BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
the flying spaghetti monster is at least as likely to exist as the Judeo-Christian God

My argument proposes that God's existence is self-evident. The logic, depending on the formulation is that God is the greatest conceivable being. Since it is greater to exist than not to exist therefore God exists.The flying spaghetti monster is also the greatest concievable being. It's omnipotent, omniscient, invisible, flying, and is made of PASTA. How can a humanoid God compare to one made of spaghetti and two meatballs; how I ask you, How!Christianity, Judaism, Islam and most religions assert that God intervened in key specific moments in history. For example at the Exodus and the giving of the Ten Commandments in front of all the tribes of Israel, positing an argument from empirical evidence stemming from sheer number of witnesses, thus demonstrating his existence.The flying spaghetti monster not only has hundreds to thousands of witnesses, but it has also been caught on film by the Hubble Space Telescope; modern evidence of it's existence. Modern evidence is way more reliable than 6000-2000 year old witnesses.Every culture down through the ages has a flood story and this includes cultures and societies that couldn't possibly have colluded in some great religious conspiracy.This is non-sequitur; recent evidence suggests that there were large city destroying floods 8000 years ago due to glacial melt; the floods were simply attributed to their respective God(s.)The theistic conclusion comes closest for me as sufficient reason to believe that god or gods exists. There are just too many witnesses to conclude otherwise.The flying spaghetti monster is a deity so it's theistic! Anyways the flying spaghetti monster could have just made them think they saw non-spaghetti like Gods like he uses his powers to change the dates given by radiometric dating. If it can change the results of a quantum mechanical process then it can certainly change the memories of large groups of people. It's simply a test of faith.I have always loved pasta and I'm sure that your deity will understand if I continue to pray to my one true god. With all due respect to your spaghetti monster god, I don't think we should blame your god or mine for the warped actions of mortal men who use religion as their weapon. But the flying spaghetti monster told us that it was its fault for all the evil and other flaws because when it ceated the universe and earth it was intoxicated. The pastafarian creation myth:"The central creation myth is that an invisible and undetectable Flying Spaghetti Monster created the universe "after drinking heavily". According to these beliefs, the Monster's intoxication was the cause for a flawed Earth. Furthermore, according to Pastafarianism, all evidence for evolution was planted by the Flying Spaghetti Monster in an effort to test the faith of Pastafarians. When scientific measurements such as radiocarbon dating are taken, the Flying Spaghetti Monster "is there changing the results with His Noodly Appendage"--wikipediaSOURCEShttp://en.wikipedia.org...
the flying spaghetti monster is at least as likely to exist as the Judeo-Christian God

My argument proposes that God's existence is self-evident. The logic, depending on the formulation is that God is the greatest conceivable being. Since it is greater to exist than not to exist therefore God exists. God really signifies two different terms: both the idea of God, and God. Christianity, Judaism, Islam and most religions assert that God intervened in key specific moments in history. For example at the Exodus and the giving of the Ten Commandments in front of all the tribes of Israel, positing an argument from empirical evidence stemming from sheer number of witnesses, thus demonstrating his existence. Every culture down through the ages has a flood story and this includes cultures and societies that couldn't possibly have colluded in some great religious conspiracy. The theistic conclusion comes closest for me as sufficient reason to believe that god or gods exists. There are just too many witnesses to conclude otherwise. I have always loved pasta and I'm sure that your deity will understand if I continue to pray to my one true god. With all due respect to your spaghetti monster god, I don't think we should blame your god or mine for the warped actions of mortal men who use religion as their weapon. If you want to make the argument that men are weak and prone to evil I'll agree. But I won't blame God!
the flying spaghetti monster is at least as likely to exist as the Judeo-Christian God

Why the flying spaghetti monster is at least as likely to exist as the Judeo-Christian God: 1. Neither have any evidence to support them. 2. Both the flying spaghetti monster and God have given people revelations and visions. 3. Sightings of both have occured. Now some spaghetti monster miracles: Here is a painting of the monster: http://s3-2.kiva.org...; width="418" height="346" />And here's the miracle: http://farm1.static.flickr.com...; /> http://farm4.static.flickr.com...; /> http://www.cevainteresant.ro...; /> SPAGHETTI MONSTER BURNS ON TOAST!!!!! The flying spaghetti monster spotted by Hubble: http://3.bp.blogspot.com...; /> The monster on a wall: http://i730.photobucket.com...; /> And finally: : http://pizzabytheslice.com...; /> THE SPAGHETTI MONSTER IN A CUP OF COFFEE?!! The spaghetti monster has certainly proved himself as much as the Judeo-Christian God has!
the flying spaghetti monster is at least as likely to exist as the Judeo-Christian God

When I became a man I put away childish things and while this has been fun I suggest that we try to raise the discourse here. St. Thomas Aquinas made perhaps the best argument for the existence if God in his Summa Theologica. He was the foremost proponent of natural theology. His influence on Western thought is considerable, and much of modern philosophy was conceived in development or refutation of his ideas. He is renowned in the areas of ethics, natural law, metaphysics, and political theory. Aquinas embraced several ideas put forward by Aristotle whom he referred to as "the Philosopher", and attempted to synthethise Aristotle with the principles of Christianity. The works for which he is best He was the foremost classical proponent of natural theology, and the father of Thomism. His influence on Western thought is considerable, and much of modern philosophy was conceived in development or refutation of his ideas, particularly in the areas of ethics, natural law, metaphysics, and political theory. Unlike many currents in the Church of the time he embraced several ideas put forward by Aristotle whom he referred to as "the Philosopher" and attempted to synthethise Aristotelian philosophy with the principles of Christianity. Thomas Aquinas' Five Ways argued from the unmoved mover, first cause, necessary being, argument from degree, and the teleological argument. All of these can be found detailed in Wikipedia but the important thing is that Aquinas like many other scholars have shown that God does exist. Your Flying Spaghetti Monster exists in your rather comical mind only. I was hoping that we might actually try to reason out this complicated subject. My opponent seems clearly driven to prove his comical satire even at the expense of reason and logic. I will admit that I can't prove that god exists physically but then I never said he physically existed. His actual existence is a matter of faith while the Flying Spaghetti Monster is a matter of lunacy.
the flying spaghetti monster is at least as likely to exist as the Judeo-Christian God

All five of Aquinas's five arguments can be used for the flying spaghetti monster. Also the flying spaghetti moster has all the qualities of any other god. Con says that god is a mtter of faith and the monster a matter of lunacy but with both being omniscient and omnipotent there's no reason for a humanoid god being more likely than a spaghetti monster god. Both are a matter of faith and although the monster hasn't been around as long as other religions the modern evidence; the photo from the Hubble Telescope and all the burnt toast; provide stronger evidence balancing the likelihood. If you still don't think so; just remember the burnt toast. NOTE: I think this is a troll debate.
There is undeniable evidence that God doesn't exist

Thank you. I'll refute your arguments before introducing mine. "first of, science has found no physical evidence of god and any claims concerning god are unfalsifiable and subject to occam's razor, which is that in an argument the simplest one is the correct one" If lack of evidence is evidence, then not collecting stamps is a hobby (kudos to RoyLatham). Therefore, if there's not any evidence that God exists, you can't claim there is evidence that God doesn't exist. Second of all, who said something about intelligently designed nature? Did I say God designed nature? Did I even say God designed anything? And who said God was perfect? Or omnipotent? "Definition of God - Being responsible for the existence of mankind" That's all! Did you not here my argument: Since my definition of God was so vague, God can be ANYTHING that attributed to the existence of mankind. Therefore, the meteor that caused dinosaurs to go extinct and mammals to dominate the Earth and eventually become man would still fit the definition of God. Or the primordal soup which created the first life would fit the definition. Even the Earth could fit the definition because it is able to maintain life. This is why I have won this debate. My opponent has put words in my mouth saying I made claims that I didn't, and quite frankly, couldn't give UNDENIABLE EVIDENCE about what I defined as God being incorrect, because I gave so little information, it had no room for any flaws.
There is undeniable evidence that God doesn't exist

thank you for your response first of, science has found no physical evidence of god and any claims concerning god are unfalsifiable and subject to occam's razor, which is that in an argument the simplest one is the correct one secondly, Nature shows features, which, if interpreted as intelligently designed, suggest sloppiness or perverseness. Therefore a perfect being did not design them lastly, An omnipotent God could and would establish the unquestionable belief in Himself in the minds of mankind; the existence of non-belief suggests that God does not exist please vote PRO cheers
There is undeniable evidence that God doesn't exist

First to refute your arguments: "The Bible says God is almighty who answers your prayers. So how do you know if God is real other than that faith crap? Try the power of prayer when an earthly situation occurs which is beyond your control and only an almighty God who created the universe and all life can control. " Who cares what the Bible says? I did not define God as god of any religion or holy book. And when did I ever say that God created the universe or that God had any control over anything? I didn't :) I didn't define my God as a prayer answerer either. Just the being responsible for the existence of mankind. The burden of proof is on you my friend. You have to prove that there is UNDENIABLE EVIDENCE that my God doesn't exist. Now for my argument: Since my definition of God was so vague, God can be ANYTHING that attributed to the existence of mankind. Therefore, the meteor that caused dinosaurs to go extinct and mammals to dominate the Earth and eventually become man would still fit the definition of God. Or the primordal soup which created the first life would fit the definition. Even the Earth could fit the definition because it is able to maintain life. I have challenged my opponent to give not evidence, but UNDENIABLE evidence that my God didn't exist. Yet, how could you do such a thing on something that isn't studied and has no CAPACITY to be discredited. For example, do you have UNDENIABLE EVIDENCE that extraterrestrail life doesn't exist? How could you when we live in a largely unexplored cosmos? We haven't the information to make such a claim. This is why I will win this debate. My opponent thought I was trying to argue some God other than the one I defined, and turns out I actually challenged my opponent to do the impossible: discredit something that has no capacity to be discredited. In just a sentence or two I crushed my opponent's entire case, and I have explained why what I was challenging my opponent to do was impossible.
There is undeniable evidence that God doesn't exist

i am writing to say that i have logical evidence that god doesn't exist The Bible says God is almighty who answers your prayers. So how do you know if God is real other than that faith crap? Try the power of prayer when an earthly situation occurs which is beyond your control and only an almighty God who created the universe and all life can control. Suppose you or a close family member has a terminal disease like cancer which cannot be medically cured? A certain time line is given, so like all hopeful human beings, you humbly and diligently pray to the almighty God who says in the Bible he answers prayers. Time and reality passes, the disease takes it's toll, and your prayers go unanswered. Maybe one in a million may be saved, but looking at a 99.9999% failure rate for prayer is evidence that God does not exist. Now, compare it to an atheist who suffers the same terminal disease and wishes for healing. The same 99.9999% failure rate occurs. Now compare it to a devout Muslim suffering the same terminal disease and prays to his/her god for healing, and still results in a 99.9999% failure rate. Similarly, the Hindu, Jew, Buddhist, etc... all face 99.9999% failure rates. Doesn't this indicate you you that there is no God? Perhaps one of the numerous worshiped gods do exist, but wouldn't that omnipotent god produce better than a 99.9999% failure rate, or else what is the purpose of worshiping that god if he doesn't answer your prayers? Doesn't common logic and sense exist anymore? looking forward to your response
nasa should be shut down

Despite all of this the main objective of NASA is to discover more about space. Everything else you listed is a waste of its time as it does not fulfill NASAs primary objective. The information that NASA gathers about space may be interesting but his information costs alot of money. This money would be better used and would provide both more profitable and education knowledge applied to other areas. Perhaps of we had given the money to cancer studies we would have the cure to cancer. Instead we have invisible braces.......
nasa should be shut down

Although NASA has had alot of money put into it, it has generated many valuable items and has improved many peoples daily lives with numerous discoveries. NASA has also helped in many areas that the money would be transfered t. For example. Some health discoveries have been made only because of NASAs experiments in space. These medical discoveries are invaluable especially to those who use them. http://findarticles.com... http://science.howstuffworks.com...
nasa should be shut down

My argument is that NASA is a waste of money. NASA should be shut down. 1)NASA produces very little in comparison to he money pumped into it. 2)We have so many problems locally that the money being spent on NASA should instead be spent on better programs. 3)Why should we worry about space and the universe when we don't even take care of our own planet? This is my first debate I hope I do a good job.
There is evidence to show that 9/11 was stage by the government

I accept. :) A lot of the "evidence" I have found actually comes from a misinterpretation of science. The form of research on which these theories are based on are also rather flawed. Thomas D. Eager states that they use the "reverse scientific method," in which they come to a conclusion and toss out all the evidence that doesn't support that conclusion. With such a major tragedy, there are going to be people who want to believe that great tragedies have great causes, which is just not the case most of the time. Also, if you look up all the conspiracies, you will see that there are several theories, all with "evidence" backing it up. Now, does that mean all these theories are true? Certainly not. These conspiracies take advantage of the small holes in the explanations and witness sightings and etc. to base these theories on. You can't base a whole theory on a witness sighting and a snippet of often exaggerated information. The biggest flaw in those conspiracies is the fact that they don't give credit to all the other evidence. They simply use the evidence that supports their theory and ignore the larger pieces of evidence that contradicts it. Also, this was a rather large tragedy, and there are always going to be misconceptions and confusion with these kind of things. One misplaced word could set off another conspiracy theory.
There is evidence to show that 9/11 was stage by the government

The Illuminati is within the government and within us. When you close your eyes, you are one with the Illuminati. It is a sense of being that has led to powerful organizations running the US. It is a proven fact that each president must join them. . http://www.theforbiddenknowledge.com... Also during the 9/11 bombing we can see the plane being detonated before it hits the towers itself. . http://www.youtube.com... It does no matter what video you use, you will always see the flash of light. Also if you zoom in on that image it shows a missile attached to the bottom of the plane. In addition to those two facts, we can also see that the windows of the plane were closed. This is suppose to be a civilian aircraft. If this plane was hijacked, why would there be military shutters over the windows? The main point to pay attention to is the bright flash of light before it hits the tower. Common sense shows us this is an explosion with the plane. If it were random and no detonated, this would have to do with the fuel lines and would have occurred exactly 15 feet back from the front of the plane, the explosion would have been near the wedge in the passengers cock pick and the seating area. The only logical explanation was that there was bombs in the front side of the plane. Breaking this down with common sense, if terrorist got bombs on the plane. It was not a lax in security, it was planned. No one could bring that type of C4 or bomb on the plane without being caught. As you can tell the explosion would be roughly equivalent to a car blowing up. So remember, don't make George bush cry and order direct tv.
There is evidence to show that 9/11 was stage by the government

First off, Britney Spears shaved her head in February of 2007 to avoid having it drug tested. And 9/11 occurred in 2001. That being said, I'm simply not following your line of thinking. Also, these "facts" you speak of are not solid enough to conclude that the Illuminati is real. I don't know much about the Illuminati, but are you suggesting that the Illuminati caused 9/11, not the government? Or are you suggesting that the Illuminati and the government is one and the same? If it is the former, doesn't this make your claim completely invalid?
There is evidence to show that 9/11 was stage by the government

Hello and welcome to the danger zone. I would first like to start out by saying the Illuminati is real. We know this by multiple facts. There symbol which is a weird looking triangle can be seen throughout multiple videos. So let us use common logic. When you believe in the Illuminati Brittany spears shaves her head. When Brittany spears shaves her head she makes crappy songs. When She makes crappy songs terrorist get mad. When terrorist get mad they try to contact the us. When they try to contact the US, the US asks them to bomb the twin towers. When they bomb the towers George Bush cries. Don't make George Bush cry.
should ______ face be censored on the internet

You, my friend, are a horribly misguided tool. If you do not want to see that face on the internet, why did you take your time to find him? Besides, it depends on who that person is. By using a blank, you are basically referring to all the people on the planet, which is slightly unreasonable. The sole argument of "He is ugly" really won't make anyone go to your side. Why would you even think of doing this? Unless, of course, you are a troll, which won't surprise me. You had bad luck, seeing that your opponent is me.
CHRISTIANITY vs ATHEISM

Before I begin, I would like to first define atheism: atheists' are ones who argue against religion. However, they themselves have intrinsic beliefs, dogmas, and tenets. Newsweek magazine agrees, calling the atheism a 'belief'. (Christianity In Crisis, Newsweek, Apr. 2, 2012) "When a man stops believing in God he doesn't then believe in nothing, he believes in anything" - G. K. Chesterton So atheists, claim to believe in nothing. They claim to be non-religious. However, this evidence disproves that theory. Also, many atheist groups have been building churches, in which to worship nothing! (. http://www.theguardian.com...) Is it just me, or are you confused? Many people don't believe in God because they dislike God's rules. But what is a world without laws? If we had no laws, anything would be moral. Morality standards are found in the 10 Commandments, Proverbs, and Romans. The Bible says we must not murder. The Bible says we must not steal, we must not commit adultery, etc. However, what atheists see is the "we must not". They carefully ignore the parts that say "love your neighbor"; how Jesus heals the sick; how he associates with the 'unclean', the people that no one wants to touch. Another reason people disbelieve in God is they wonder where God came from. "Who designed the Designer? " -Richard DawkinsLet's say you're walking through the woods. You see a turtle sitting on the top of a tall fence post. Logically, you assume someone put it there, even though you don't have an explanation as to who put it there. Moral: there doesn't have to be an explanation for every explanation. In the same way, Darwinists believe the world was created from the Big Bang. Next, hundreds of millions of single-celled organisms then evolved into humans and animals today. When asked how the organisms got here, they had no explanation. Why is it that Christians have to have an explanation as to the existance of God, but atheists don't have to have an explanation for evolution? God is both spiritually revitalizing and intellectually satisfying. Atheism doesn't satisfy a man's heart or mind. If you are an atheist you do have to believe that the main point in all the religions of the whole world is simply one huge mistake. If you are a Christian, you are free to think that all those religions, even the queerest one, contain at least some hint of truth. When I was an atheist I had to try to persuade myself that most of the human race have always been wrong about the question that mattered to them most. - S. C. LewisI look forward to seeing my opponents' arguement.
CHRISTIANITY vs ATHEISM

Let me just say you have not read tha sentence fully becouse I said I gave it up to only what. IEEE and has evidence you didn't even read my argument fully what. Why do you say that no religion is violent . They have been crusades were people did what about th Indians they were fored to coverage or they would have died . This wold will never b peacefully becouse hu,ans are born to be violent and there's no,way to change it . Religion is a way to have some meaning in your life if you belie in god it's your choice not mine . I hag reasons not to believe in god . It's an easer religion becouse you don't have to be perfect saint wich no on can judge you and the world wil not ever be perfect so please even if your not atheist please hove me credit at least