BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
A single god that created existence, and everything, is impossible.

Let me start by saying that by existence I include both our universe, and everything (potentially) outside it. It is by logical reasoning, that it is impossible for there to be non-existence, then for an existing body to initiate existence. As that is breaching the law of the previous premise. Ie. for there to be nothing existing, then there to be something existing, through the actions of a body that already exists. Therefore, a 'god' is not allowed, logically to be beyond the realms, and undeniable truths of existence and non-existence. Or otherwise known as yes and no. A god would therefore either exist before creating our world, or doesn't exist at all, and we have always existed. Because, if he existed before existence, then he did not create existence, as he existed before it. So therefore, a god cannot be the creator of all existence. Taking this natural truth into account, existence must transcend our creator (if we have one). As he must exist in order to create us. Therefore, he cannot be the creator of EVERYTHING. As otherwise he would be the creator of himself, and thus cause a paradox of causation and initiation. So, since he cannot be the creator of everything. That must mean that there is ultimately no creator, as if there were, who created the ultimate creator. and thus there is another return of the previously stated paradox. Now since the paradox cannot occur, we must assume that there is only ever existence, and nothing initiated the existence of EVERYTHING (both inside and outside our universe). Now, It must be said however, that a creator is compatible with this model, as long as the creator is the creator of our universe only, and not necessarily everything. And our universe is enclosed within the ether of another world. Rather like a complex simulation. We could potentially, if we had large enough computing power, create a simulation that has sentient beings which think for themselves and learn. making ourselves "gods" of their simulated world. And to their eyes, the creator of everything. But only in fact the creator of their simulation. Therefore, we could either be the only existing universe that has always existed. Or we are within another universe, and have been created by a "god", rather like a simulation. But this god only created us, and not himself. As a somewhat irrelevant side note.... Since there is no ULTIMATE creator, we have two options, either non-existence is infinite, or existence is infinite. We can by default, and personal observation assume that non-existence being infinite is impossible, considering you and I exist. Therefore existence must be infinite. Try and imagine non-existence, its impossible really. huh. Quite mind boggling.
The Existence of Consciousness is the Work of God

I am not saying that "IF God exists, then other things don't need to have an origin." What I am criticizing is the logic that God does not need an origin, but everything else must somehow have it. Thus, the double standard. Everything else Pro states is bare assertions and circular. Basically, he is saying IF God exists, then he exists. Pro is asserting that through a process of elimination, he has arrived at his conclusion that God is the origin of life. If this is the case, then he must demonstrate why he eliminates them. Merely asserting it is not true does not make it so. The fact of the matter is, abiogensis is a valid scientific theory supported by the scientific community. I have nothing against the fact that God may exist. My point is that there is no reasonable evidence that seems to suggests this, just as there is no reasonable evidence for countless other beliefs that people claim. I do not exclude God, it is merely that there is no evidence to suggest he is real. None of Pro's arguments have been convincing. And while the Big Bang theory holds some degree of validity through scientific research. What experiments can be done to prove the existence of God? The "infinite amount of unknown possibilities" is not employed to dismiss any theory, it is meant to dismiss Pro's argument (and his logic) that Pro arrived at the conclusion of God through a "process of elimination". If he arrived at the answer through negation, it only makes sense that he negates all the answers with certainty before arriving at the lone conclusion. This is the very nature of what the process of elimination entails. To clarify, I am an agnostic. I do not assert that God is an impossibility. What I do contend is that God or anything else is an unsatisfactory answer without evidence. As I have stated before, Pro has the burden of proof to prove the resolution beyond reasonable doubt. To reiterate, Pro's main argument thus far has been this: "I believe that God made us into his image. We could not have attained the state we are in now by mere chance. There are too many factors that would have gone wrong if we were really created by chance. I do not think we could have mutated from a simple bacterium. I could possibly argue like this for every theory that was created by humans that do not involve a Creator. I, by the process of elimination and also the firm truth that Christianity is built on, have chosen that there really is a Designer. You asked why consciousness is made by God. I believe that God was the Creator simply because other theories, as you have said, are easily refutable and hard to believe." The quote is but a series of bare assertions. Pro does not demonstrate why we should accept any of the above claims. He states that these are his beliefs but does not offer any reason or evidence to demonstrate why they are true, aside from "process of elimination".
The Existence of Consciousness is the Work of God

You say,"But if god can exist without a creator, then why is it that the capacity for existence must have an origin?" You are saying IF God exists, then other things don't need to have an origin. Well, IF God really does exist, then he already told us how he created everything himself. And IF God exists, then your point of the argument if proved false, for IF God exists, everything is made by him. I do not have to prove that abiogenesis is false. It has always been proved false by many a scientist, most famous being Louis Pasteur. I don't see anyone challenge his findings or his experiments. Then why do you ask me to prove abiogenesis false? It is already proved false, and no one in the scientific community can ever prove it to be true. You are saying that there are an infinite amount of possibilities out there, so why does the theory that there is a God true? First let me ask you, what do you have against the fact that there is a God? You say that the explanation for everything is anything but God. Why do you exclude God into your opinion? I can say the same thing. There is an infinite amount of other unknown answers to the beginning of the universe, so why believe in the Big Bang Theory? I could do this with almost all scientific findings out there. This is just not a sound way of telling that someone else's arguments aren't true. Con's resolution does not hold.
The Existence of Consciousness is the Work of God

If all consciousness is the work of God, then I do not understand why the resolution specifically states human consciousness, and why Pro makes the comparison in round 1. I do not claim to know the origin of consciousness. The burden of proof is on Pro to prove his claim that consciousness derives from God. All I need to do is rebut Pro's arguments to show that his resolution is but a bare assertion. Pro then makes the argument that "nothing cannot make something". But if god can exist without a creator, then why is it that the capacity for existence must have an origin? It is a double standard. Basically, Pro's argument can be deduced to life cannot be born from death, and thus that life must have been created by an entity beyond the realms of physics. I do not see how this is a sound argument. To start, Pro must first prove that Abiogenesis is false. I am not arguing for some sort of multi-verse theory as Pro seems to believe. What I mean by infinite possibility is that within our ignorance there could be countless other theories to explain the origin of existence, if there indeed is one. So far, Pro's argument is akin to committing to the process of elimination without knowing the full extent of what is there to eliminate. The resolution does not hold.
The Existence of Consciousness is the Work of God

Dear Con, what kind of proof would it take to convince you that animals are mentally different than humans? Are you suggesting that animals secretly hold philosophical debates and discussions? How do YOU know that animals are philosophical and wonder about the meaning of life? All consciousness is the work of God. In fact, that can actually be an argument for God's existence. I then ask you, how could consciousness come from non-consciousness? The cause of something is always greater than its effect, the unconscious force could not create rational beings. That is just a totally preposterous thought. Nothing cannot make something. This has been repeatedly proved by renowned scientists over and over again, "placed under heavy scrutiny and continuous experiment with constants and under endless review by the scientific community". I saw that you said,"chance suggests infinite possibilities". You are saying that there are an infinite amount of different galaxies and universes that have an infinite amount of possibilities. This idea is no more scientific and no less metaphysical that a "cosmic designer" hypothesis. In fact, the infinite universe hypothesis theory is actually arguably inferior to the "cosmic designer" hypothesis, because the cosmic designer hypothesis is much simpler. According to the principle called Ockham's Razor, we should not multiply causes beyond what is necessary to explain the effect. And also, there is no possible way to prove this theory. No one has been able to explain how or why such a varied collection of universes should exist. Sources: Who made God? by Ravi Zacharias, Norman Geisler
The Existence of Consciousness is the Work of God

My first question regarding the point of animal consciousness is how it is really different from a human being's. Pro does not display this. He makes bare assertions that animals act upon instinct, while humans act upon morality. Firstly, there is no reason to believe that morality is exclusive to humans, and thirdly, again, Pro offers no proof. Whether or not animals cannot have the capacity for abstractions about time is also a bare assertion. There is also no proof that animals do not engage in philosophic behavior. It could be merely the fact that we do not have the ability to talk to an animal and engage in their thoughts. But I this is all in all a digression that is not relevant to the resolution. Is Pro arguing that only human consciousness is the work of god based on its complexity? And is Pro conceding that animal consciousness is then explainable without God as it is not as complex? All in all, the only argument I could detract from Pro is that complexity necessitates a creator, but I do not see how this is syllogistic. Pro's argument against materialism is not only strawman, but it is misguided as well. Is Pro stating that idealism would entail the existence of a god? I do not understand why humans must have been created by God, and Pro gives no other reason than his faith and his assertion that we could not have attained "the state we are in now by mere chance." But why? If anything, chance suggests infinite possibilities. So now this debate has become about evolution, and how because every other theory "made by man" is "easily refutable". I do not see how this is the case. If anything, theories in the scientific jargon are ideas that are placed under heavy scrutiny and continuous experiment with constants and under endless review by the scientific community[1]. If they are truly easily refutable, as Pro says, and Pro could offer proof rather than the bare assertions Pro offers, Pro would likely have won several awards in science by an organization akin to the nobel prize in science by now. To quote wikipedia (for the sake of simplicity), "A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that is acquired through the scientific method and repeatedly tested and confirmed through observation and experimentation." The process of elimination does not work, when there are infinite number of possibilities not yet discussed. Pro merely dismisses the current theories (rather unjustifiably) and claims that Christianity is the only theory that makes sense. I do not understand how this is anything but mere faith. [1]https://en.wikipedia.org...
The Existence of Consciousness is the Work of God

I thank you that you accepted the challenge and also am looking forward to a thoughtful exchange. I wouldn't say that if you use the second term that you have stated, animals don't have a consciousness. They do. But the idea that I want to promote is that the consciousness or mind of an animal is different from a human's consciousness. Animals make decisions based upon their instinct, but humans as a whole make decisions based on their morality. Humans are conscious of time, reality, and truth. We reflect back on the past, recognize the present, and anticipate the future. This is beyond what an animal can do, even though they might have a keen sense of concrete time, they have no capacity for abstractions about time. Humans have a mind that is a lot different from animals. Humans ask philosophical questions, like what purpose do we serve are we here in this world, and others like it. We study theology, philosophy, and ethics. Your objection makes me believe that you believe in extreme materialism. This is where there is no difference between the body and the mind, both in which is the same of both humans and animals. I ask you, is the brain equal to the mind? Is your mind a physical thing, which is your brain? This form of materialism means anything that is said of our bodies is true of our mind. If you steal something with your hand, and the police catch you, do you blame the hand and not yourself? If you do good on a test, do you congratulate your mind? I believe that God made us into his image. We could not have attained the state we are in now by mere chance. There are too many factors that would have gone wrong if we were really created by chance. I do not think we could have mutated from a simple bacterium. I could possibly argue like this for every theory that was created by humans that do not involve a Creator. I, by the process of elimination and also the firm truth that Christianity is built on, have chosen that there really is a Designer. You asked why consciousness is made by God. I believe that God was the Creator simply because other theories, as you have said, are easily refutable and hard to believe. Sources: http://www.reasons.org... https://answersingenesis.org...
The Existence of Consciousness is the Work of God

Hello Hank, I look forward to a thoughtful exchange. Below are 7 definitions of the word consciousness, as it is a vague word to toss around without some base reference. I took the liberty of using Dictionary.com for our purposes. [http://dictionary.reference.com...] 1. the state of being conscious; awareness of one's own existence, sensations, thoughts, surroundings, etc. 2. the thoughts and feelings, collectively, of an individual or of an aggregate of people: the moral consciousness of a nation. 3. full activity of the mind and senses, as in waking life: to regain consciousness after fainting. 4. awareness of something for what it is; internal knowledge: consciousness of wrongdoing. 5. concern, interest, or acute awareness: class consciousness. 6. the mental activity of which a person is aware as contrasted with unconscious mental processes. 7. Philosophy. the mind or the mental faculties as characterized by thought, feelings, and volition. P1: Regardless of which definition we function under, I would first like Pro to prove that other animals do not have a consciousness like ours. P2: If we entertain that Pro were able to prove the assertion at P1, then the next question is how the human consciousness is correlated to God. This is Pro's burden of proof via the resolution. P3: There are many theories of consciousness, such as materialism, idealism, dualism, etc. but none of them have any sort of relation to God either. I ask, what is Pro's theory of consciousness? Is saying "God did it" really a better argument or theory than all the others?
There isn't anything in the world you can't joke about.

Hi Pro, this is my first debate on here, I am a new member. It is my position that there are some things we should not joke about. Of course I am not saying that these things should be illegal to joke about, because I believe in freedom of speech. I am saying however that there are some things that are certainly out of bounds for jokes. Some people may find these jokes funny in some circumstances. However, I contend that this does not matter. There are situations as you mention where a particular joke may be out of place. Some may still laugh. This however does not make it right to joke about that particular thing in that particular situation. My argument is that regardless of whether or not people find a joke funny, there are some joking topics that are off limits in EVERY situation. The reason is that the situation does not effect the nature of the joke. The joke remains improper because ANY PARTICULAR situation does not override the universal situation of human beings. Take for example extreme Holocaust jokes. You would certainly agree that some situations these would be out of place (e.g. in a room full of Jews). However, I would say that the PARTICULAR situation does not matter so much as the UNIVERSAL situation. That is, the universal situation that we live in, namely, that less than 100 years ago Hitler tried to exterminate the Jews. This was cruel and unthinkable. Because of how evil this was and how much of a historic effect it had, there is no situation that would justify making a serious Holocaust joke. These are always out of place. I would argue that there are many other topics which are always out of place. We should never joke about certain crimes against children for example. These are just not right. To conclude: Reasonable people should simply reject certain offensive jokes. They are not offensive because of the situation but because of the human condition that we all find ourselves in. Certain jokes are off limits and even if we find the urge to laugh, we should control ourselves and know that the joke is just not right.
There isn't anything in the world you can't joke about.

To be clear from the very beginning, I am not some psychopath because I do think you have to be careful where and to who you joke with some topics, for example; Cancer can be funny in some cases, but you shouldn't joke about it in a room full of cancer patients or to someone who just lost someone to cancer. Everything can be funny but only if you make a good joke; "LOL, his dad had cancer and died" is NOT Funny, but this http://www.lowbird.com... is funny to me and many other people, I believe the fact it is a popular picture all around the Internet is a good reason to say it is funny.I also believe that being able to joke about everything is an important aspect of freedom of speech.All of the above was just to explain what the debate is about, those were not my arguments and that is the reason I didn't use any sources. but con should use his first round for arguments because I would like this debate to be con saying what things can not be funny and why and then me saying why they can be funny in some cases, of course I will also post arguments of my own.I would also like to ask voters not too be too strict on my grammar because I am from the Netherlands so English is not my first language. This debate may contain jokes that can be considered offensive to some people, it is not my intention to offend anyone but those jokes may be necessary to prove my point.Good luck to my future opponent I hope this debate will remain friendly.
Atheism(pro) vs Theism(con)

This round I will only address my opponent's opening arguments since that is what the rules say I should do. Please note that I will be quoting the premises of my opponent's argument and then responding to them below. 1. Argument for An Uncaused Universe "Things are either eternal or begin to exist at a moment in time. " Yes, I would agree that there are uncaused and caused things. "God's intention to create the universe can either be eternal or begin to exist in time. But we all know God exists timelessly, so his intention can't begin to exist at a moment in time. Therefore God's intention to create the universe must be eternal. " Okay. "If God's intention to create the universe is eternal, then the universe must be eternal. " Wait what? How did we jump to this conclusion so fast? Why does God's intention to create the universe automatically make the universe eternal? Why can't an infinite being create non-infinite things? Isn't that kind of like saying that a runner couldn't run slower then he does in races? Just because you exist outside of time does not mean you can't create things that begin to exist in time. "If the Universe is eternal, then by the very first premise of the Kalam argument, it is uncaused because it didn't begin to exist. " But doesn't God still create an eternal universe in your argument? I don't see how that is possible, but even if that did somehow destroy my argument, it still admits that a God exists. "If the Universe is uncaused, then there's no need for a God to cause the Universe. " I guess I can follow you with this one. 2. Argument for Objective Morality "Objective Morality can either be grounded in god or not grounded in god. " I disagree with this. Objective morality can only be grounded in God. You would have to make a strong argument to convince me otherwise. "If objective morality is grounded in a changeless being as a god, then our morality must also be changeless. " No, this again seems to be a huge leap in logic. Just because God's morality is consistent, this doesn't mean that our morality is changeless. "But morality is not changeless, it evolves over time. " That is a bare assertion. Yet if morality evolves over time, then it isn't really objective according to your point of view. For example, if one thing is wrong in the past and then considered right in this age due to evolution, then the standard would have changed. This completely goes against the idea of objective morality. And this also creates other issues. For example, we could just argue that Hitler did nothing wrong since evolution merely gave him a different mind. I mean, I can't see how evolution could possibly provide any objective moral law. "Therefore objective morality is not grounded in god. " Yeah, this doesn't follow at all. I don't think either of these arguments establish that God does not exist.
Atheism(pro) vs Theism(con)

Thank you for accepting my challenge! I hope we're going to have a good debate.Let's beginArgument for An Uncaused Universe** This argument credited to Bruce Russell1. Things are either eternal or begin to exist at a moment in time.2. God's intention to create the universe can either be eternal or begin to exist in time. But we all know God exists timelessly, so his intention can't begin to exist at a moment in time. Therefore God's intention to create the universe must be eternal.3. If God's intention to create the universe is eternal, then the universe must be eternal.4. If the Universe is eternal, then by the very first premise of the Kalam argument, it is uncaused because it didn't begin to exist.5. If the Universe is uncaused, then there's no need for a God to cause the Universe. Argument for Objective Morality1. Objective Morality can either be grounded in god or not grounded in god.2. If objective morality is grounded in a changeless being as a god, then our morality must also be changeless.3. But morality is not changeless, it evolves over time. 4. Therefore objective morality is not grounded in god.