azza1625/createdebate-arguments huggingface dataset:
Debate: is god true?
Side: yes, god is true

I told you I do not enjoy using the whole "where did the first thing come from" argument. However, it still applies. Basically, no matter how small you go, you say that something comes from something. I believe that God created the first something and caused the other somethings to come from that something. However, as you do not believe this, this argument brings us nowhere.About the size of the universe, it makes no difference. There would be a percent of all possible occurrences that would be Earth, if this is indeed actually possible without God. Obviously, this percentage is very small. I do not pretend to know the actual numbers, as no one does. However, no matter what the size of the universe, the percentages would remain the same.Christians do not discourage interpretation of the Bible. We are divided into many groups, some take the Bible word-for-word. I do not agree with these people. The very presence of two contradictory creation stories should be enough for them to realize that what they believe is inaccurate. Those, like me, who do not take the Bible in such a way are taught numerous different forms of biblical interpretation, and when each would be appropriate to use. The Bible is the inspired Word of God.I have already given you examples of things that cannot be coincidence, but you appear to have ignored them. Giving more examples would be a waste of time.I must disagree with you view of this debate. A debate is a discussion on a topic from opposing viewpoints, in which the opposing people should present and defend evidence in the support of their viewpoint.You appear to believe that it is a position of neutrality to not believe in God. This is not the case, and there are millions who would agree with me. Your position in this debate is "no, God is not true." as such, you should support your side of the debate, unless you are actually neutral.As for proof of divine intervention, I invite you to read my other arguments on this page. I would re-write them, but that would be redundant. Also, if you are seeking the truth and are truly open to truth from both religion and science, then please read C. S. Lewis's Mere Christianity. He provides much more detailed evidence of God's existence, and in an entirely different approach than mine. He is not technically of the same religion as me, but he has written his book to encompass all branches of Christianity. If I appear to be backing out, please know that I am not. I may appear that way because I happen to suck at debating.Happy New Year to you too.
Debate: is god true?
Side: yes, god is true

Okay, this will probably sound annoying to you, but, those laws that allow for a better chance of life occurring had to come from somewhere. This part of my response is a bit short....please don't think I'm ignoring you're details. I just can't provide anything more about that....and since, neither of us have any way of knowing what happened before the Big Bang, if the Big Bang actually did happen, as you mentioned, we can't really prove much more with that.Sorry about what I said about your position in the debate.So I'm going to talk about something else, which C. S. Lewis explains in a better way.When we argue, we compare things to a standard. We say, "I was there first!" "What did he ever do to you?" "I bailed you out when things got rough, and now you won't help me?"And rather than say, "So what?" people actually try to defend themselves. "But you left. You can't hold that spot from others forever!' "He was asking for it!" "Things were different then."Why do we all have this same, unspoken standard? It can't be a matter of learning from our parents, because it has existed all throughout history, even in peoples who didn't yet have contact with each other. This same sense of how we should act exists in all human cultures of all time.It is not even a desire to do good, as humans break this standard all the time. It is a sense that we should follow this unspoken standard. Desires would be the desire to help and the desire to avoid danger. But, even though we should follow self-preservation, we have this standard to change our mind. Where did this standard come from, if not from God?
Debate: is god true?
Side: no ,god is not true

Okay, this will probably sound annoying to you, but, those laws that allow for a better chance of life occurring had to come from somewhere.These laws or 'forces' are simply OBSERVED CONSISTENCIES in the interactions of matter/energy, based on the principal that the same action yields the same result under identical circumstances. There is nothing magical about it.Why do we all have this same, unspoken standard? It can't be a matter of learning from our parents, because it has existed all throughout history, even in peoples who didn't yet have contact with each other.We have this "unspoken standard" because it is necessary for a stable society, and societies that didn't have this sense of common good, could not sustain themselves and would have quickly dissolved. Morality exists because it must.It's really that simple.
Debate: is god true?
Side: yes, god is true

God should not be equated with magic. Did I ever speak a word of magic?And still, those observed consistencies had to come from somewhere. That's just another term for scientific laws.Why must morality exist?
Debate: is god true?
Side: no ,god is not true

God should not be equated with magic. Did I ever speak a word of magic?Your explanation is functionally, no different than magic.And still, those observed consistencies had to come from somewhere.Yes, logic. We need not invoke the supernatural to explain what is accessible to reason. Why must God prevent something from doing that which it is not caused to do? Is God preventing objects from falling up, or light from moving in a zig-zag? There is no reason to think this.If one positive molecule is attracted to a negative molecule, then why should we think that another positive molecule would react in a different way?Why must morality exist?Because it is necessary for a stable society. If there was a society in which Murder was acceptable, then they would have killed each other off already, and thus only societies that prohibit murder would be left.It's a rather simple concept.
Debate: is god true?
Side: yes, god is true

About the chairs, I cannot superglue the tennis balls on because I do not have the authority to do so. These chairs, when put into different rooms, do not require tennis balls, and tennis balls can be problematic.And five students did not have such problems at the same time. These were at different times, but I hold them all to the same standard.About the article, I responded to its whole, but I felt no need to place in specific details to the extent that you say, as they were simple examples of a bigger picture.I believe you misunderstood the explanation of the Moral Law. It is not a "third impulse," as this defeats the entire purpose of what was said. And it is more than just the immediate decision. If the Moral Law does not exist, why do we feel guilt, chemicals or no? Morality is the same in all human beings. All human beings disobey. All human beings feel guilt. The only exceptions would be those with psychological disorders. God did not come from something because He has always existed. This is possible because He is a pure Who and not a what.My own words cannot convince you of anything, because my words are merely my own thoughts, although they may have originated from outside sources. C S Lewis and Sean Forrest can show you based on emotion and faith why God exists. However, as you insist on scientific proof, although it is difficult to separate, I have attempted to give you this. However, this is not enough, as, again, it is merely my own thought contrived from scientific facts, and I myself am not the most credible person in the world. However, I managed to find evidence of credible people who agree with me that is both understandable to you and does not require that you go away from your computer and get it yourself. Here is the link:
Debate: is god true?
Side: yes, god is true

Sorry it's taken me so long to respond, I'm getting somewhat busy.Okay, you won that one, just because the video was old and I don't have the time to come up with a good argument to back it, though I do disagree with more than a few of your statements. However, I must just point out that just because previous things that were believed to be examples of irreducible complexity were proven wrong doesn't mean that there is no such thing. The more we learn, the more we can reduce, and the more we reduce the closer we come to the irreducible. Perhaps that was worded weirdly...sorry.The Moral Law is cannot be a developed instinct or learned attitude as it has appeared in the exact same way in all history in all places in all the world. It is the knowledge of right and wrong, and it is always right. No instinct is always right, and no instinct is always wrong. This is a standard that we compare all things in life to. This is justice. I know no instinct that attacks us later emotionally if we do not follow it. Moral Law causes guilt when we disobey it, and this is not a physical hindrance, like hunger.Have you ever written a story? A real story, not some little puff of words.Oh, I'm working on gathering evidence of various branches, but again, I don't have as much time, so it'll come more slowly. Sorry I couldn't make a very good response right now, I know this one sucks.
Debate: is god true?
Side: yes, god is true

Those five precepts may appear in different strengths and forms, but they all appear, yes?And, if irreducible complexity is but a hypothesis, so is Freud's idea of guilt.Perhaps we do fear the loss of parents' love. But why? That only moves the question rather than answering it. Why does every person yearn for the love of their parents? They could survive just as well with the love of any other person, but we specifically want the love of parents, even if the parents are abusive and the alternative is not. Where is the survival value there?What kind of stories? (I have an argument here, I swear!)
Debate: is god true?
Side: no ,god is not true

"Those five precepts may appear in different strengths and forms, but they all appear, yes?"Yes. Much like all of us have thumbs, or dental sets that can tear meat or grind plant matter. Evolutionary advantage. "And, if irreducible complexity is but a hypothesis, so is Freud's idea of guilt."True. And so is the idea of God. My point in bringing in Freud's analysis was there are multiple possibilities concerning the origin of guilt. "Perhaps we do fear the loss of parents' love. But why?"I was just giving you the abbreviated explanation. Freud went on in much greater detail. Simply put, children quickly come to realize, even as babies, that they need help to do things (like eat), and that the parents will provide that help. Eventually a kid starts to worry that if they frustrate their parent's enough, the parents might not provide that help anymore. So guilt may emerge as a reminder to stay on their parent's good side. As far as why its "parents" instead of anybody else; well its not really. Its really whoever is around, and other caretakers can fill the role just as nicely. The guilt could easily be transferred to them if they play the role of parent. But in most cases, our parents are always there (including during most of our happy moments, so they become positively associated, and since love is a positive emotion, it tends to flow towards them). It is one of the biggest forms of certainty a child could have. And it has been shown repeatedly that children who are raised in unstable environments often grow up with serious emotional or social issues, partially because their development wasn't as well-guided as most of the rest of us. As far as abusive parents, remember that kids aren't particularly rational, and have a hard time realizing that a situation they aren't familiar with can be better than where they are at. Heck, even adults have a hard time with this. Many women have a hard time leaving abusive relationships because they at least know what to expect from them. They place more reliance on their perceived love for their partner and fear of the unknown than on the unhappiness that the abuse brings them. And to a very real extent, the need to have a solid bond is just a representation of the fact that humans are highly social animals who have more strength in groups than as individuals. "What kind of stories?"Mostly speculative fiction: sci-fi mainly, with occasionally forays into fantasy and horror. Also have done some basic drama in my younger days. Lately I've been mostly writing poetry and song lyrics based on dreams that I have or philosophical issues that have been bothering me.
Debate: is god true?
Side: no ,god is not true

Okay I was in a hurry last night as I typed the last argument and didn't edit properly. To clear up some potential confusion:"You talk about modern Christians being skeptical about the second coming."- I was referring to the type of scenario you proposed, not the Second Coming as a general concept."there isn’t any evidence that Jesus actually claimed to be the Son of God"- I don't know why I typed "Son of."And a correction:I kind of misrepresented Freud's hypothesis the last time around. It is true that he thought that guilt was formed directly within people at childhood. This being the case, I don't fully agree with him any more than you do. But, I do think his basic premise, that guilt serves to promote better social interaction between people is potentially valid, at least in the way I presented it in this post. Keep in mind that in his time there probably wasn't any reason to believe that emotions or behaviors could actually evolve, so I just added the updated scientific understandings to his initial assessment.Another possibility as that it is a direct side-effect of empathy, which would ultimately serve pretty much the same function.
Debate: is god true?
Side: no ,god is not true

Thumbs and dental sets aid the self. Aside from early age, we are fully capable of fending for ourselves. Yes, we are social beings, but so are many other animals. Do they have morals? Have you seen a single other animal besides humans that has morals? If it is such an evolutionary advantage, why isn't it more common? And, as these morals tell us to value other beings above the self, wouldn't the beings with these morals die out, leaving the amoral to dominate?Other communal animals are not as intelligent as humans, so we cannot expect their morals do be as developed as ours, but many of them do indeed show a rudimentary awareness of codes of conduct that best facilitate group cohesion. If they didn't, their groups would disintegrate. Many of these behaviors involve the respect of an authority figure (an alpha), and the protection of juveniles and infants within a group. Chimpanzees, in particular, harshly punish anyone who hurts an infant, regardless of their rank, and the hierarchy system requires highly specific behaviors to individuals of various ranks. Additionally, there are taboos on pedophilia, cannibalism, and incest, and these actions are seldom performed. Lions and wolves follow a similar model, to a simpler degree, in my opinion. But the fact remains that animals that live with others must develop behaviors that enable them to coexist with as little conflict as possible. With the degrees to which humans have taken empathy, intelligence, and imagination, our morals have just become more complex and varied.
Debate: is god true?
Side: no ,god is not true

If the planet can support life, according to theries of abiogenesis all you would need is1) Iron2) sulfur3) heatand all of these are abundant all over the universe.the complexity is not necessary for life to begin. It develops later on, in a process known as evolution
Debate: is god true?
Side: no ,god is not true

You can't state that complexity of life is an undeniable proof for the existence of god, well you can, but you would be wrong. First off, it's not like from the beginning of time, life has always worked perfectly and been so intrinsically complex. Life didn't get to be the way we know it today in one shot, nature has tried and exhausted almost every possible combination for life to see what works best (and when i say tried i don't mean that there was intent and design, i mean that most possible combinations have occurred), the reason we don't see these failures in design is because they didn't work and they did not survive long enough to proliferate their complexity. Life started out as simple biological molecules and through billions of years of evolution they became more and more complex, the complexity in organisms we have today is built upon the complexity of previous organisms. Would you say all of the failed organisms are evidence of creation? The organisms with unhelpful mutations which then died out? No you wouldn't, because god doesn't make failures, but nature has had failures, many of them, it has also had success and when only the fit survive, as you go by many generations you will become exponentially complex. This would be like if I had no idea of the stock market and one day walked into wall street and saw the massive amounts of people and technology used to track the stocks and the massive amount of information on all the publicly traded business in the world. This stock market didn't start out so complex, it started out with primal barterers and traders and grew with economies and cultures. Even if for some reason your arguments works, and complexity proves god (which it doesn't). It doesn't prove your god, it is just as likely to prove Zeus, Allah as it is to prove the christian god.
Debate: is god true?
Side: no ,god is not true

Why does anyone have to have made you? or Given you hands and eyes, all these things are the result of evolutionary changes acquired millions of years ago.
Debate: is god true?
Side: yes, god is true

Everything must have been carefully thought out. It could not have just happened, as that is too much of a coincidence. Not only are there countless chances which all must have fallen correctly for life to have come to be by mere chance, these countless chances must have happened in order.It's like the whole monkeys on typewriters thing. Supposing that the monkey's would even hit the keys (which they don't. They ignore the typewriters, one even pooped on it's typewriter) it would still be impossible. Because, yeah, they're infinite and all that, but who's to say that they won't all do the same thing infinitely? There's no rule that they can't try the same thing twice.So, supposing that they hit the keys randomly, here's the chances of them writing the complete works of Shakespeare. For every time a monkey hits a key, there's a 1/# of keys chance of the monkey hitting the correct key. Multiply that chance by the number of letters in Shakespeare to get the chance of a monkey typing all of the letters of the complete works of Shakespeare.Now, that only gets the number of letters, and says nothing of order. The above chance is repeated with every single button-press of the monkey, and every time the monkey hits a single key out of order, it has to start over.But the monkey is not trying to complete the works of Shakespeare, and thus does not comprehend the concept of starting over. A monkey might just hold down a single key. And there is nothing to stop it from hitting non-letter buttons. Plus, there's the slidey thingy on a typewriter that they would not know that they need to slide.You may argue that this has nothing to do with God making us. True, but it is an analogy to help you to understand.If the chances are so high against monkeys on typewriters writing the complete works of Shakespeare, then how much more would they be against coincidence creating life out of nothing? That entire idea is stupid.I go into more detail on that below, if you want to see exactly how thought out creation is. Oh, and evolution isn't separate from creation. Evolution is part of creation. And yeah, it happened millions of years ago. What does that have to do with it?
Debate: is god true?
Side: no ,god is not true

Everything must have been carefully thought out. It could not have just happened, as that is too much of a coincidence.We should like to know by what scale you measure the acceptability of a coincidence. One observes that events frequently coincide; a fact which, combined with the timescale involved, renders the notion that a certain number of coinciding events is to be deemed unacceptable nonsensical. Not only are there countless chances which all must have fallen correctly for life to have come to be by mere chance, these countless chances must have happened in order.It is estimated that the Milky Way galaxy contains 100 billion stars. We do not presume to know how many planets such a number may entail, but we observe that as Sol has 8 satellites dubbed planets (we mourn the loss of Pluto, as it messes up our rhyme My very easy method just speeds up naming planets), it may be in excess of 800 billion. We submit that the odds of an improbable event occurring during at least one of 800 billion attempts are higher than those of it not occurring.It's like the whole monkeys on typewriters thing. Supposing that the monkey's would even hit the keys (which they don't. They ignore the typewriters, one even pooped on it's typewriter) it would still be impossible. Because, yeah, they're infinite and all that, but who's to say that they won't all do the same thing infinitely? There's no rule that they can't try the same thing twice.Given infinite variations, your theory suggests that at least one one monkey will write "The funeral baked meats did coldly furnish forth the marriage tables." repeatedly; an observation which defeats what I presume to be the purpose of your post.Now, that only gets the number of letters, and says nothing of order. The above chance is repeated with every single button-press of the monkey, and every time the monkey hits a single key out of order, it has to start over.But with infinite variations, it is mathematically impossibly for the probability not to be raised to 1:then how much more would they be against coincidence creating life out of nothing? We submit that the odds of an omnipotent being emerging from oblivion (and as it is presumed to have created matter, space and time) into oblivion, are lesser still. It violates the principle that Energy can neither be created nor destroyed, it can merely change from one form to another. If you wish to create a credible, scientific argument for the existence of God, you must do so within established scientific principles; shouting MAGIC does not help your case. Oh, and evolution isn't separate from creation. Evolution is part of creation.We submit that as biblical humans cohabited with the first life to stalk the Earth, the theory of evolution is not compatible with the theory of creation, as it is observed that life has existed on Earth for far longer than humans.