BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
DNA is a code and therefore requires an intelligence to create it

DNA is sequence specific, meaning that the order of DNA matters to its function. Changing the order of the nucleotides will cause the DNA to not function properly just like changing the order 1s and 0s of binary will cause it to not function properly. Billiard balls are not a good analogy because they are not sequence specific. It could be the 3 ball or the 7 it would not matter to the outcome. Also Morse code is ink on a paper meaning if you follow its instruction you are just responding to a physical cause. Even the most famous atheist, Richard Dawkins, refers to DNA as "The Genetic Code" and says how it is "uncannily computerlike"[1]Sources[1] . http://tinyurl.com...
DNA is a code and therefore requires an intelligence to create it

DNA is not a code, instruction, or message and does not contain letters or symbols or meanings. It is a molecule which causes chemical effects under certain conditions. To claim DNA is a code is metaphorical reasoning similar to claiming that one billiard ball "sends a message" to another telling it to drop into a pocket when struck by the first; or that warm air "sends a message" to an ice cube telling it to follow the coded sequential instruction to become water and then vapor. Physical responses to physical causes are not the reading of codes. DNA is a physical cause of physical responses. Metaphorically claiming it is a code so as to reason backwards to an intelligent writer of that code so as to arrive at creationism is not valid.
Trinity Vs Oneness

So Tomas committed blasphemy in front of a rabbi? What was the duty of a rabbi if blasphemy is committed in his presence? To rebuke and correct it. Did Jesus do this upon hearing that Thomas referred to God in vain in such utterance? What is considered blasphemy? Taking God"s name in vain"like in an explanation remark, but of course you will probably argue that "GOD" is not a name"but it would still be a reference to GOD in vain, Also the phrase "my Lord AND my God" as an exclamation remark is nowhere found in the Bible. The "oh my God" expression is a modern expression, and it looks like you are taking a modern expression and transporting back 2000 years into the past and saying "ah that"s what it means there" Also if you look at an interline it literally says "THE LORD OF ME AND THE GOD OF ME"""the definite article "THE" is used before God so in this context it"s making an definite reference to "The God" Plus your just giving me your opinion not proof, I have never read anywhere in the bible or in ancient literature of a person making an exclamation remark like "my Lord AND my God""". Especially the and part, does that sound like a word that someone naturally sticks in there when they make an explanation remark? If, if, ".IF"". Thomas wanted to call Jesus his LORD and his God, How could he have word it? When you read the text carefully it says" Thomas said TOHIM"." So if he is merely making and explanation remark what is he saying to him? Even if Tomas's comment were an exclamation remark, would you agree that it is still directed at someone called God? If not then would you say Tomas's is making some form of a blasphemous statement by uttering "God" Notice psalms 35:23 and revelation 4:11, do these sound like exclamation remarks? Even if they are, do they stop having a referent? No. So did Tomas's comment have a referent or is he referent to God in vain? ALSO do not forget that the text linguistically says that Tomas SAID TO HIM.....to Jesus ...what did he say TO Jesus?????? Thank you for your time. If you want to continue with this subject please let me know. =514; God Bless you!!!!
Trinity Vs Oneness

According to the scripture you cannot say that Jesus is God. The scriptures tell us nowhere in the Bible that he is God. If Jesus was God then do you not think that He would have clearly stated that he was? Nowhere in the Bible does he do this and the only evidence that people give that he did are ambiguous statements that are always taken out of context. Do you not think that he would have preached that he was God? He didn't, those that he preached to believed him to be a prophet, not God. Thomas was disbelieving. He thought it Impossible that Jesus had come back from the dead . After encontering Jesus alive with holes in his hands and feet he said "My Lord!, my God!". This is an understandable reaction from Thomas. Take it in the context as it was written, he was shocked and amazed that Jesus was alive. We have no reason the think that he literally thought that Jesus was God. Only the Creator is God. This is one of the main themes throughout the Bible and is reinforced by Jesus. "Hear, O Israel; The Lord our God is one Lord: And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength: this is the first commandment. There is none other commandment greater than these. And the scribe said unto him, Well, Master, thou hast said the truth: for there is one God; and there is none other but he:" The scribe also knew his scriptures well, he knew there is only one God and there is none other than he. Isaiah 45:5 makes it clear for all to understand; "I am the LORD, and there is no other; Besides Me there is no God." .
Trinity Vs Oneness

The reason that I mention Judaism is because the Old Testament is from Judaism. I understand that most did and do not accept Jesus as their messiah but the point I'm trying to make is that even if they did believe him to be the messiah then that would in no way according to scripture make him God because the Jewish messianic expectation was not that he would be God. Jews that believe in the Trinity are ones that have converted to Christianity. John 10: 30 - "I and my father are one". If you read the verses before this, particularly verse 25 then it is clear that Jesus meant that his purpose is at one with God not that he is literally God - Jesus answered them, 'I told you, and ye believed not: the works that I do in my Father's name, they bear witness of me.' Jesus stated that he wanted everyone to be at one with God (John 17:21) so that we may all carry out Gods purpose obviously not all actually become Gods ourselves. You need to read the rest of John 10 then you will understand that he does not accept the charge of being God, he denies it. Colossians 1:15 denies that Jesus is God because it states that he is the 'image' of God, not that he is God himself. It refers to him (not uniquely I must add) as the firstborn. It's illogical to assume that he can also be the Creator that is referred to in the following verse. None of the verses that I sent you give any mention of God being made up of three parts so how do any of them support the Trinity?
Trinity Vs Oneness

First let me clarify that my view on the trinity is this. That there is only one God not three. So with that said, Trinitarian Theology also teaches that there is only one creator that created everything, one God. And as far as Christianity stemming from Judaism, there are many Jews today who do believe in a trinity but the fact that something came from Judaism in and of itself does not mean that it is correct, many in Judaism today do not believe that Jesus was the messiah, that he was born from a virgin, that he died and resurrected on the third day etc. And as far as Jesus never saying that he was God, in John 10: 30 he said "I and my father are one" and in verse 33 the Jews answered him " For a good work we do not stone you, but for blasphemy and because you being a man make yourself God" So in other words they were ready to stone him for stating that he is God. As far as Colossians 1:15 I would like to ask you this question. If Jesus was created than when was he created because in Colossians 1:16-17 it says that all things were created through him and that he is before all things. So how than can he be before all things if he himself is supposedly a create "thing? And in reference to the verses you sent me. All the verses are correct and are in perfect harmony with Trinitarian theology.
Trinity Vs Oneness

This is my first day joining so you're welcome and thanks also. If an individual human referred to themselves as more than one then it would not make sense I agree. This however is not referring to a human but to the most awesome being to great for us to contemplate. Some say that this is a writing style in Hebrew to illustrate the greatness of God. The following verse does not back up your point as it clearly identifies the oneness of God. So God created man in HIS own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. (Genesis 1:27) Colossians 1:15 does indeed confirm that Jesus was present during creation but it also states that Jesus was created by God. 'Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature'. Now I understand that this is debatable and ambiguous but so too is Hebrew's 1:2 in identifying Jesus as God. On your side you have a few ambiguous verses that could possibly subject such an idea of a Trinity but they are indeed ambiguous, few and far between. The fact that Jesus never claimed to be God, didn't preach that he was God and made numerous unambiguous statements that only the Creator is God completely dismiss anything to the contrary. Throughout the Bible it is made clear that only the Creator is God. Numbers tells us that God is not a man nor a son of man. If we were to put our supporting evidence on scales then my side would be held firmly to the ground by the sheer weight of scripture. Old Testament 1."there is no one like Yahweh our God." Exodus 8:10 2."Yahweh, He is God; there is no other besides Him." Deuteronomy 4:35 3.Yahweh, He is God in heaven above and on the earth below; there is no other." Deuteronomy 4:39 4."Hear, O Israel! Yahweh is our God, Yahweh is one [echad]!" Deuteronomy 6:4 5.Yahweh is God; there is no one else." 1 Kings 8:60 6."You alone are Yahweh." Nehemiah 9:6 7."Before Me there was no God formed, And there will be none after Me." Isaiah 43:10 8."I am Yahweh, and there is no other; Besides Me there is no God." Isaiah 45:5 9."I am Yahweh, and there is none else." Isaiah 45:18 10."Is it not I, Yahweh? And there is no other God besides Me, A righteous God and a Saviour; There is none except Me." Isaiah 45:21 New Testament 1.'Hear, O Israel! The Lord our God is one Lord; " Mark 12:29 2."you do not seek the glory that is from the one and only God?" John 5:44 3."For there is one God, and one mediator also between God and men, the man Christ Jesus," 1 Timothy 2:5 4."You believe that God is one. You do well; the demons also believe, and shudder." James 2:19
Trinity Vs Oneness

I know that the word trinity can not be found in the bible, but the concept is found. .. We find the Trinity in the first page on the Bible. Genesis 1:26 Then God said, Lets US make man in OUR image, according to our likeness: Let them have dominion over the fish of the sea. over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth. What is the number we use to constitute us? At least two right, So therefor we see that there was more than one. If we see a person talking to himself saying let US go. . and there was no one there. We would think he was crazy. So we see here that God was talking to his Son. Hebrew 1:2 has in these last days spoken to us by His Son, whom He has appointed heir of all things, through whom also He made the worlds: The Father made the worlds by His son. It implies that The Son was present during creation.
There is no scriptural support for the concept of Pastoral Authority

Although my opponent forfeited the last round, I would love for him to post a final argument. In this debate, he has failed to demonstrate the need or the premise for pastoral authority within the Church. This is with good reason - there is none. The entire clergical model is based on the thought that the masses need people to instruct them in a very specific interpretation of scripture. But, in doing so, it traps people in the specific opinions and editorials preached for pulpits every Sunday. Jesus Himself assigned only the Holy Spirit to take His place. The Biblical community of faith is illustrated in Acts 2, where the believers met together and shared in the doctrine taught to the by the apostles. But, they were not governed by those men. Elders were appointed among each community of faith to 1) protect against blatant heresies, 2) arbitrate in the event of disagreements, and 3) teach the younger what they have learned in life. But, they were not given any power to make decisions on behalf of the Church, nor was the Church commanded to "bear his armor". In addition, the supposed "five-fold ministry" was clearly instituted to SERVE the Church, not lead it. It is there to edify, or "build up", the Church, not lord over it. The pastoral role is a role that should be played by every one of us at some time. It is the role that enables us to counsel our own friends and family in their times of need or despair. But, it is not restricted to specific individuals, nor is it given any prominence in scripture. Therefore, I conclude that there is no scriptural support, nor logical basis, nor spiritual purpose for the concept of pastoral authority in the Church that Jesus Christ created. If any of us wants to be great, let him serve the rest. That's the way He taught us to live.
There is no scriptural support for the concept of Pastoral Authority

Funny stuff, moonshine! This is definitely a fun debate. Thanks for making it lighthearted. First, Let's look at your statement: "a pastor provides guidance by speaking to his church members, sounds like a sermon huh?" The current system, one based on the organizational structure of a nonprofit organization headed by a man who calls himself a pastor provides for the enlistment of church members, who have agreed to be in submission to this man and his mission. These are his followers, following his teachings, observations, and interpretations. These serve as the basis for all spiritual reality. His sermons, 15-45 minute editorials on the Bible, are his way of spreading his version of "the Gospel" - in accordance to one of the over 33,000 demonimations in the world. This does not sound like the united Church Jesus birthed. So, to answer the question, "sounds like a sermon, huh?", I would say no. If we put all the pieces together, the "job" of pastoring belongs to respected, experienced members of a community of faith, who simply pass on their knowledge and guide those younger and less experienced. Those elders also exist to arbitrate any disagreements and to correct deviations from the teachings of Christ as a unit. But, even they are subject to the same scrutiny. In other words, there is no where in scripture that assigns them, and certainly not one man other than Christ, the authority to RULE over the Church. Providing guidance to people is something that does not require authority. It just requires that we be respectable enough to be trusted by people. Thus, this list of qualifications from the scriptures for elders from 1 Timothy 3: - must be blameless, - the husband of one wife, - vigilant, - sober, - of good behaviour, - given to hospitality, - apt to teach; - Not given to wine, - no striker, - not greedy of filthy lucre; - but patient, - not a brawler, - not covetous; - One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity; (For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?) - Not a novice, lest being lifted up with pride he fall into the condemnation of the devil. - Moreover he must have a good report of them which are without; lest he fall into reproach and the snare of the devil. I don't even know a lot of so-called PASTORS that fit this! These people are truly special people within a local community of faith. They bring maturity and sincerity to a community without the need to have top/down authority. They lead by EXAMPLE, sometimes never needing to even say a word. Not once do I see anything legitimizing the need, nor the mandate, for today's modern concept of Pastoral Authority. You?
There is no scriptural support for the concept of Pastoral Authority

1.wow i did contradict my self, well that scripture is out of the debate. 2. my rebuttal is an entertaining bill cosby impersination http://www.youtube.com... 3. wow since your an expastor you are very knoledgeable on the subject. no matter i will rebute you. ok this is the only sermon left in play. this is starting to get entertaining. you said:For scripture reference #3, I have to refer to my own experience as a pastor (now ex-pastor). A pastor is nowhere in scripture commissioned to "preach sermons". They are there to shepherd, or provide guidance, which does not necessarily require the preaching of a sermon. Arguably, that is the least effective and laziest way to accomplish this task. In addition, a typical 3-point sermon takes less than an hour to compose. I will say that there have been times where I have spent hours researching a teaching that I wanted to bring. But, in all reality, it is the duty of each believer to do that for themselves. You see how flawed that system is when you realize that people will not go back and research what was taught. They just accept it. So, assuming a leadership position that the scripture does not endorse only serves to cause dangerous sects, with leaders like Jim Jones. At the very least, it creates an army of drones that don't really believe in anything but what the preacher preaches. Let's look at what Jesus said in Matthew 23:8-11 "But none of you should be called a teacher. You have only one teacher, and all of you are like brothers and sisters. Don't call anyone on earth your father. All of you have the same Father in heaven. None of you should be called the leader. The Messiah is your only leader. Whoever is the greatest should be the servant of the others." This looks just a LITTLE different from the idea of Pastoral Authority, which makes a man teacher, father, and leader. It assumes a role that only Christ Himself fits. rebuttal: a pastor provides guidance by speaking to his church members, sounds like a sermon huh?
There is no scriptural support for the concept of Pastoral Authority

Thank you, moonshine. I want to first apologize for a mistake I made in my last rebuttal. References to Jon 21:16 are of PETER, not Paul. I mistyped there. OK... For scripture reference #1, your argument is indirect contradiction of the verse. You stated: "I agree paul didnt own the sheep but he was responsible for taking care of them, much like a pastor is responsible for taking care of his/her church and it's people" If the sheep ALL belong to Christ, and THAT is the Church, then how can a pastor have "his/her" church? They own nothing. The commission given to Peter was an apostolic commission passed to the elders of the local congregation, not to individual pastors to create their own mini cults. In scripture reference #2, you agree with me. So, there is no reason to rebuttal. For scripture reference #3, I have to refer to my own experience as a pastor (now ex-pastor). A pastor is nowhere in scripture commissioned to "preach sermons". They are there to shepherd, or provide guidance, which does not necessarily require the preaching of a sermon. Arguably, that is the least effective and laziest way to accomplish this task. In addition, a typical 3-point sermon takes less than an hour to compose. I will say that there have been times where I have spent hours researching a teaching that I wanted to bring. But, in all reality, it is the duty of each believer to do that for themselves. You see how flawed that system is when you realize that people will not go back and research what was taught. They just accept it. So, assuming a leadership position that the scripture does not endorse only serves to cause dangerous sects, with leaders like Jim Jones. At the very least, it creates an army of drones that don't really believe in anything but what the preacher preaches. Let's look at what Jesus said in Matthew 23:8-11 "But none of you should be called a teacher. You have only one teacher, and all of you are like brothers and sisters. Don't call anyone on earth your father. All of you have the same Father in heaven. None of you should be called the leader. The Messiah is your only leader. Whoever is the greatest should be the servant of the others." This looks just a LITTLE different from the idea of Pastoral Authority, which makes a man teacher, father, and leader. It assumes a role that only Christ Himself fits.
There is no scriptural support for the concept of Pastoral Authority

1.verse :(John 21:16) He saith to him again the second time, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me? He saith unto him, Yea, Lord; thou knowest that I love thee. He saith unto him, Feed my sheep. You said:The order to feed the sheep belonging to a shepherd does not assign authority to the feeder. A farm helper can not claim that the animals in the farm are his just because the farmer tells him to feed the animals. Jesus was telling Paul that if he REALLY loved Him, he would teach others the things that Jesus had spent His time teaching him. This is very plain and simple. rebuttal: I agree paul didnt own the sheep but he was responsible for taking care of them, much like a pastor is responsible for taking care of his/her church and it's people. 2.Verse: (Acts 20:28) Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood. You said:Here, Paul is addressing the Elders of the Church at Ephesus. The collection of Elders, defined as older men who were respected in their community of faith, was charged with caring for their local "flock". The manner of doing so is simple: for the younger to respect the older as you would a father, but the older to entreat the younger as a brother. There IS a Biblical order to things, but it is not through SINGLE PASTOR rule. rebuttal: i agree but there are more verses, let's continue. 3. verse:Who goeth a warfare any time at his own charges? who planteth a vineyard, and eateth not of the fruit thereof? or who feedeth a flock, and eateth not of the milk of the flock? you said:This is a very interesting reference. It actually refers to the fact that Paul believed in the local Churches supporting the expenses of the apostle's food, travel, and arrangements while they were with them. His point here is simply that if he was taking the time to "work" for them, leaving his home and traveling there, it was right for them to pay his expenses. This is an echo of Jesus' teaching. But, this in no way demonstrates pastoral authority, only supporting one who you are asking to come and teach you. rebuttal:pastor's are going out of there way to preach a sermon, thus we pay something in return, tithing. those are my opening rebuttals. hopefully this debate goes well
There is no scriptural support for the concept of Pastoral Authority

when i was a christian i read the whole bible and i found numerous texts supporting pastoral authority. so here we go. * Matt. 2:6; * Lk. 17:7; * Jn. 21:16; * Acts 20:28; * 1 Co. 9:7; * 1 Pet. 5:2; * Jude 1:12; * Rev. 2:27; 7:17; 12:5; 19:15 * Matt. 9:36; 25:32; 26:31; * Mk. 6:34; 14:27; * Lk. 2:8, 15, 18, 20; * Jn. 10:2, 11f, 14, 16; * Eph. 4:11; * Heb. 13:20; * 1 Pet. 2:25