicate which side of a simplistic proposal is more believable.
  
  God? What defines god?
  
  The concept of god doesn't require eternal life. It's probable that when we die we'll return to the state that existed before our birth, no matter what our personal virtues and failings may have been.
  
  Science knows a great deal but can only speculate on parameters which define the limits of reality. God is one of many names for the universal process from which our existence stems.
  
  Humans are likely never to fully understand that process. For practical purposes everything that exists is part of a scientific miracle.
  
  Scientists propose! God doesn't.

• Comment Link Wednesday, 08 May 2013 20:12 posted by Carl Landsness

  I'm uncomfortable with the question... because of its right/wrong win/lose nature... and the emotional baggage attached to the "God" word. I'd prefer more win/win explorations into the forces that impact life... including the mystical aspects of life.

• Comment Link Tuesday, 07 May 2013 10:38 posted by Rick Cypress

  Most of you are missing the point. A (nondescript) god/deity cannot be proven to exist or not exist because that god/deity is a non-falsifiable hypothesis, as easily dismissed as it is asserted. Think of satirical examples such as the Flying Spaghetti Monster, Celestial Teapot, etc. However, if one is intellectual honest with oneself, one MUST admit that the god/deity they follow IS well described and DOES have characteristics and attributes that ARE falsifiable. Especially when talking about the Christian/Muslin/Jewish god(s). That particular god has attributes, widely accepted by its followers, and those claims such as physical manifestations, miracles, prayer answering, historicity of religious text and the contradictions and atrocities found within. These are all falsifiable, testable claims that when challenged, DO NOT stand up. That is why when it comes to the god of the bible and koran, he CAN be proven not to exist.

• Comment Link Wednesday, 01 May 2013 08:13 posted by John Covel

  The motion requires that God is within the rational grasp of methodological materialism. If a god is outside of empirical invalidation then there's no point in talking about whether or not God is refuted by science.
  
  It should be established by the opposition to the motion whether or not God can be invalidated. If God can be invalidated, then there are some important logical questions that comes to the forefront. A falsifiable God has to answer to some profound logical contradictions before we can even talk about empirical invalidation.

• Comment Link Tuesday, 30 April 2013 12:54 posted by Toby Mailman

  How can you have a debate, which by definition means using rational argument, to discuss "God" or religion, which depend, by definition, strictly on faith, which is the opposite of rational argument. No rational argument will win over people who believe in something based on faith, disregarding any evidence to the contrary.

• Comment Link Monday, 29 April 2013 01:25 posted by Ed Silha

  I think that the phrase "the incredibly shrinking god" (or gods) says it all. At one time god or the gods were incredibly powerful and in control of everyday life. As science began to provide explanations for things that had been unknown, those things were taken from the province of the gods and placed in the province of understanding.
  
  One rational approach to this discussion is to decide that questions with unknown answers (e.g., is there life after death) are neither evidence for god nor science, simply unknown. If that is done, it is not difficult to assign things that are known to the province of understanding, leaving nothing for god(s).

• Comment Link Thursday, 25 April 2013 11:25 posted by JT

  http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/refute
  
  "Refute: To prove wrong by argument or evidence"
  
  
  Krauss and Shermer don't prove anything.
  
  In fact, Krauss starts off by saying:
  
  "We will show that Science refutes god, not that Science disproves god... which is two different things"
  
  No it isn't!
  
  And Shermer's statements "what seems more likely...." does nothing to prove anything.