[asa] Science proves there's no need for God?

I'm entering a yahoo discussion board debate with another person (an atheist). Here's my planned post (first draft)- any comments? This is just the opening statement- the meat will come next.

...Bernie
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Resolved: Given the success of science, including evolution, there is
no need for a God as posited by Christians to explain the universe.

<<Opening statement from the negative side.>>

Ultimately, either God exists or He doesn't. No one can either prove or disprove the existence of God. Nobody. Not one. Therefore, it logically follows that "the success of science" cannot disprove God. Therefore, the onus is on the advocate who thinks that there is a logical proof for demonstrating how "the success of science" can "put God out of business," so to speak.

I will show that all arguments that try to prove that God is superfluous (not needed, extraneous) are not logical. In other words, there are flaws in the logical arguments when trying to prove the thesis that by using modern science one can disprove the existence of God. In fact, the great mysteries of the universe actually cause many scientists to reach out for God, and that is why the majority of modern scientists and doctors believe in God[1].

Footnotes:
1. Robert Roy Britt, "Scientists' Belief in God Varies Starkly by Discipline," LiveScience, 11 Aug. 2005, <http://www.livescience.com/strangenews/050811_scientists_god.html>

________________________________

[1] Robert Roy Britt, "Scientists' Belief in God Varies Starkly by Discipline," LiveScience, 11 Aug. 2005, <http://www.livescience.com/strangenews/050811_scientists_god.html>

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Tue Oct 7 19:12:02 2008