BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Science cannot disprove God

OPENING STATEMENT To begin, I"d like to approach the second part of the original debate resolution. This was stripped out for this debate, since the wording seemed indeterminable due to the nonspecific nature of the word "close". "Nor does it [SCIENCE] even come close to offering anything on the matter [of God"s existence]" Science is, by definition, the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment. [1] God is a Supreme Being and higher power by the definition accepted in Round 1. He is considered supernatural because He operates and exists above and beyond nature. He is not subject to the laws of science. [2] The realm of religion and the realm of science do sometimes overlap when religion takes a stance on an element of the natural world, such as the age of the earth, the origins of humanity, the relationship between the sun and earth, etc. However, the realm of God and science will never overlap because God is by definition above nature. Science, the study of the physical and natural world, cannot be applied to explore any aspect of God"s existence. Science and God are absolutely un-relatable. ARGUEMENT Tommy.Ledbetter"s original resolution was: "Science cannot disprove God". To reword for clarity (removing the double negative): "Science cannot prove God"s nonexistence". Science, as I stated, requires observation and experiment. Creating a proven scientific theory requires heavily scrutinized evidence and repeated testing. [3] Herein lies the pinnacle of the debate. For science to prove any theory, it requires observation and evidence. Regarding nonexistence, both are not available. To prove, scientifically, that God does not exist would require an observer to be both omniscient and omnipresent. This is a paradox, since the observer would in-turn meet the very definition we set for God. Therefore, my argument is: Premise 1 (P1): Non-existence affirms that there is no observational evidence available P2: To prove that there is no observational evidence, the observer would need to be both omniscient and omnipresent. P3: An omniscient and omnipresent being would be God P1 >> P2 >> P3 >>C1: Proving non-existence using observational evidence can only be accomplished by God. P4: Science requires observation, experimentation, and the scrutinization of evidence P4 >> C1 >> C2: Science requires God to prove God"s non-existence Science cannot disprove God"s existence because science requires a logically impossible and contradictory accomplishment in requiring observation of that which cannot be observed and evidence of that where no evidence is available and similarly, in requiring an element from the natural and physical world to take a stance on an element of the supernatural world. I look forward to Con"s argument. Thanks. [1] https://www.google.com... [2] http://en.wikipedia.org... [3] http://en.wikipedia.org...
Science cannot disprove God

This is a continuation of the debate titled "Science cannot disprove God, nor does it even come close to offering anything on the matter" between NathanDuclos (CON) and Tommy.leadbetter (PRO) that ended in a forfeiture by PRO. I have dropped the second portion of PRO's resolution as it seemed somewhat indeterminable in a debate due to the nonspecific nature of the word "close". However, it will no doubt be addressed during this debate.As the instigator, I accept full BOP.In accepting this debate, CON accepts the following definitions:God: A supreme being, creator of the universe, that has attributes of omniscience, omnipotence, omnipresence, omnibenevolence and eternal existence. Disprove: Prove that something is false, namely God's existence CON will need to either provide a valid argument supporting an instance where science is capable of disproving God or successfully invalidate PRO's arguments.There will be four rounds. First round is for acceptance. Second round is for arguments. Third round is for rebuttals (no new arguments allowed). The final round is for final rebuttals and closing statements.Thanks and good luck.
The Qur'an is not the word of God, it contains too many scientific mistakes.

I find that the Qur'an contains too many scientific mistakes to turn a blind eye on. Most of the Muslims try to prove that Islam is the true religion by saying that the Qur'an contains scientific miracles that could not be known at the time. However, they seem to miss all the wrong information and turn a blind eye on them. The first example that I have is the creation of the earth. How can an all knowing God claim that the earth was created in two days and the rest of the universe created in two other days? Quranic verse "Say: Is it that ye deny Him Who created the earth in two Days? And do ye join equals with Him? He is the Lord of (all) the Worlds. He set on the (earth), mountains standing firm, high above it, and bestowed blessings on the earth, and measure therein all things to give them nourishment in due proportion, in four Days, in accordance with (the needs of) those who seek (Sustenance). Moreover He comprehended in His design the sky, and it had been (as) smoke: He said to it and to the earth: "Come ye together, willingly or unwillingly." They said: "We do come (together), in willing obedience." So He completed them as seven firmaments in two Days, and He assigned to each heaven its duty and command. And We adorned the lower heaven with lights, and (provided it) with guard. Such is the Decree of (Him) the Exalted in Might, Full of Knowledge. 41:9-12 How can anyone with basic understanding of astronomy claim that this verse is scientifically correct? This verse claims that God/Allah created the earth in 2 days, then everything on the earth in 4 days, THEN he created the skies and adorned the heavens with lights or stars. For argument sake lets say days mean period of times, but how can this be scientifically correct? How can the stars be created after the earth has been created? Seems to me the one who was writing this book did not even have a minute understanding of galaxy formation or celestial bodies. To move on to biology, the Qur'an claims that everything is created in pairs. I find this to be one of the worst mistakes in the Qur'an. Verse "And of every thing We have created pairs: That ye may receive instruction. 51:49" Again, an all knowing God would surely not make this mistake, since not everything is made in pairs. There are lots of examples in nature that proves otherwise like bacteria, yeast, even some mammals like the lesbian lizard. So how come this the word of God since clearly he doesn't know the existence of his own creation that doesn't exist in pair? These two are just small examples of the scientific nature of the Qur'an that Muslim
The Qur'an is not the word of God, it contains too many scientific mistakes.

I made more than one argument. I didn't just talk about antibodies and bacteria. The length of my rounds contained numerous arguments. You ignored many of what I said. I provided a source explaining the broad definition of pairs, and I explained many times that pairs is not just about reproduction, but it can hold a broader meaning. Yet, you kept talking about biology and things like male and female. I clearly provided the broad meaning of pair several times, and kept saying how it's not just reproduction. Yet, you still kept bring it up round after round. You still didn't provide proof on how the person is deceptive when talking about the order. I even stated that interpretations vary, and there are differences of opinion because of the subjectivity that each interpreter has within themselves. I also replied to the length of time explaining that we don't know the exact time, yet , you say how I did not reply to such. I stated this many times as well. I gave the flower example to add to the pairs. Yet, you say I ignored the talk about snakes; however, I talked about photosynthesis and how pairs aren't just male and female. Again, pairs can have a broad definition that is not limited to biology and male and female. "Really nonesense that has taken too long."That is a fallacy I believe. You are the one who chose to set up 5 rounds. "Off topic, not what i was discussing in any sort of way. Has nothing to do with the debate. I can debate the linguistics of the Qur'an and how it is not really that eloquent but that is a debate of itself. My debate here is about science and the Qur'an, not Qur'an and linguistics and eloquency."My opponent was the first one to say "Simply because it is not God who wrote this book, but 7th century Arabs who put their understanding of the universe at that time and how they thought it came to being."That is why I brought up a source that talks about the Author of the Qur'an. I brought up the Author because my opponent said the authors were 7th century Arabs.My opponent also said I copied and pasted from other sites. Well of course I did that. I wanted to provide information from other sources. That's a valid method in debating. .......................................................................................................................................................................................................I have two points: 1. The exact length of time is not known to us in terms of creation. Also, people have interpreted the order in different ways.2. The term "pairs" can have many meanings. I'll bring up the source again.Sabah E. Karam explains: "The word 'zawgyne' is consistently translated into the English language as 'pairs.' In scientific literature its meaning is extended to incorporate such concepts as 'duality", 'complementarity', 'opposites', 'inverses' and several other concepts reflecting conjugate and/or reciprocal properties."http://www.onislam.net...This does not have to be limited to biology and just male and female pairs.
The Qur'an is not the word of God, it contains too many scientific mistakes.

You kept saying I dodged your questions. I think you said that at least 3 times, but I don't know what question you're talking about. "He is simply playing with words to people not familiar with Arabic to try and justify the Qur'an's mistake, knowing that the faithful will not doubt or react to his words with skepticism. He is deceptive and straight out lying."What proof do you have of such? What purpose would it serve the person in that source? Also, you brought up the length of time again, when you clearly said that you didn't want to debate such twice. I already said the exact time is not known to us. "Simply because it is not God who wrote this book, but 7th century Arabs who put their understanding of the universe at that time and how they thought it came to being."You gathered all that from just a few verses about creation? You said Heavens or the universe. Is Heaven a part of the universe we are in? Heaven is a place people go in the afterlife so I am a bit confused here. "It is also recorded authentically that the Arabs themselves were surprised by the language of the Quran because the Prophet was not known to have composed any literature before its revelation. Clearly, the language of the Quran was not from Muhammad’s own tongue. Even in translation non-Arabic speaking people can see a difference between the Quran and the Hadith."http://www.onislam.net...........................................................................................................................................................................................................Again, pairs is not just about reproductive qualities such as male and female. I have stated this multiple times.I'll post the quote once again. Sabah E. Karam explains: "The word 'zawgyne' is consistently translated into the English language as 'pairs.' In scientific literature its meaning is extended to incorporate such concepts as 'duality", 'complementarity', 'opposites', 'inverses' and several other concepts reflecting conjugate and/or reciprocal properties."http://www.onislam.net...This allows for bacteria to be considered the "pair" of antibodies. This allows for asexuality, photosynthesis, etc. Also, flowers have both (male and female) reproductive structures even though they are asexual.
The Qur'an is not the word of God, it contains too many scientific mistakes.

If it is as clear as you say, then, why is it that the person from the source says "There are several instances of this in the Quran that the word thumma is not necessarily used to show the chronological order but it is also used for the order of Presentation."?http://www.islamicstudies.info...You said it doesn't make sense, but this source provides in detail explanations. " I gave plenty of examples and you replied to none thus far. What is the complentary of a bacteria or a virus. Where is the pairing here?"I already gave you those answers in the first round. I included the discussion about antibodies. I'll bold the area. Nabil Haroun says "Millions of animal species discovered, classified and investigated only during the last two centuries, were found to be invariably in 'pairs,' male and female. Electron microscopy has clarified that all living creatures, however minute, are in pairs. The smallest microbes, viruses, and bacteria have their counterpart antibodies."http://www.onislam.net..."You said it, 'when someone'. That someone is a human, he is not God. He's just saying a word that is not for all times and places. If a human wrote the Qur'an then i would have no problem with that, but this is God we are referring to her. He is perfect and his words are perfect. Any imperfection indicates that the Qur'an is imperfect, thus not the word of God."What this "someone" says things like that, it is called a hyperbole. It is a literary and/or rhetorical device used. Devices such as hyperboles do not mean imperfection. Plus, I said that since I am not a scholar, I cannot claim this in relation to the verse; however, I did provide the broad definition of "pairs," which allows everything to have a pair. "I don't believe in the story of jesus and it means nothing to me. You are trying to prove your book from your book. Circular argument. On the other hand, i know this is about everything. Like night and day, male and female. So if there is a species that exists only in females, then the ayah is incorrect. "This is not circular. I wasn't trying to prove the Virgin Birth of Mary. I'll explain. You talked about sharks and their "virgin birth." I talked about Mary (pbuh) to show that religion talks about everything have a pair as well as the virgin birth of Mary. That doesn't mean Mary didn't have a pair. Single people still have pairs in some way, shape, or form. Even if the shark had a "virgin birth," that doesn't take away the fact that there are male sharks out there. The pair for female sharks are the male sharks. They don't have to copulate in order to establish the pair. The pair simply exists.
beggars should be locked up

You could say that beggars are a bad part of society and that they take up resources, but don't provide for the community. Removing them is then for the good of society. You could also say that, since beggars are the product of our policies, locking them up actually provides for them a shelter and meal. It'd be like welfare except imposed. That way, we can make begging illegal and discourage the people who don't need to beg and people who are professional beggers from begging. I don't know. Whatever sounds like it might work.
Is The Olympics about sportsmanship, or about countries to show that they are the most powerful

I accept. Con has the burden of proof, because he is arguing that Olympics are about countries to show that they are the most powerful, which is not a popular belief. I am arguing that the Olympics are about sportsmanship, a far more accepted belief. All I have to do is to negate his arguments, but I can present arguments of my own to strengthen my case. 'Sportsmanship' shall be defined as "fair play, respect for opponents, and polite behaviour by someone who is competing in a sport or other competition" [1][1] http://www.merriam-webster.com...
Abortion

Your whole argument is based on the question of, is human life worth anything. Where you present this false dichotomy that either let the fetus live, or your acted of ending the pregancy means you don’t value human life. Yet, in situations where you acted to end human life to save yourself, you still feel that you value human life. This invalids your whole argument, and supports my arguemnt that you are allowed to kill another human life to protect your bodily autonomy. And just because it needs to be stated: You can value human life, and still end human life, and yet somehow you refuse to admit this when it is applied to women.Bodily autonomy is about no one else being able to use or change your body, without your permission, and when I show that protecting yourself from harm validates bodily autonomy, because you can kill someone to keep someone else from changing your body, you say that’s somehow a contradiction. It’s not a contradiction, it’s you protecting your body, and maintaining bodily autonomy. When the attacker breaks the rules of bodily autonomy they lose their right to bodily autonomy and in self-defense you are morally and legal right to kill them. And that is why a fetus that is using your body against your will is no different than an attacker. There is no contradiction here. Oh wow, you just admitted that a fertilized egg is NOT a human. I’m going to have to quote that... "The reason for this is because a sperm, without the egg providing the extra X chromosome, and nutrients, can never become a human. A fertilized egg can." To put your statement very simply. You say a sperm can never BECOME a human… but a fertilized egg can 'become a human'. Meaning you do NOT believe a fertilized egg is human life, because it has not BECOME human life. Ergo your grounds against abortion only apply when it’s not just a fertilized egg. Ergo abortion is acceptable (by your standards) in roughly the first 10 – 12 days after conception. Meaning you lose this debate. Your own argument contradicts itself repeatedly and this is another instance of it. (if the biggest thus far) Let me restate this for clarity because it seems to be required. Abortion is the act of preventing someone else from using your body against your will. Just as when the attacker came after you, you were morally and legally right to kill them to prevent them from using your body against your will, you are morally and legally right to kill a fetus that is using your body against your will. You understand these concepts when they are applied to you, but you find them confusing and contridictory when applied to a woman for some reason. The basic principles of bodily integrity states no one, be they an attacker or a fetus, has the right to force what happens to your body. We believe in bodily integrity so strongly that we even uphold it after death, others are not allowed to use our dead body in any way unless you expressly gave them concent when we were alive. What you purpose gives dead people more rights than women.
Abortion

Bodily integrity or bodily autonomy means that you have the right to control what happens to your body even if that hurts or kills others. This is the reason that even after your death, your organs cannot be harvested to save lives, without your consent. You have two kidneys", and only need one, do you want to be forced to give up one of those kidneys to save another human being? What about a lung? Just as you don"t want to be forced to into something affecting your body, women don"t want to be force into something affecting their body. Abortion is the most basic form of freedom that exists, the freedom to do with your body whatever you wish. Now if you are ok with having choices about what you can do to or with your body force on you, then my second point would be that abortions lower crime rates. Lower crime rates help us all. The correlation has been proven from multiple studies, but I"m going to link one that discredits the Donohue-Levitt hypothesis. I expect you to try to use the Donohue-Levitt hypothesis to try and disprove my point that abortions lower crime rates, so I'd rather just address that up front and skip a step. http://freakonomics.com...
God must exist if objective morality is actually true

Thans Con. To reiterate: this debate is over whether the following statement is true or false: "God must exist if objective morality is actually true. "My opponent has taken the position that objective morality wouldn't be true even if God existed. That is to say, my opponent is arguing that it is *logically impossible* that objective morality, or the view that moral statements can be factual, is true. My opponent has chosen a much tougher burden than was required of him. All he needed to show is that God's existence wasn't necessary for the existence of moral facts. He opted to argue that moral facts aren't logically possible -- even *if* God (defined as a supreme moral authority and arbiter of human purpose) existed. All I need to show is that it's logically possible for moral facts to exist. If we can *even imagine* an actual state of affairs wherein moral facts exist, I uphold my burden of proof. In the first round I explained that objective moral truths regarding what humans actually should or shouldn't do can only be true if and only if humanity has inherent purpose. God, defined as a supreme moral authority and arbiter of human purpose, would be a possible means for giving humanity purpose and facts regarding their existence in the sense of what they should or shouldn't do. If God, again, defined as a supreme moral authority and arbiter of human purpose, doesn't exist, then there'd be no possible means for humanity to have facts regarding what they should or shouldn't do. My opponent argued that God can't even grant humanity a purpose regarding what they truly should or shouldn't do. I rebutted arguing that moral facts always refer to the disposition and will of the mind (something my opponent didn't contest) and if God's disposition and will was a fixed and true standard, then this would be a possible non-arbitrary and objective grounds for humanity's moral facts. This in itself has already destroyed my opponent's case. My opponent can define God however he likes, as long as he remains consistent with the definition of God already defined in round 1 as "the being of supreme moral authority and arbiter of humanity. " Remember, any logically possible definition of God that is conceptually consistent with the existence of moral facts has already won my case.