BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The existence of god

You deinfed 'possible world' but it it still an ambiguos term I didn't really mean that you hadn't defined it I mean that your definition wasn't really clear. I'm sorry but I'm really finding it really difficult to argue with you as I have no valid points to argue with. When I said : " #1: It is possible that God doesn't exist #2: If it is possible that God doesn't exist, then God doesn't exist in some possible worlds #3: If God doesn't exist in some possible worlds, then God doesn't exist in all possible worlds #4: If God doesn't exist in all possible worlds, then God doesn't exist in the actual world #5: If God doesn't exist in the actual world, then God doesn't exist " That was correct! Sorry but that premise is equally valid as yours and you just keep typing rubbish that DOESN'T MEAN ANYTHING! My harry potter book analogy is valid because ok harry potter doesn't HAVE to exist in all possible worlds but nor does god! Your point number three is the most astounding though. You can't just keep saying it's not possible that doesn't exist. That's what you're trying to prove not your premise! My 5 points are as valid as yours and work THE EXACT SAME WAY so you just can't say that god must exist and expect to win like that... Another thing is that you say I haven't tried to disprove the existence of god. I never said I was going to. I don't believe at current you can prove that god doesn't exist but you can't prove he does exist either. I don't believe religion is corporeal eg it is not made of matter so I don't know why i would try and prove that... I believe it exists as a thing with different sections. And I'm involved in 3 debates at the moment so I would rather keep them both here. The belief in god doesn't cause suffering itself eg it's not cause --> effect. It's a more complex series where belief in god cause people to act in ways which cause suffering like 9/11 for example. It's more like: cause --> effect --> cause --> effect I don't see any reason why we should be talking about religion being a thing. Religion causing suffering is the point. I suggest you watch this video which might explain what I mean: www.youtube.com/watch?v=mbef07aQtB8 Lastly I would like to just re iterate that this whole MGB thing is ridiculous because point three of your first premist isn't correct. Just because god exists in a hypothetical or some hypothetical worlds doesn't mean he exists in all hypothetical worlds. I hope I haven't come across as rude I just find it quite frustrating typing all this I much prefer face to face debates and I only had half an hour to type this one so sorry if it's abit breif, Thank you I look forward to your responce.
The existence of god

Thank you for your response. I'd like to clear up a few things first. I think a lot of the confusion has come out of the misunderstanding of my definitions. 1. I defined how I used the term "possible world" in my previous argument. Im not going to completely reiterate it because you can go there and look at it, but I will try and restate it with different wording. A possible world is a HYPOTHETICAL situation that is used by philosophers to determine if an idea or object has the possibility to exist in a world like our own. In other words I would make up a hypothetical world that has the exact same laws of science, and rules of nature as Earth, to figure out if flying bunnies could somehow live and be able to continuously exist on Earth. 2. I defined God as a "Maximally Great Being". God being a MGB insists that he has to have all attributes that are great to have (like love, wisdom, power, and existing (because existing is an attribute that is better to have than to not have)), and he must have them to their maximal level. Therefore he has to be fully loving, fully wise, fully powerful, and fully existent. God being having fully existent to be God means that he is a necessary entity, which means he has to exist in all possible worlds, which means he exists in the actual world (being that the actual world is one of the possible worlds). This, by the way, is were your "Harry Potter book" analogy breaks down because a book is not a necessary entity therefore it does not have to exist in all possible worlds (along with your Irish ginger analogy). 3. The "Reverse Ontological Argument" (which is what you used there) isn't logically probable because it is logically impossible for a necessary entity (God) to not exist. So you will find that not only did I take down your Reverse Ontological Argument in the first step (which you could not do to mine), I hopefully cleared some definitions up so you can come back at this. On this same note I haven't seen you try and disprove the existence of God. You have only tried to prove my argument wrong. I look forward to your response on this front. Thank you. On the suffering debate: I would like to ask you to prove to me that a religion is corporeal. Mind the fact that religious objects (such as idols, and symbolic trinkets) and religious people (i.e. Christians, Muslims etc.) are not religion. Religion of course being defined as "the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, esp. a personal God or gods". And if you would like to continue this debate about religion causing suffering, might I suggest that we move it to a different debate page? One specifically for a debate on does religion cause suffering, because this debate is on the existence of God and I would like to keep it on topic as much as possible. Thank you. I really look forward to your rebuttal. Thank you very much.
The existence of god

With your explanation of why you kept bringing up that "possible worlds" was ambiguous I do agree with you, but you saying that isn't relevant in this argument being that I have defined it as Alvin Plantinga would. I'm not sure who "this guy" is. It seems like you meant to put a video or something there so just post it in the comments and I will take a look at it. By listing the conversation like that you are simplifying it too much. There was much more that I said. I used logic and reasoning to, not only prove that their is a God, but prove your argument wrong. The way model logic and the argument works is if you can prove the first step wrong then the rest of the argument is wrong. In saying that I didn't need to go in depth into why each step was wrong because I proved the first step wrong. I am aware of how it started but that doesn't mean that people don't devoutly believe it now. And I didn't deny you what you were talking about but I further explained it. Being that God is defined as a MGB then if you want to call it a flying spaghetti monster and not God then by all means call him that. (And don't forget that something that is not seen does not mean that it isn't there (i.e. Oxygen)) But that just proves what I said in my first statement. "In this debate I will prove that a god exists. (I will not be debating that the Christian God is the true God but that at least a god has to exist.)" And just because there are a lot of religious people are in jail does not mean they didn't find religion when they got in there. Again they are trying to simplify something that needs to be more in depth to have a weightier argument. I really would like to thank my opponent for the challenge. This is my first but not last debate on here and I am very excited for the debates to come in the future. Again I would like to thank my opponent and I wish him well on his other endeavors. I do agree that since this is a debate website and not a religious organization that the voters base their votes on the criteria asked about in the voting process and not their personal beliefs. Thank you to all who comment and vote. I hope you enjoyed watching this debate progress as much as I did.
The existence of god

(working from top to bottom) I think we agree on this point I'm just not coming across clearly. The term possible worlds is an ambiguous term but you defined it in this debate which is correct and fine. I just meant other people who have talked about the model ontological argument outside of our debate so I was just making the point that it can be misinterpreted by some people. We do agree trust me! My second paragraph wasn't me speaking; it was me suggesting what you said was you trying to prove I was wrong by saying your argument was right. I believe that your argument was about as valid as this guys argument: Just to be clear though, I'll add in who's saying what in my statement from my previous post to make it clearer: anExpoMarker:Your argument is wrong. owen99999:Why? anExpoMarker:Because my argument says it's wrong. owen99999:But I'm saying your argument's wrong! anExpoMarker:Yeah well... i proved god exists! owen99999:But no im saying you didn't... ^facepalm^ ;) This is not what I think you actually said but what what you said was equivalently logical to. I really promise you that you haven't proven my 5 steps wrong. You didn't even go into each on in detail. I also really promise (I have it on good authority) that the church of the flying spaghetti monster is actually a wind up religion. However when I said the flying spaghetti monster, I was talking about a different one that can be seen by humans (remember it produces spaghetti over all the planets for everyone!). Remember; being able to be seen by humans does not mean that it doesn't fit into the categories of a MGB. This means that if the model ontological argument followed any sort of actual logic as I already demonstrated but this demonstration fits the rules and as we can all confirm there is not a visible spaghetti monster (or pasta or cabbage) in the sky, the model ontological argument must be wrong. I agree the video is poorly made; I assure you I could do better! That being said; there are some clear facts in the video that i have checked my self such as : "If all atheists left america, 10% percent of the population would leave, but less than 0.25% of it's prisoners" which really says something. I think all the facts in the video are actually true (don't worry I don't just believe things I see online I research them to confirm statistics etc) they are just presented badly. I hope we both leave having learnt something from this argument; I certainly think I did. I would like to thank you for being a great opponent and making me realise that sometimes pleasure and frustration at the internet come in pairs. I look forward to your closing argument and good luck in the votes. No matter who wins I think we BOTH made valid points :) Owen **NOTE TO ALL VOTERS** Please be fair when voting and don't necessarily base your votes upon your religious or non religious beliefs but the points made IN THIS DEBATE. Also please read the whole thing thoroughly before deciding. I'm sure anExpoMarker will agree with me on these points. Thank you.
The existence of god

Working through your argument from the top to the bottom. When I say ambiguous, I mean the term 'possible worlds' not your definition. I totally agree that your definition had one meaning and was clear, but the term its self has many definitions like the word 'set' for example can mean a pre defined thing (set a date) or to put down an object (set on a table). Even if i defined what i was meaning the word set was in the argument, the word itself would still be ambiguous. I still think me reverse argument is logical and in your second paragraph you are basically saying Your argument is wrong. Why? Because my argument says it's wrong. But I'm saying your argument's wrong! Yeah well... i proved god exists! But no im saying you didn't... ^facepalm^ ;) I watched the whole video and I have to say the guy is a bit full of himself and kind of hides from the rebuttals he can't explain saying he'll 'talk about them in another video'. You haven't disproved why all 5 points don't work; you tried to argue against them as a system of five and failed. HOWEVER. If you are saying that I can't use the LACK of existence of god in the ontological argument because it is not a MGB, then I propose to you this: This is the spaghetti monster --> ~~~~~~ He is awesome. He engulfs the whole of space apart from the stars and planets and his body is super heat resistant. NOTHING CAN DESTROY HIM! Also he's pretty damn massive and is growing at the same rate as space. He is so loving and everyone loves him (because he provides all the planets with free spaghetti and all the other properties of a MGB. Stick him into your 5 points and BOOM! -He is a maximally great being -The logic is the same I don't believe there is proof that god does or doesn't exist. I believe there is enough strong evidence he doesn't exist and none that he does enough that the only logical conclusion that you can make is that god doesn't exist. I may start another argument after but might not depends if im busy or not. You have to be fair though the video does say something... thanks and I look forward to your response.
Bitcoin Cash is better than Bitcoin Core

Bitcoin used to be useful because its transaction fees were pennies (or less). You could buy coffee, video games, etc. A private currency that pretty much just works. I don't know what BTC is today, but it isn't that. They haven't allowed it to scale and so the transaction fees have risen. Merchants and users have more and more stopped using it for real-world commerce. BCH is an attempt to restore Bitcoin to its former vision. With BTC all transactions aside from Deposits and Withdrawals being off chain on the LN? That"s putting a lot of trust back into third parties similar to centralized banking to date. If it"s on LN, it"s a settlement debt. An IOU. Like banks. Unless it"s cash in your hand it"s the banks' money to hold in trust and if it"s lost in a recession or market crash, it"s gone. This is what BTC WAS supposed to fix. BCH still follows the roadmap to fix that. Bitcoin core's top priority is not decentralization and censor-resistance. It is actually censored by a company Blockstream which is funded by banking institutions from behind. Thru segwit and off chain scaling it is nowhere decentralized and becoming more complex as well as controlled version. BCH priority is usability which means decentralization. Blockstream priority is destroying peer 2 peer and store of value. BTC cannot be used for micropayments. BCH is empirically the closest thing we have to the real bitcoin when it comes to actual code, not labels or opinions. SegwitLightnetCoin is a fork. https://www.bitcoin.com... Reminder: Arguments that are invalid: - Appeal to authority logical fallacy (Person A thinks this, person B claims that) - Ad hominem logical fallacy (Person C is wrong about X because he is Y) Of course, all rules of epistemology apply, but these are the common mistakes here.
The Bible is Not The Sole Rule of Faith (Sola Scriptura is a False Doctrine)

OPENING STATEMENT: Sacred Scripture is useful but it is not the Sole Rule of Faith, it is not the Ultimate Authority. This teaching of "Bible Alone" or "Sola Scriptura" is an invention of the leaders of the reformation and was never a teaching of the Early Church. The Early Church always held Sacred Scripture, along with Sacred Tradition and the Magisterium of the Church, to be the Authority of Christians but never Sacred Scripture alone. Protestants have based their religion on the Bible Alone and they claim to follow the Bible in all things yet, nowhere in Scripture is their teaching of Sola Scriptura found. Sola Scriptura is not biblical, not logical and was never taught in the Early Church. Because of these key factors, the Bible is Not the Sole Rule of Faith, or the Ultimate Authority. I will later prove this in my next round.
First World Feminism in the USA

Now, let's refute his first book. "The Second Sex" was published in 1949. We all know that a lot has changed since then. The feminist movement of the 70's. Girls are now put on a throne. Refer to my videos. He uses his first book to refute this. This is just to prove that men are going their own way because of feminism. This isn't true. I implore the voters to actually watch video 2. Again, I implore the voters to watch the video and decide who's right. A lot of feminists are "professional victims" Please watch my other videos to understand what I mean. I'm so sorry my rebuttals are so short. I'm prepping for early college. Please watch the videos and decide for yourself. Have fun guys! :D
There is no proof of God's existence

If you are to induct logic, God does not exist as far as we know. He only exists in faith, the creation of the mind of an individual. By "God", I am referring to the Christian God.Where is proof that God exists? There is no physical evidence of his existence. Here are the only arguments for his existence: 1) Prove the God doesn't exist!This in itself is a logical fallacy. Specifically referred to as Argument from ignorance or argumentum ad ignorantiam. "[Appeal to ignorance]: the claim that whatever has not been proved false must be true, and vice versa." (http://en.wikipedia.org...). You cannot logically support the point "prove that God doesn't exist" because that is clearly leaving the bounds of logic by a miles. I could similarly say that there are dinosaurs at the center of the Earth. PROVE ME WRONG! Just because there is no evidence against the existence of an entity does not mean that that entity exists. 2) "Perfection" of the UniverseThe universe is beautiful in appearance. There is no way that this universe could have created its own beauty. Therefore, someone must have created it!The use of perfection to prove the existence of a higher being is exotic in relation to itself. Let me explain. Beauty is a concept that our minds create. Other animals may not see beauty in the universe the way we do. Does that make the animal wrong? No, it's all our preception. This can be backed up by countless studies and science. If you decide to take up an argument on this front, I will be prepared to prove you wrong.3) Absense of Knowledge, Must be God?We are such "perfect" creations. Someone must have created us, right? There is no other explanation! Well, there is evolution. There are so many people who still claim evolution to be false. Even with this ignorance, we cannot claim that God is behind everything that we have no explanation. We are humans, we have endless curiosity. I think this is our fault, we need an explanation for everything. Even if it is illogical.4) Are you saying that God doesn't exist?Not at all. I am simply stating that we have no proof of his existence in this physical world and arguing against that with logic is not going to get any believer of God anywhere. With this point, I'd like to end off my frontier. Please, if you do end up debating, please do not make it a wall of text. Be clear and to the point. Thank you.
There is no proof of God's existence

"God's Design"I must ask you, how does science and how lucky we are to have life on Earth have anything to do with God? Just because we cannot comprehend how lucky we are and how this world came to be does not mean that God has to have created us.You are attempting to use science to prove the existence of God when science is a linked study that supports itself without the induction of God into it's bounds. We have found a couple planets capable of life in this galaxy. In fact, there are studies showing that through the billlions upon billions of planets, hundreds of them could have life. How do you explain this?And if we were the only life in this entire "universe", how does that in any way prove the existence of God? We are not certain about many different aspects. For all we know, many of our conceptions on life could be wrong, this is all knowledge we have gained through observation. Have we observed life in other planets? No. Does that mean that we are the only life in the entire universe? No. You are following this hypothesis: http://en.wikipedia.org... Please look into your logical composure, you still have not directly proven that there is solid proof of God's existence.
Jesus is not God in the Gospel of Mark

CONCLUSIONI am sorry if I have not been clear. I'll endeavour to state the case without ambiguity. It's very simple.First, I quote the Catechism as it states my point exactly. I am saying that the title "Son of God" does not have to mean that Jesus is God, as it is used in various other senses throughout the Old and New Testament. I argue that Mark used it to show that Jesus was beloved of God, but not his equal.Second, I agree with you, the Jewish Messiah was indeed expected to be someone who would overthrow the Romans. That's why the early Christians were roundly rejected in their belief that Jesus was the Messiah. Mark, as a Christian, believed Jesus was the Messiah, but he did not think Jesus was God. In his meeting with the Sanhedrin, the High Priest asks Jesus: "Art thou the Christ, the Son of the Blessed?" Jesus says yes, he is. He is the Messiah. This does not mean he was God. Part of the Christians' new understanding of the Messiah was his ability to perform miracles in the name of God. As I say, the ability to perform miracles does not allow you to assert that Jesus, therefore, is God.Third, I have never said that the Virgin Birth is necessary for the divinity of Jesus, but it is important. If Jesus had the Holy Spirit as his father it certainly firms up the evidence for his divine nature. In fact, absence of evidence actually is evidence of absence. It is not proof, but it is evidence. Mark says nothing of the virgin birth. If he had included it, my position would be more difficult.I think you'll find that the majority of scholars accept that, in Mark, Jesus is viewed as human; in Matthew, Jesus is Messiah-King; in Luke, Jesus is Saviour for all; and only in John is Jesus fully God. See, for example, Bart Ehrman, or Dale Martin, or Elaine Pagels, or John Dominic Crossan, or E. P. Sanders.
Jesus is not God in the Gospel of Mark

I am proposing that Jesus is not God in the Gospel of Mark. I will suggest two arguments, one hinging on the titles used of Jesus in the Gospel, and the second having to do with Mark's silence about the nativity. "The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God." These are the opening words of the Gospel of Mark. In point of fact, textual criticism of the manuscript evidence has revealed that the earliest copies of Mark omit the latter title, "the Son of God." The majority of bibles acknowledge this fact with a footnote. It is likely, therefore, that the title is not original. In any case, there are just two other instances, in the Gospel of Mark, of its use. These are in Mark 1:11 and Mark 9:7, when God speaks of Jesus as his "beloved Son." This is merely an acknowledgment of Jesus as beloved in the eyes of God. It is not a theological point. In fact, the title "Son of God" is used throughout the Bible to refer to Adam, various angels, pious individuals, and the kings of Israel. In stark contrast, the title "Son of Man" is used uniquely to refer to Jesus, and is used a total of fourteen times in the Gospel of Mark. Interestingly, it is always used by Jesus in describing himself. Mark 10:45, for example, records Jesus in the third person as saying that the Son of Man "came not to be served but to serve." The idea of Markan Priority is central to modern scholarship. The Gospel of Mark is judged to be the earliest of the synoptic gospels, probably written about the year 70 CE. It is also the shortest. Paul, whose epistles form the earliest account in the New Testament, never met Jesus, but he did meet with Simon Peter, and with James, the brother of Jesus. Paul never mentions a virgin birth. Similarly, the Gospel of Mark, the earliest gospel, contains no birth narrative. I argue, therefore, that the virgin birth is a later accretion to the story of Jesus, used to bolster his divine status. Mark is unaware of this view. I argue, therefore, that the author of the pseudoepigraphical Gospel of Mark did not hold a theological view of Jesus. He certainly believed that Jesus was the Christ, or Messiah, and that he was capable of performing magic and miracles, but he did not believe that Jesus was divine, to say nothing of his membership of the Holy Trinity.