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

From: Dehler, Bernie <>
Date: Wed Oct 08 2008 - 12:38:12 EDT

Thanks for all your comments. After my opening statement and his opening statement, my opponent will post his affirmation essay. I then have time to ask him questions... that will be fun. Then I post my essay and he can ask questions. Then we both write a conclusion.

Murray- I'll keep your post for reference. I have many of the same thoughts. First, I need to see his arguments. I'll try to also address the best atheist arguments even if he missed them, like from Dawkins.

I think I will change my last line. Re-reading it almost makes it look like it might appeal to "god of the gaps" which is not my intent. I'm trying to take the position of 'evolutionary creationist." But I think it is funny how people claim science disproves God, yet more scientists believe than disbelieve.

James- about proof, my point is that the affirmative statement (my opponents) is the one trying to prove it. My counter agrees with you- neither side can prove it. I have expert quotes for that.

Moorad- good point about the limit of living in "only science" but I need to stick to the issue of whether, basically, science has disproven God.


-----Original Message-----
From: [] On Behalf Of
Sent: Tuesday, October 07, 2008 8:34 PM
To: Dehler, Bernie
Subject: Re: [asa] Science proves there's no need for God?

In an important sense God is not "necessary" for an understanding of the world. This is the import of Bonhoeffer's argument that the world can be understood "though God were not given" becauuse God "lets himself be pushed out of the world onto a cross." The fullest exposition of this is Eberhard Juengel's _God as the Mystery of the World" in which he argues that the "nercessity" of God would in fact impose conditions upon God. God, he concludes, as the unconditioned ground of the world's existence is "more than necessary."


--- "Dehler wrote:
> 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, <>
> ________________________________
> [1] Robert Roy Britt, "Scientists' Belief in God Varies Starkly by Discipline," LiveScience, 11 Aug. 2005, <>

To unsubscribe, send a message to with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.

To unsubscribe, send a message to with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Wed Oct 8 12:38:44 2008

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Wed Oct 08 2008 - 12:38:44 EDT