BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
If there is a god, its the sun.

The Guy who made the sun. He's God. The sun is a star, out of billions of stars all over the universe, most of which are larger than the sun. You argue about the sun as though, it existed before everything else, which it did not. Now you might argue that the oldest and biggest star should be God, but the universe preexisted that. So you will argue then that the universe should be God. Well God 'is' everywhere and all the energy in the universe is greater than any bit or fraction of energy in any part of the universe(such as the energy possessed by the sun). But there was a time when the universe did not exist. The God (of theism) was never born and will never die. Hmm, so God is not the universe, but the energy source that created and sees over the universe.In keeping with physics concepts of light energy(creation/expansion) and dark energy(shrinking). Is there any proof that at any point in time there was nothing?And if so, what is nothing? If the universe could pop out of nothing then nothing must be a very energetically powerful thing... perhaps nothing is God in a cloak. please keep in mind, most arguements are based upon the God of Classical Theism, meaning a God for everything ^_^
I AM WHO I AM

The one who said on the mount of Horeb “I Am who I Am” didn’t need human approval to prove his existence. Now if we again start debate on Bible I can only say no one is smart enough to define the depth of whole Biblical knowledge alone. If you expect a goodey goodey God to make your life easy, comfortable and risk free. Then wake up! If we expect someone to fall down from sky and hold the tsunami or earthquake or accident, hello!! It’s physical world and we must learn to expect accidents and disaster to happen. Since I am Christ-believer, while reading comments I saw people trying to attack Jesus with their intellectual logics. Recollection and prophesying of Jesus was done by people of different times AFTER Him and BEFORE Him, if point of gross inaccuracy has helped many people to turn from wrong way of living what is the problem? Someone nicely said “Just because some people believe something doesn’t’ make it real”. Likewise just because some people doesn’t believe something - doesn’t make it fake! Those who have read Bible carefully must have known that good works are not going to take us to heaven, so stop accusing for doing good. The parable (not story please) of Good Samaritan came from a person named Jesus who is believed to be Christ and don’t blame us for believing Him to be our God. I believe because I believe there is God. I can’t have you to turn into myself to realize God exists.
The Argument from Time and Contingency

This is esentially(essentially) the Unmoved Mover argument again and, again, 'God' does not suitably answer the question of existence unless you already believe in Him and so hardly require further convincing. This cannot be repeated enough, most of these arguments require some sort of belief in God to begin with, they are hardly convincing to an atheist, not least because the origins of the universe are becoming more and more apparent (and less God related) through the advance of modern science. Just as with the theory of evolution, when old ideas that point to the existence of God are disproved, they do not stop believe in God. Similarly, as science progresses, if an 'Unmoved Mover' is discovered and is purely physical, people will of course not see this as disproof of God. Again, THE CONCEPT OF GOD IS FATIH(faith) BASED!!! Logic alone is not enough for actual proof, such is the essence and mystery of faith. God hardly hands us everything on a plate. Deal with it. Faith is a choice, not an argument. Most not ALL... Somebody needs to learn how to spell.
Probability

There is a misconception in popular culture that the existence or non-existence of a God is an entirely equal tug-of-war. This is ridiculous. Probability sets the odds far from 50/50. The existence of a God is one possibility of millions, and the probability of there being a single God who is omnipotent, omniscient and benevolent is an unlikely and inconsistent position to adopt. There are a far greater number of possible Atheist approaches, and a far greater quantity of physical evidence suggesting such. If we are to accept that the world is as it appears, it would be responsible to respect the empirical evidence it provides us with. Science continues to explain the mysteries of the universe, and is yet to conclusively indicate the existence of God, in spite of rigorous efforts by Theists. Probability continues to indicate that God's existence is not a thousandth as likely as his non-existence, the only evidence for his existence still mere folklore perpetuated by custom, as opposed to cutting edge science. http://www.godisimaginary.com/
According to Probability - a creator exists

In any large-scale game of chance(say, a large raffle), any given individual has a vanishingly small chance of winning an award. However, the chance that you will win the raffle is not "mathematically impossible", --it is improbable and, by definition, possible. That said,1:10^100000000000 is a rather low probability. But what is important is what that claim represents--according to Harold Morowitz, "the probability of matter arranging itself as a bacterium" [http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:gOgcu0QFoecJ:www.harding.edu/nguy/ReasonableFaithFinal.ppt+harold+morowitz+1:10^100000000000&cd=2&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&client=iceweasel-a]] . However, such a statement has a fatal flaw:assuming a bacterium is the minimum starting point for life to develop. In reality, it most scientists believe that the original life forms were much simpler, not much more than self-replicating molecules. In addition, experiments such as the Miller-Uray simulation[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller%E2%80%93Urey_experiment]] have shown that amino acids, one of the "building blocks" of life, readily self-assembled in the early Earth environment. These factors mean that the barriers to the spontaneous emergence of life are far lower than a cursory interpretation of Morowitz's extrapolation would indicate. Since we know life exists on earth, we can assume that it exists either due to spontaneous emergence and evolution or intelligent design. This also begs another question:do you believe God to be more complex than a bacterium? If so, the probability of a God existing is much lower than Morowitz's probability of a bacterium existing, while the probability of life forming spontaneously is much higher than Morowitz's estimate. Therefore, Morowitz's estimation shows that, despite the unlikely chance of spontaneous emergence, it is in fact more likely than intelligent design.
Falsification

People argue that religion cannot be falsified, as there is no compromise in what people believe. For Example ‘God Exists – and he loves me’ – Christians won’t have this any other way, this is 100% true and cannot be compromised. However this is not the only thing that people don’t compromise with, you also cannot falsify or compromise… Math. No-one complains that that doesn’t exist. The secret reveals a concept in physics that says that thinking about something enough does make it exist. The law of attraction [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_b1GKGWJbE8]]. So , if you 'really' believe in an invisible unicorn , that you can not feel, it might be there. But then again you wouldn't really believe in it unless there was at least a shred of evidence. You will only believe 'strongly' in something if there is some definable truth in it. The reason kids believe in Santa Claus is because their fathers dress up and roll down the chimney, for their eyes to see. A lot of kids are wise to the ploy, ALSO after obtaining 'evidence' of some form against the existence of Santa. And to reassert the point in the first paragraph. It is not really possible to prove anything but your own existence[Cogito ergo sum- Rene Descartes]].(Descartes also wrote a lengthy GOD-Proof.) Maybe, you shouldn't believe in anything but it isn't possible not to.YOU believe there is no God: yes that is a belief just like any other. The only reason 'you' do not believe in God or a creator is because YOU have been told there isn't one. It isn't something you discovered all on your own with the use of logic. Since logically incomplete or imperfect information cannot provide one with perfect/complete answers.
If there is a god, its the sun.

People claim that due to the physics theory of conservation of energy, energy is never created nor destroyed, and that energy in the first place existed due to God creating energy. Hence, they argue thateven science proves God to exist. My question is: Science does prove the conservation of energy, but do you realise that science also proves that almost all energies on Earth came originally from the sun? In that case, wouldn't the sun be the God? I'm sure god did not create the sun nor the universe either. The sun is everywhere. The Sun is god.
God is a concept dreamed up by optimistic people.

The senses which we use we can only describe from previous human teaching and history; how do you know that a pink elephant is a pink elephant? Because someone along the line told you what pink was and what an elephant was. It’s more than likely that someone told them as well, whether by word of mouth or in a text book or even through the internet. All records of humans are based on a knowledge and logic that we might not even truly have. Trying to define a God in our human minds from knowledge and logic that we possibly don’t have seems a little off. Can you prove pink is pink? Or that an elephant is an elephant? Or even that a pink elephant is a pink elephant, without resorting to a history of some sort? While every culture explorers have come across throughout the ages have told of a God of some sort, very few of them mention pink elephants. I believe that in court of law you are innocent until proven guilty. Therefore seeing as there is no real proof ‘against’ the conviction of God’s existence, we must assume that he does exist.
The Argument from Time and Contingency

The Argument from Time and Contingency http://www.peterkreeft.com/topics-more/20_arguments-gods-existence.htm#3 1. We notice around us things that come into being and go out of being. A tree, for example, grows from a tiny shoot, flowers brilliantly, then withers and dies. 2. Whatever comes into being or goes out of being does not have to be; nonbeing is a real possibility. 3. Suppose that nothing has to be; that is, that nonbeing is a real possibility for everything. 4. Then right now nothing would exist. For 5. If the universe began to exist, then all being must trace its origin to some past moment before which there existed—literally—nothing at all. But 6. From nothing nothing comes. So 7. The universe could not have begun. 8. But suppose the universe never began. Then, for the infinitely long duration of cosmic history, all being had the built—in possibility not to be. But 9. If in an infinite time that possibility was never realized, then it could not have been a real possibility at all. So 10. There must exist something which has to exist, which cannot not exist. This sort of being is called necessary. 11. Either this necessity belongs to the thing in itself or it is derived from another. If derived from another there must ultimately exist a being whose necessity is not derived, that is, an absolutely necessary being. 12. This absolutely necessary being is God. Question1: Even though you may never in fact step outside your house all day, it was possible for you to do so. Why is it impossible that the universe still happens to exist, even though it was possible for it to go out of existence? Reply: The two cases are not really parallel. To step outside your house on a given day is something that you may or may not choose to do. But if nonbeing is a real possibility for you, then you are the kind of being that cannot last forever. In other words, the possibility of nonbeing must be built—in, "programmed," part of your very constitution, a necessary property. And if all being is like that, then how could anything still exist after the passage of an infinite time? For an infinite time is every bit as long as forever. So being must have what it takes to last forever, that is, to stay in existence for an infinite time. Therefore there must exist within the realm of being something that does not tend to go out of existence. And this sort of being, as Aquinas says, is called "necessary."
Life is ridiculous without a God. Belief in God is the only sane thing we discuss.

Isn’t it amazing that rainbows exist? Just think: the light has to enter water droplets at just the right angle for the human brain to perceive a rainbow. Fascinating- and explicable without a god. Everyone would agree that life is remarkable, but just because it is such a beautiful thing doesn’t mean it has to happen because of some distant deity. You don’t need a god to believe that everyone is important, either. In fact, how life works is yet another explicable thing. Not many scientists, for example, would argue that life is purely coincidence. There are explanations and evidence exploring the origins of life and explaining the emergence of the species we are familiar with today. Just like a rainbow, ‘living’ is ultimately just some chemical reactions, stemming from laws of physics just like those that split white light into beautiful colours as it passes through droplets. But thinking of life as just chemical interactions misses the point. Yes, of course, life is made up of chemical interactions. But that is just one perspective. Life is also a set of interactions between people, desires, and dreams. All of those things happen on the social and psychological level. Warm social values and fulfilling psychological commitments don’t disappear just because there are chemicals underlying them. In the same way, the beauty of wonderful architecture doesn’t disappear just because there are uninspired bricks and joists underlying them. It isn’t the pieces we should be paying attention to, but the whole. And that whole doesn’t disappear just because there is no God there. It is there with or without God. It is completely independent from Him.
Unanswerable Questions

1) Hypothetically Invisible unicorns are NOT transparent. Glass is transparent but it isn't invisible. Invisible ink(I use lemon juice) is invisible but not 'transparent'(translucent, perhaps). It is not that the question is unanswerable but self-contradictory. 2)What does light sound like? Answer:[http://www.michigandaily.com/content/sound-out-light]] The questions you ask are not 'unanswerable but VAGUE(non-specific) and general so that they can be answered in a variety of ways. Unicorns are a product of fiction, even an the answer that invisible unicorn use magical unicorn powers embossed on their unicorn horns to be transparent, is a suitable/valid answer to 1). Question 2) The sound of light depends on its color, speed and a number of other factors.The question needs to be specific. Question 3) define meaning? define grass? surely different grasses have different meanings in different senses of the word. And because you cannot answer a question, that doesn't mean the answer does not exist. You don't know more than half the ideas of all innovators/scientists/inventors/writers/etc that have lived and died in the last 2009 years. Does that mean that those ideas/concepts are meaningless and unanswerable? Unanswerable by YOU? Yes but non-existent and unanswerable by everyone else? Not so. You seem to be hopping all over Stephen Hawking' s ideas when 'he' did not omit mention of theology/God: "However, if we discover a complete theory, it should in time be understandable by everyone, not just by a few scientists. Then we shall all, philosophers, scientists and just ordinary people, be able to take part in the discussion of the question of why it is that we and the universe exist. If we find the answer to that, it would be the ultimate triumph of human reason -- for then we should know the mind of God. (p.193) Since this Brief History has achieved such an enormous circulation, and since the author believes that this has in large part been due to the book's actual or supposed theological implications"[http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/antony_flew/hawking.html]]
According to Probability - a creator exists

According to Dr.Harold Morowitz, a Yale university physicist, the chance that life - even basic life could have evolved on earth is around 1:10^100000000000 against. This is without taking into account that this life was created on earth which happens to be a planet that is at the right distance from the sun for life to evolve. Admittedly, this does not prove god's existence, but it does make it mathematically impossible for life to have been created without the helping hand of some external power.
If anything exists, God exists.

Simply to state that "If anything exists, God exists" is not an argument at all, it demonstates no logical process. It is nothing more than an assertion. Besides, does this include all the wrongs in the world as well? Could I say 'rape exists therefore God exists?'. And does this not limit God to Earthly things? Surely (by the common concept of Him) He existed even when nothing else did? Lets just state the obvious questions: IS GOD A MAN OR A WOMAN? WHERE DOES GOD RESIDE? WHO MADE GOD? Unless, anyone can prove any of the above, how is one to believe that there is a God? Also, don't you find it odd, that many of the major religions in the world seemed to have occurred every 500 years or so, in the past! But paradoxically, the oldest one with many followers, is Bhuddism, which does not state that there is a God, or a creator but instead, stated to 'believe in yourself' and your own salvation, through your own actions, rather than worshipping 'others'.
People are being very hypocritical.

You've misunderstood the meaning of hypocritical. Some one is hypocritical if they say one thing, then do the opposite or another thing contrary to their beliefs or words. Some one is not hypocritical if they change the way they live. Fair enough, a christian would be hypocritical if they said sex outside of marriage was a sin, and then committed it. But its not hypocritical if when they have sex outside of marriage they don't maintain the thesis that sex outside of marriage is wrong or a sin. And the mention of Einstein was in no way relevant.
God is a concept dreamed up by optimistic people.

If I told you that there was a pink elephant standing in front of you, you wouldn't believe me because you wouldn't be able to see, touch, hear, smell or taste it. It would have no effect on you. The same can be said about God. No one can prove God's existence. Some may say that you can't disprove it either but this is irrelevant as logic doesn't work that way. Imagine if this rationale was allowed in the law courts; there would be mayhem. You can't prove God exists or doesn't exist, no. Well done, end of pointless 'debate' with a no score draw. "I believe that in a court... exist." The responsibility to prove lies not with the non-believer, but with the believer. If we had grown up having never been introduced to the idea of God by our society, we would object to the claims others make about Him. We would have no empirical evidence of Him, and therefore we would not be convinced of His existence. The burden of proof lies with the one claiming there is an omnipotent eternal God, not with the one who decides to reject that claim. "The necessity of proof always lies with the person who lays charges."
The Argument from Degrees of Perfection

This is completely nonsense ! Do you actually believe in this? People believing in God is just like people in the olden days in Salem who onced executed people for witchcraft! You do not win this argument by copy pasting a whole lot of illogical example! Can't you support "God" with your own word? God is only for people who are weak to believe in.For example, if you want something badly and you want to plead someone for it, you pray to him in a hope that a magical thing would happen. To make it simple, god is just another fairy tale. And people who believe are just like kids who want to believe that there is something magical out there in the world.
Life is ridiculous without a God. Belief in God is the only sane thing we discuss.

When you are watching television, talking to friends, doing homework etc. don’t you often think how crazy life is? Some may say that life is just particles happening to bounce off one another but I believe that everyone is important. Science can explain some things in theory like rainbows are created by light shining through water in dense atmospheres, but something as wonderful as that and as wonderful as life itself can not simply be a coincidence. Can you really bring yourself to think that your life will end as fertilizer for a rose bush in a cemetery? God gives purpose, purpose is life. Here is a good link to prove this point (make sure you have some time, it is over an our long, but watch the whole thing.) http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=583123290763702372#docid=7056215053182143873
Unanswerable Questions

1) How are invisible unicorns transparent? - 2) What does light sound like? - 3) What is the meaning of grass? - It is possible to devise infinite numbers of unanswerable questions. Some ask questions of that which is impossible to prove (1). Some ascribe properties to things which they cannot have (2). Some questions cannot have any answer other than a property proscribed to them (3). Some theists presume that because a question can be asked, it must have an answer. Yet the common questions to which theists argue we must rely on a faith in God are as unanswerable as the questions above: 1) What existed before the world/what created the world? Such questions involve an understanding of time that feels right, but goes against a scientific understanding. There is little point asking questions of what was 'before' the big bang, for time as we know it begun at the big bang. Ideas of creation prior to the world are thus unanswerable questions. 2) How is the world so functional/beautiful without a creator God? Such ideas of beauty are subjective and imposed upon the world by the viewer - leading again to an unanswerable question. 3) What is the meaning of life? Again, imposing a purpose or meaning on life cannot mean that this question is possible to answer. Theists may argue that unanswerable questions are where science stops and faith comes in, however unanswerable questions are simply this - unanswerable.
Great physicists were deist

Your argument is total based on the fact that because all physicists you listed are deists therefore there must be a god, which is as much as all great physicists have hair therefore hair must be god. And the fact that these things are too complicated to be left to chance. So bascially you are going to use the argument that because these great scientists think these are too unlikely to happen on its own therefore there is a creator, when there is a huge lacking of empirical evidence, data, research, peer-review. Just because from our perception that everything that exists must be created, doesn't mean that is absolutely true. We used to think Earth was flat, man cannot fly in the sky, the moon was made of cheese, and there is no way for man to get to the moon. And your watch argument, if 'god' exists he would be immaterial, time would not matter, in fact nothing we percieve would matter. And you say that god intervenes when the watch is broken, okay, define broken ? Or needs to be fixed. Don't say mircales because that would undermine your creditbility and turn this debate into a circular argument.