azza1625/createdebate-arguments huggingface dataset:
Debate: Is this universe created by solely natural processes?
Side: Yes.

No, faith is what's left in the absence of evidence. When you have some evidence, then you have some insight. "People only cling to that kind of belief because they know God ruling over them means they are in trouble and they hope to be exonerated in death and get out of trouble by dying."-That's hearsay.
Debate: Is this universe created by solely natural processes?
Side: Yes.

No, faith is what we act upon. You have faith that you have the right to exist outside of Hell, correct? So by faith, you continue in counting your time down to zero believing you will not fry like an eternal sausage in the fire of Hell. If you are given a check, you have faith that it is worth money even though you do not have proof until you cash the check and get the money in your hand. Your faith in the validity of the check is what you act upon in receiving the check and in waiting to get the cash.When you move to take a seat, you have faith that the chair will hold you based on the fact that it looks strong enough or that you saw another person sitting in that chair before you moved toward it. By faith you sat down, believing that the evidence indicated the chair would hold you.When you try to obscure the meaning of faith to imply it is a word by which you are empowered to insult anybody who believes God created them and wants them to be in Heaven with Him, you are just being obtuse.The title of the debate here is "Is this universe created by solely natural processes?". Apparently you believe that it is created by solely natural processes in complete violation of the laws of thermodynamics. Do you have evidence that it is possible for something to create itself, or do you have faith with no real evidence? If you are acting on faith with insufficient evidence, one day the chair you go to sit in will crash to the floor under you and you will accept a bad check and payment will be refused.Tell me...do you hope to be exonerated in death? Is it hearsay for me to say that you hope to be exonerated in death? Do you know the meaning of the word "exonerated"?Do you believe you are exonerated now while your time is counting down in this world, dying all the way to zero whenever that may be for you?
Debate: Is this universe created by solely natural processes?
Side: Yes.

Why did you avoid addressing the first half of the post you responded too? Here it is again for you, take another look and see if you can come up with something:Believing in what you think is the most likely way is blind faith. Claiming to have evidence for your belief when it is still only what you think is "the most likely way" is blind faith.
Debate: Is this universe created by solely natural processes?
Side: Yes.

I have faith that when I am done typing these words and I hit "enter", they will be posted....and further faith that you will read them. I believe you are not burning in Hell and are still here able to read these words. I do not have evidence of that belief being correct until I see that you are actually here and able to read, but even then my faith is limited so I cannot know for sure that you did not wake up in Hell after you posted evidence of being here and able to read after I posted these words.You put your faith in evolution, and you hope in death to be exonerated and exempt from accountability for how you spent your time. You have no evidence that you get out of accountability for your time, yet you believe you get out in death. That is as blind as faith can be.Accepting the big bang theory is dumb. The scientific method shows the "theory" is nothing but a hypothesis preferred according to the faith of people who think they can get away without God. Evolution and the big bang are nothing but religious hypothesis which do not belong in science. Religious people just can't resist inserting their religion of naturalism into science, ascribing supernatural power to non-living things believing that non-living things cause life to emerge. It's a useless waste of time belief system.
Debate: Is this universe created by solely natural processes?
Side: No.

Have to say I completely agree with this. I also don't believe god did much of anything
Debate: Is this universe created by solely natural processes?
Side: Yes.

Negligentt SmellyBella: how many times do people have to say it to you: it is not a religion! If someone came up with a better theory than the big bang theory then I'd gladly change my viewpoint - as would most atheists. It isnt that important.
Debate: Is this universe created by solely natural processes?
Side: No.

First and foremost, "natural" (or physical) processes are fundamentally incapable of creating the Universe. Why? Because natural processes follow the laws of physics (specifically the first law of Thermodynamics), which prohibit the creation or destruction of energy (and, as proven by Einstein's famous equation, "E = MC^2", matter), an inherent prerequisite to the Universe's creation.As for Darwinian Evolution, I'm forced to disagree: not only is there no evidence to substantiate Abiogenesis (in fact, experiments attempting to credit it, such as the Miller experiment, failed to do so, thus having the opposite effect), but that mutations are capable of accumulating indefinitely has no basis whatsoever, in either observation or experimentation.
Debate: Is this universe created by solely natural processes?
Side: Yes.

First and foremost, E=MC^2 states a relationship between matter and energy and does not state in any way that matter can neither be created nor destroy. Secondly, it is the first law of Thermodynamics that makes it all possible. Energy can not be created, by anyone or anything including God. Which simply means everything has always existed, there was no beginning. Things simply were.Lastly, there is very clear evidence for abiogenesis. Tests done show that in a climate of prelife earth all it would take is a proper electrical discharge (lightning or thunder) to cause simple amino acids necessary for the most basic of life to occur. From there the incredibly simple life forms would grown and evolve.
Debate: Is this universe created by solely natural processes?
Side: No.

Lastly, there is very clear evidence for abiogenesis. Tests done show that in a climate of prelife earth all it would take is a proper electrical discharge (lightning or thunder) to cause simple amino acids necessary for the most basic of life to occur. From there the incredibly simple life forms would grown and evolve.There's a reason we cite our claims. Blind theoretical assertions make you no different than the god botherers that you oppose. Faith isn't a good atheist argument.-FACT! Pre Earth was struck by lightning, which manifested life by mere magic, and then Darwinian evolution just took over! Believe me. I stayed at a Holiday Inn Express last night...
Debate: Is this universe created by solely natural processes?
Side: Yes.

I stayed at a Holiday Inn Express last night...Holiday inn nice hotel. never had a reason to sleep there though....
Debate: Is this universe created by solely natural processes?
Side: No.

Who says God couldn't create energy? What an ignoramus. God existed before all things. All things were created by Him and For Him.
Debate: Is this universe created by solely natural processes?
Side: Yes.

Such irrationality, and that icon.You're too obsessed with this website, Babombic.
Debate: Is this universe created by solely natural processes?
Side: No.

"First and foremost, E=MC^2 states a relationship between matter and energy and does not state in any way that matter can neither be created nor destroy."I was simply pointing out that, as shown by that equation, matter and energy are interchangeable in regards to the first law of Thermodynamics."Secondly, it is the first law of Thermodynamics that makes it all possible."I explicitly stated as much."Energy can not be created, by anyone or anything including God."God, by definition (specifically possessing the quality of "supernaturality", or non-physicality), is not bound by the laws of physics, including Thermodynamics."Which simply means everything has always existed, there was no beginning. Things simply were."Impossible. Due to the second law of Thermodynamics (if you're not familiar with its implications, just Google "heat death of the Universe"), the Universe cannot have simply always existed. Entropy can only ever increase (and does), and, as the Universe definitionally possesses a finite amount of energy (and thus capacity for entropy), therefore, after some finite period of time, the Universe will be saturated with entropy. As this has not yet occurred (life does indeed exist), it follows that the Universe has existed for a finite period of time."Tests done show that in a climate of prelife earth all it would take is a proper electrical discharge (lightning or thunder) to cause simple amino acids necessary for the most basic of life to occur."The simple acids you're referring to may be (incomplete) components of organisms, but tossing a few planks into your backyard and building a shed are two entirely different things. In other words, life is inherently much more than the sum of its parts, therefore a simple mixture of its components (assuming you even have all of them; no experiment, even under ideal Darwinian conditions, has been able to produce all necessary amino acids to create life) is not equivalent to it."From there the incredibly simple life forms would grown and evolve."To reiterate, there's no evidence that mutations are capable of accumulating indefinitely.
Debate: Is this universe created by solely natural processes?
Side: Yes.

God, by definition (specifically possessing the quality of "supernaturality", or non-physicality), is not bound by the laws of physics, including Thermodynamics.There existing definitions of imaginary entities does not lead to their existence. (If you're confused on how I could say that, search ontological arguments.)To reiterate, there's no evidence that mutations are capable of accumulating indefinitely.Really? Not "indefinitely", of course, because even matter is not eternal. It certainly can not keep accumulating, and thus can have no evidence.Impossible. Due to the second law of ThermodynamicsAh, yes, that's a conclusion I agree with. Only this much, however. Entropy can only ever increase (and does)What about searching about some matter-wave functions rather than jumping to heat death? Nothing is there such that "only it can" happen.but tossing a few planks into your backyard and building a shed are two entirely different things.Nothing "inherently" different, still. They're just different structures. In other words, life is inherently much more than the sum of its parts, "In other words"? Your best example is a structural difference? How does that make something "inherently much more"?
Debate: Is this universe created by solely natural processes?
Side: No.

After having read your arguments, I'm compelled to ponder whether you're actually interested in a rational discussion. Ignoring my statement with vague assertions, then baselessly claiming God to be "imaginary"? Disputing my statements based on nothing but slight ambiguities? Much as I love debate, I'll pass on this one. There's no possible productive outcome to be had here.
Debate: Is this universe created by solely natural processes?
Side: Yes.

Considering that most of your claim here is generic fluff, and the only specific one is what I answered already... unless you can read better than that, you shall get your pass.
Debate: Is this universe created by solely natural processes?
Side: No.

Thermodynamics that makes it all possible. Energy can not be created, by anyone or anything including GodWhat? LMAO
Debate: Is this universe created by solely natural processes?
Side: No.

Which simply means everything has always existed, there was no beginning. Things simply wereSo in infinite space and time, Darwinism would have manifested the highest possible being which would be immortal, omniscient, and omnipotent... As a matter of fact, it would have manifested every single thing that is possible. Getting around God is tough sledding either way you slice it.
Debate: Is this universe created by solely natural processes?
Side: Yes.

What about the possibility that at a certain level of development highly evolved beings invariably kill themselves off? Why is this not a possibility?
Debate: Is this universe created by solely natural processes?
Side: Yes.

It is a possibility, but inevitably they'd be replaced by beings who do not kill themselves off.
Debate: Is this universe created by solely natural processes?
Side: Yes.

if so why couldnt these beings be regularly surpassing one another in terms of who is currently most powerful? With infinite opportunity for gains in knowledge and power how can anyone be all powerful or all knowing? "all" could only apply to a finite domain..wouldnt you agree?
Debate: Is this universe created by solely natural processes?
Side: Yes.

1)They are of a collective conscience or hive mind.2)No two things are ever 100% identical. Thus, one has to be the greatest. That subtle difference would be what makes them indestructable.3)They replicate and repair faster than they can be destroyed and keep spreading the collective consciousness until they are replicating and repairing faster than is comprehendable.
Debate: Is this universe created by solely natural processes?
Side: Yes.

Fascinating.....though it didn't address (merely sidestepped) my challenges :)
Debate: Is this universe created by solely natural processes?
Side: Yes.

Not really. If reality is not infinite in history, then it just popped into existance one day. That would be called magic.If it is infinite, then that explains how a consciousness that is all powerful and eternal would exist. It would have never not been replicating or never not existing in the construct of infinity, and if it continues to spread throughout infinity, it only grows more powerful and faster by pure numbers of replications. And since it is the greatest nothing can catch it or defeat it. It would also destroy anything that might later pose any threat to it before it grows into anything substantial. Thus, only it is like itself or even close.
Debate: Is this universe created by solely natural processes?
Side: Yes.

Working from the assumption that reality is infinite, no being could completely spread throughout it or control it in a complete manner. It might be more powerful than any other being in its vicinity, but there would be no way of knowing if even greater beings might exist beyond the scope of its domain.
Debate: Is this universe created by solely natural processes?
Side: Yes.

It would if its alter ego conscience doubles were spreading across all other infinte parts of the universe and hive minding infinitely with each other.And if there was in theory, something beyond the "scope of its domain", there is no gurantee that anything else exists or can exist in said domain.
Debate: Is this universe created by solely natural processes?
Side: Yes.

a being can't be all powerful or all knowing in an infinite reality, only most powerful or knowledgeable within its specific domain.However powerful a being may be, in an infinite really, they couldnt even imagine a fraction of whats possible, because there isnt a totality.
Debate: Is this universe created by solely natural processes?
Side: No.

If evolution is true, Science is proving every day how impossible it is for Earth to be the only planet with intelligent life on it.They are discovering many millions of solar systems that are billions of years older than our own, and never one sign of life from any of them.Can you imagine no evolution occurring on billions of planets that are billions of years advanced to our own.... WITH NO INTELLIGENT LIFE SENDING RADIO WAVES THROUGH OUR GALAXIES?Science is disproving their own evolutionary theories as they keep discovering how large our universe is.
Debate: Is this universe created by solely natural processes?
Side: Yes.

Hello From:So, out of those millions of planets, why would God choose to populate only one of them?It IS true that we haven't discovered life out there yet.. But, that's NOT cause it isn't there.. It's cause we haven't yet developed the technology to find it.. But, we will.. It was only a few years ago that we discovered there were other galaxies than ours.Look.. There may NOT be other life out there besides our own.. But, it's a little too early to come to that conclusion.excon
Debate: Is this universe created by solely natural processes?
Side: No.

Hello ex convict, let me repeat..... it would be IMPOSSIBLE out of billions of planets and solar systems, that are billions of years older than our own, to not have intelligent life evolve as you say happened here on Earth.We would be bombarded with radio sgnals from life on other planets for the past billions of years flying through space. These people would be far more advanced then us and would have figured out space travel to our solar systems.Yes, God could have created life on other planets but if he did they would probably be around the same age as our own and it would take many milleniums for any signal to reach Earth.I'm telling you that of the two scenarios, God makes much more sense than the impossibility of no other life evolving on billions of planets and us not detecting some sort of signals from space by now.
Debate: Is this universe created by solely natural processes?
Side: Yes.

You can't say with certainty that it would be impossible. There is too much that we don't understand for us to jump to that conclusion. The universe is way too vast and large for us to assume anything. There might be intelligent life here now, but we do not recognize it's intelligence. Look at the vastly different forms of life on earth. We don't even know what is in our own oceans. We discover new animals all the time to this day. We haven't even uncovered what is on this planet. To say that life would've already contacted us by now or learned space travel is arrogant. We don't know what life can do because we don't even understand what life is at all.
Debate: Is this universe created by solely natural processes?
Side: No.

We are talking billions of years. They say we evolved in a few million years. To say that your magical missing link of the first single cell did not occur on billions of other planets billions of years ago IS IMPOSSIBLE IF EVOLUTION WERE TRUE.Out of billions of planets and solar systems, do you actually think Earth would have been the only planet that could have evolved intelligent life?I've got a bridge to sell you.
Debate: Is this universe created by solely natural processes?
Side: Yes.

Of course I don't think we are the only intelligent life out there. There's nothing to sell on that point. But theres definitely more evidence for evolution than the alternative. We dont fully understand life. We dont know how to create it. We dont really know what death means. The line between what we consider to be a living creature and not is blurry. There's definitely grey areas. We havent even discovered all of the life on this planet. We also don't understand intelligence. We act like we are special and chosen in this universe. That is so arrogant. We might not even recognize intelligence on another planet. It would be so foreign. We have barely had the chance to look. Do you know how much space there is?
Debate: Is this universe created by solely natural processes?
Side: Yes.

Hi there, I know I'm sort of intruding in your argument with ex. I apologize. I will be quick. The theory of evolution doesn't ensure the emergence of "intelligent" life. It doesn't ensure that humans will eventually be smart enough to do space travel. The theory says that life ( anything that can die ) has the capacity to do physical and behavioral changes in response to environmental change in order to survive. And I might be saying something incredibly stupid: why is it that the possible existence of God and the possible validity of evolution cannot coexist?. I understand that the Bible was written by God through Man. But I heard, some Bibles are considered more close the God's words than others.  The Holy Spirit revealed to the prophets the messages of Scripture. The writers of the Bible wrote not according to their own will or whim, but only as they were moved, or controlled, by the Spirit of God. The Bible is God's own book! Or it should be. It is possible for Man to pretend to hear God's voice. If that is possible, then it is also possible that every Bible could contain incorrect statements. I mean if the Bible was wrong it doesn't prove the non existence of God. Could it just mean that there were some idiots who thought or pretended to hear the voice of God?
Debate: Is this universe created by solely natural processes?
Side: Yes.

Christians are not the arrogant elites trying to separate any symbol of God on public land while indoctrinating our chidren in every public school with their evolution theory.ARE YOU STARTING TO GET THE DEIFFERENCE?I'm not trying to force you to believe in God. I'm trying to get the Left from ridiculing anyone who believes in God, and forcing their never ending changing theories onto our Americans. Theories are great, science is great, but until you have proof of something, SPARE US ALL YOUR THEORIES. Our children deserve better then being told that evolution is fact.Again, we are talking billions of planets!!!!!! How on Earth could you believe we would be the only intelligent life after many billions of years.
Debate: Is this universe created by solely natural processes?
Side: No.

So, out of those millions of planets, why would God choose to populate only one of themWho says they even exist? With the time it takes for their light to get to Earth, there is no guarantee that much of what we see isn't simply remnants of old experiments, God's former creations, or simply a designed loop. And for all we know they are inhabited by entities that are invisible to human eyes.
Debate: Is this universe created by solely natural processes?
Side: No.

So, out of those millions of planets, why would God choose to populate only one of themTo watch atheists scramble to explain the fermi paradox as reality gets bigger..and bigger...and bigger....
Debate: Is this universe created by solely natural processes?
Side: Yes.

So, out of those millions of planets, why would God choose to populate only one of themThis was actually a point in the theory i promised earlier.Has to do with age of earth, age of man evolution and adam(maths), condusiveness of earth comparing to other planets like mars: in terms of size, men will over populate it, amount of gravity there very poor transport unless extra speed many drivers may not be able to handle, Then mercury, venus hot temperatures, jupiter has hurricanes in the middle of the planet (It may contain us but we wont last), saturn and others pluto either cold or small or incondusive by other ways, good vegetation lands for food we eat. and many more only to prove man's existence on earth was planned.Then later attack evolution but all not worth it now.
Debate: Is this universe created by solely natural processes?
Side: No.

So, out of those millions of planets, why would God choose to populate only one of themTo watch Darwinists squirm as its process doesn't happen anywhere else in deep deep deep deep space...