BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The Christian God is more likely than other gods

False Gods "False gods are gods that are not real, but invented by men or inspired by demons. The purpose of which is to deceive people so they do not believe in the true and living God. Some of the false gods listed in the Bible are Adrammelech and Anammelech (2 Kings 17:31), Asherah (1 Kings 15:13;18:19), Ashtoreth (1 Kings 11:5,33), Baal (Judges 2:13; 1 Kings 16:31), Baalzebub (2 Kings 1:1-16; Luke 11:19-23), Dagon (Judges 16:23-30), Molech/Moloch (Lev. 18:21; 20:1-5), Rimmon (2 Kings 5:18), and Tammuz (Ezekiel 8:14). http://carm.org... "All people have sinned against God. "But, God is infinitely holy and righteous. "He must punish the sinner, the Law- breaker. "If He didn't, then His law is not Law for there is no law that is a law without a punishment. "The punishment for breaking the Law is death, separation from God. Therefore, we sinners need a way to escape the righteous judgment of God. "Since we are stained by sin and cannot keep the Law of God, then the only one who could do what we cannot is God Himself. "That is why Jesus is God in flesh. "He is both divine and human. "He was made under the Law (Gal. 4:4) and He fulfilled it perfectly. "Therefore, His sacrifice to God the Father on our behalf is of infinite value and is sufficient to cleanse all people from their sins and undo the offense to God." http://carm.org... My question to you at this point is: If Jesus did not die for our sins then how will you obtain salvation? Do you just expect God to forgive you with no punishment? Do you hope to be a good enough person from now on that God will forgive your past transgressions? The bible teaches in John 14:6 "Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me"
The Existence of God

"My opponent seems to be egregiously confused about his own resolution. " Please give me one resolution on this topic that would not be confusing. I find this one the least confusing. "Dependence on the framework of time and space is not the same as causality." It is more or less if you dont believe that space and time have always existed. We know that tornados need a lot of condtions too to occur and were not very good at predicting them. I wouldnt say that a tornado was without cause though. Id say quantum events are kind of like the coin landing on its side when you flick it. As in the can occur when the conditions are there but it is highly unlikely. "No it won't - it can't. Time is not dependent on the existence of space." What would there be for time to govern without space. Infinity? Time governs finite existence. "No - I understood you perfectly. You do not understand astrophysics. Gravity creates a warping of time and space. Gravity has EVERYTHING to do with time and space." Yes that is the best way to explain it. But it is not gravity that warps time and space. It is the planets. And space outside of the planets gravitational pull isnt effected by gravity anyway. The only thing that I understand to be effected by gravity is the objects floating around in space. Not space itself, outside of the distortion from the large object resting upon it. "Since the universe is expanding and trying to race up IT'S OWN gravity well, it will eventually fail and begin to fall (contract)." True!! How do we know that space will contract though? Space is a vacuum. You cannot pick out one patch of a vacuum and follow its movement. "If the first cause had no cause, then my opponent must provide some sort of explanation of WHY it had no cause. " If you believe that nothing is infinite, then how can you not believe in a first cause? And if this cause was the first cause that would have to mean it was not caused. And if it was not caused then it must be eternal. So it had no cause because it needed no cause. Look at this and tell me that it doesnt point to a grand designer. http://en.wikipedia.org... How could such a simple sequence of numbers govern so much of the beauty around us. All these laws. Do you think this could happen by chance? Well it could but what were the odds of it happening. That the way things look around us, the very thing that is beauty, could be governed by such a simple sequence of numbers. Thats strong evidence of an artist at work if you ask me.
The Existence of God

"That's not quite true. There are various experiments in quantum physics that show that certain quantum events do not actually have observable causes." Yeah but Quantum events are dependant on time and space. That is why Quantum mechanics can attempt to explain it. "Unless you cannot imagine this in the same way you cannot imagine a square circle, it is still POSSIBLE." Yeah and you cannot imagine everything exploding from nothing because you have no idea what nothing is. Does that mean that this is impossible to you? "Time? The concept itself is infinite - it's just our conceptualization of it that renders it a numerical value..." Time will have an end. You forget that I am arguing something that has always existed. Besides sticking me in a hell of routine time also tells us how long things have existed. How could time exist in a place that has always been. It wouldnt be possible. And you must agree with me on this because you have already stated that you dont believe in anything that isnt possible to imagine. Why would quote me when you agree with me on something. "False. Gravity presents significant resistance to movement in space." Im not talking about our and anything elses progression through space. Im talking about the expansion of time and space. Gravity has no effect on time or space. You misunderstood me. "The proposition is self-defeating." I know the proposition is self defeating. Why are you agreeing with me. This is supposed to be an argument. Do you not remember this from my opening arguement."Ok so now my two beliefs contradict with each other.That everything needs a cause, and that nothing is infinite, and the only way I can make them fit with each other is by introducing a first cause, which unfortunately must have been infinite and must not have had a cause.". You didnt NEGATE one thing.
The Existence of God

If by "God" you simply mean "the cause of everything" we are dealing with a much different argument than usual... Responses: >> "Absolutely everything we are capable of observing in the universe around us has had a cause or causes." That's not quite true. There are various experiments in quantum physics that show that certain quantum events do not actually have observable causes. For example, Quantum Tunneling (http://en.wikipedia.org...) and Nonlocality (http://en.wikipedia.org...). Furthermore, a simple thought experiment can demonstrate the possibility of acausality. Is it logically inconsistent to suppose that objects could simply pop into existence? It's highly UNLIKELY, but the fact that you can properly imagine a chicken popping into existence and laying an egg on your bed renders the experience logically consistent. Unless you cannot imagine this in the same way you cannot imagine a square circle, it is still POSSIBLE. >> "I also believe that nothing is infinite." Time? The concept itself is infinite - it's just our conceptualization of it that renders it a numerical value... >> "if you want to believe that the universe is infinite, then you may not believe in the big bang theory" Then it's good that I don't believe the universe if infinite... The cyclic universe model helps explain this. >> "their is no resistance to movement in space" False. Gravity presents significant resistance to movement in space. >> "Therefore if you want to believe in the big bang theory you must accept that nothing in the universe is infinite." The propositions for this conclusion have been undermined - it no longer stands. One can believe a cyclic model or a Big Bang/Big Crunch model. The notion that the universe is not infinite may be correct, but does not rest on notions of resistance, etc... >> "That everything needs a cause, and that nothing is infinite, and the only way I can make them fit with each other is by introducing a first cause," You should read Hume's "Why Must There Be a Cause?" ************************************************************* The argument for "God" by appeal to first cause involves a fundamental error. If one can conceive of an uncaused cause or something that does not need a cause, then one has already accepted acausality. And once this has been done, the need for a first cause entirely disappears. The proposition is self-defeating. I await rebuttal. NEGATED
The Existence of God

Well there are many reasons why God must exist, and by God I merely mean "the cause of everything". Ill start with first cause. Absolutely everything we are capable of observing in the universe around us has had a cause or causes. From stars collapsing in onto themselves to form black holes, to the birth of a child, absolutely everything observable has had cause. I also believe that nothing is infinite. And yet again everything we are able to observe in the universe around us proves this. Well not everything, but ill get back to that. And if you want to believe that the universe is infinite, then you may not believe in the big bang theory, because these two ideas directly contradict with each other. Seeing as their is no resistance to movement in space, if the big bang really did take place then the universe will continue to expand until it meets an obstacle, and if it is still expanding then that means it could not have been infinite at any time before now. Therefore if you want to believe in the big bang theory you must accept that nothing in the universe is infinite. Ok so now my two beliefs contradict with each other. That everything needs a cause, and that nothing is infinite, and the only way I can make them fit with each other is by introducing a first cause, which unfortunately must have been infinite and must not have had a cause. Now I know you may not agree with my beliefs, but if you can see any other possible way of fitting them together, I would be delighted to hear it.
cs:go

I bought Cs:go over the winter break and I had lots of fun. I absolutely love the game. I recently pre-ordered black ops 3 when it came out and when i got cs go i stopped playing Black ops 3. CS go is and amazing game, but there are too many smurfs in the game and i also have runned into a lot of hackers in casual too my surprise. Cs go is a fun game but they need to fix the ranking system and the hackers. Vote me lol btw this is just for fun ethan surrender you can't win
Quick Debate! Musical Competition: Alternative!

This will be a very quick debate! MUSICAL COMPETITION The person who accepts this will post a song (preferably a vid from youtube) in the first round. I will then post a song in my second round, then I kindly ask my opponent to write "no song as asked" in that last round. NO EXPLANATION FOR WHY YOUR SONG IS BETTER! Then, we will both have posted one song. The genre will be.....Alternative music! If you don't know what it is, then search it up! Voters will judge which song has: More flow better Lyrics Catchiness More Awesome! Thanks, DDD
No god would require the use of faith

To begin with, faith is not the number one thing preached in the Bible. The number one thing, if there is even a focus, is arguably love. My opponent claims it is faith though, but does not explain how. All I gotta say on this matter is James 2:17, "Faith without works is dead." Works can be understood as works of love. You claim that "no supreme deity would ever ever ever ever ever ever have the want, the need or desire for [faith]..." I have explained in my opening points why God desires, wants, and needs the faith of his people (because otherwise their love of him is meaningless.) You have ignored my argument completely by calling it off topic even though it directly applies to the topic. My opponent says "well that is of he is perfect." This makes no since, but he later says it is proof of God not existing. Unless he clarifies, he has proved nothing. In the opening argument for Pro and his 3rd debate round, he keeps on offering reasons that God does not exist or why he is imperfect because of his "evil, anger, wrath, vengeance, rage, fury, evil [again], jealousy". That is not the point of the debate. The debate is about whether a God needs/desires faith, not if he exists. So I cannot be counted against for not answering these off topic arguments. You cherry picked one statement from my argument, "There would be no need for faith in the existence of God because everyone knows he is truly extant." and made it sound like that was my final point on the matter. You say "Its god who cares what people think," and if you continue to read my R2 argument you will see that I answer to this. I will say it again, God cares what people think about him, and he gives them the gift of faith to better appreciate/love him and grow stronger. Without faith there would be no opportunity for people to truly love God. On the contrary, most of what you've said deserves to be ignored... we are not talking about if God exists or not, but if God requires faith. Also, you ignored my robot pet/real puppy analogy in R2, counter it if you can.
No god would require the use of faith

“Imagine a world where everyone knew that the God of the Bible existed.” Who would want to? After all this god character in which there’s absolutely no proof whatsoever that he even exists is based solely on evil, anger, wrath, vengeance, rage, fury, evil, jealousy in all of those emotions in which he has freely admitted to which is imperfection. What moron wants to worship that bile? And even worse is this supposed god sent all of those emotions down to man so man could learn to hate. Great going god. Great going man for worshiping this supposed god. Even worse… jealousy? What? From a supreme deity? Jealousy is nothing but anger as disguised fear. “There would be no need for faith in the existence of God because everyone knows he is truly extant.” Well that’s um no. That’s not what I’m getting at. Who really cares what people think about god? Its god who cares what people think. And god would have no need whatsoever for people's faith, that is IF and only IF he is a true god in which he is clearly not. That’s what this debate is about. So everything you’ve stated is to be ignored and has nothing to do with the subject matter. So the subject matter is if you are willing… “No god would require the use of faith!” Its not “people require faith from god” as per that's nearly what everything you’ve stated in your round 2 was.
No god would require the use of faith

First I will present my arguments for the necessity of faith, then move on to refutation. Imagine a world where everyone knew that the God of the Bible existed. There would be no need for faith in the existence of God because everyone knows he is truly extant. The problem with this scenario is that we are not able to prove ourselves worthy of the Kingdom of Heaven. There is no "test" for us to take to show that we love God even in the face of doubt and scorn. Everything would already be revealed to us, we'd be granted automatic tickets to heaven, and the so much of what Christianity does would be obsolete. You might argue, "Well yes, it'd be good if stuff Christianity does was done away with and we could get into Heaven for free." Not quite; God wants to see if we truly love him, if we will stand by his side just by our faith. Without faith, life would be meaningless. Now, imagine a world where everyone knew that the God of the Bible DIDN'T exist. I'm not an atheist, so I do not have a full understanding of how atheists feel about life. But my assumption is that that they believe you just try to get as much happiness out of it, and in the end it is meaningless. There is nothing afterwards. This seems very bleak, giving us nothing to hope for or believe in. Without faith in a God, life again would be meaningless. God created us each with an intellect that can pick and choose whether to have faith in his existence or not. He did not create us as pre-programmed robots that believe in him no matter what. To have faith in him is to show you truly love him. To be a robot that's going to believe in him no matter what is not love (a robot cannot love). I'll give an example: say you have two options- to get a real-life puppy, or to get one of those furReal, robotic dogs. If you get the furReal Friend, it will "love" you because it can do that and nothing else. It has no choice. But if you get a puppy, it can choose to love or hate you, and when it CHOOSES to love you, than it is actually meaningful. I hope you can see how this relates to people's faith in God. OK, your turn.
No god would require the use of faith

Oh whoopppsss I made a typo that word "us" needs to be removed and needs to be restated as "up"... so the statement goes with my apoligies... stupid me. "So it is up to you to prove that he would absolutely be required, out of necessity and need to use faith." And I also posted and stated "For this debate we will be talking explicitly and specifically about the god according to the bible." So that's another specific rule. Now we are not talking about you needing salvation of any kind. We are talking about god requiring the want, the need, the necessity for the use of faith in which he would not depend. Well that's of course only true if he is a god. So once again my stupid error.
No god would require the use of faith

Faith is the number one thing preached in the bible. Now why is this so when one would expect it to be love, kindness, care for each other etc. Its not. In fact it doesn't even come close. Its that ridiculous snot meat chew rag "faith" in which no supreme deity would ever ever ever ever ever ever have the want, the need or desire for, well that is of he is perfect. So this SCREAMS of imperfection. So what idiot would bow down to, worship or idolize imperfection? So it also proves that this god of the bible is indeed no god. And since this god, well he's really just an immoral bully but for lingo purposes I have no problem calling this "character" a "god" as what the bible has been representing him for centuries or who knows how long, I mean there's hundreds of thousands of others of entitlements that are titled god or gods... anyway back to the script... guy has that need, that feeding frenzy for your faith, in which you give to him with extra special gullibility, because you have absolutely---no---proof---whatsoever that this god of yours even exists, it ultimately proves that your god has a superior "ego" complex. And an ego is a human quality. But then again god also has MORE human qualities such as anger, wrath, vengeance, rage, fury, evil, jealousy all in which he has freely admitted to and again proving that he is imperfect and this god is thus no god but is as frail and is as weak as you and me. For this debate we will be talking explicitly and specifically about the god according to the bible. And if god is god (tee hee), he would NOT use faith. So it is us to you to prove that he would absolutely be required, out of necessity and need to use faith.Please argue intelligently and use an education. If there is the slightest hint of you not knowing something and you try to run and excuse by me and or lying, because I am very educated on this topic especially, I will pulverize you with a barrage of well deserved insults. And hey, I would like nothing better than a GREAT INTELLIGENT EDUCATED DEBATE!!!!
morality is rational

In my first post, I demonstrated that morality is rational and based on our enlightened self interest, in contrast to the claims of intrinsicism and subjectivism. My opponent has never objected to my argument for the claim that morality is rational, which is sufficient reason to vote for me as the winner of this debate by itself. In the second round, my opponent did not object to my argument for the claim that morality is rational. However, he did pose some questions about the implications of my morality. For example, if morality is based on self interest, why can't we murder and steal? I responded to those questions in my last post, even though they were strictly irrelevant to the debate. In this, the third and final round, my opponent has raised some follow up concerns about my responses. I will answer these concerns below. Again, I do not have to do this, since my opponent has dropped my essential argument for my position, which I made in Round 1.1. Couldn't we kill billions of people without setting a bad precedent if we stipulated that it's just this once? No, because you're not setting any principled basis for saying that it's just this once. You couldn't avoid setting a precedent by killing billions of people for the shaky economic "reasons" you give. You would be rejecting the concept of human rights that our entire society is based upon. Again, study what happened in Nazi Germany or Soviet Russia.2. Wouldn't pride make a successful student feel like he doesn't have to study, and an unsuccessful student feel like he has to study harder? That is not what happens in practice. I don't see how you could argue this if you have any experience with good and bad students.3. Wouldn't murdering and stealing be the best, most productive way to live? No, that's ridiculous. People who murder and steal as a matter of policy do not live good lives, they live in fear and eventually they are caught and sent to prison.4. Don't animals pursue survival the same way humans do? No. As I said, animals can't explicitly identify survival as a goal and pursue it based on principles.5. If you plan carefully enough, can't you be sure you will get away with robbing a bank? No, you can never really be sure some security system won't catch you, or that some passerby won't see you running off with the money, or that you won't be caught in a million other ways. Even if you got away with it, you would live in fear from that point on.
morality is rational

"These three virtues form an upward spiral. Rationality will lead a person to be productive, since it is rational to engage in productive work. Productivity leads to pride, since success in productive work creates pride. In turn, pride in one's accomplishments makes it easier to be rational." Just how does pride makes it easier to be rational? If you are proud, you will think yourself above others, which is not rational as most of us have equal talents. Logically, or rationally, the human population needs to be reduced to make the world sustainable and living easier. Resource consumption, global warming, pollution and land shortage would be easily tackled. Yet what stops us from killing a billion or two? Morality. It isn't logical, but it is humane. Why is killing bad? It is productive for ourselves, in the old days number of kills was a reason for pride, and is rational as it is being done for the greater good. Yet morality and empathy demands that killing people is wrong. Therefore, morality is irrational. Why is stealing bad? It can be a reason for pride if you take it in the right way, it is extremely productive for us and is rational as that money would be transferred to us through other means (such as the person buying stuff from a shopkeeper and the shopkeeper giving us the same note in change) anyways. Yet morality and emotions stop us. "The fact that human beings have to choose to engage their means of survival is what gives rise to the distinctly moral evaluations applicable to them." Yet, the morals of every person are different and are not for survival. Fights for honor have resulted in many deaths in the medieval times. Pride can be rational, but it doesn't lead to rational decisions. Morals are usually not rational and are based due to what society tells us. Survival doesn't count as a moral value, as it is not exclusive to humans and isn't a learnt value. Meaning of moral -concerned with the principles of right and wrong behaviour. https://www.google.co.in... Yet what determines what is right and wrong? Rational is basically logical, and logic is cause and effect. It is logical if we steal food(effect) to survive(cause), but it isn't moral. Cold logic doesn't tie up with morality.