azza1625/createdebate-arguments huggingface dataset:
Debate: is god true?
Side: no ,god is not true

Firstly, I did not speak merely of complexity. I spoke of obvious set-up and thought behind it.This is only obvious to a theist or deist, that which is not known does not give evidence to that which is made up. But, you persist in saying that my arguments are not true because you don't believe them, without giving any reason why you do not believe them besides saying that you would prefer it if He did not exist. As such, I will have to try a different approach.I don't believe them because there is no proof, none for the existence of God and none for any of these things that you say are attributed to him, you may as well have attributed them the the Flying Spaghetti Monster. I have not stated that I would prefer if God did not exist, you made that up.Knowing that you are a Christian that also believes in evolution can you answer me a few Questions?Why did God start us as replicating molecules, if we are the chosen race?Why was there so many mass extinctions along the way?Why did Christianity or even Judaism only come into existence in the last few thousand years?Why is only OK since then to worship only one God?I mean polytheism was perfectly acceptable before but not now.Why is that when something new comes along the churches view it with disgust and label it heresy until someone proves it without a shadow of a doubt?What happened to all the other Gods? Presumably they retired? Yea?Intelligent Design and Creationist science go against the teachings of the Bible, creating their own schism of the most splintered faith system in existence, redirecting and reshaping the ambiguous teachings so that it fits their ideology.I don't believe any of the Bible, some of the stories may be true but there is no proof outside of the bible itself, which no-one really knows if it is true word or not. The Gospels that were written well after the death of Jesus and the laughable old testament.Why did these people die:Because they were ideologists living in a less educated time. Religion was a primitive method to police the ignorant, it requires blind faith which I consider more dangerous than most weapons. Look at the suicide bombers in the middle east.All of these stories are more than likely to be greatly exaggerated.
Debate: is god true?
Side: yes, god is true

"Because they were ideologists living in a less educated time. Religion was a primitive method to police the ignorant, it requires blind faith which I consider more dangerous than most weapons. Look at the suicide bombers in the middle east." The Bible does not require blind faith at all. "Biblical faith is not “blind”—it’s supported by good science. The Bible teaches both that there are laws of nature (“ordinances of heaven and Earth“—Jeremiah 33:25) and that miracles happen, such as the resurrection of Christ. The idea that science goes against the Bible is therefore not a biblical concept. So we can accept the Bible on faith and a world where physical laws are a constant." Quoted source http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2006/04/07/biblical-faith-not-blind  Please feel free to read the rest of the article to gain more knowledge. "This is not the case. The word “science” is used in many ways. Many secular humanists try to redefine science as “naturalism”—the belief that nature is “all there is.” In other words, by attempting to equate “science” (knowledge) with “naturalism” (a secular belief) they exclude the possibility of miracles before they even examine the evidence. But normal (operational) science deals only with repeatable observable processes in the present, while origins science helps us to make educated guesses about origins in the past. Since the Bible has demonstrated itself to be accurate time and time again, we have knowledge from history that miracles have indeed occurred. Naturalism is not science; rather, naturalism is a fallacious philosophical bias. In fact, naturalism is actually incompatible with science as will be shown below. However, the miracles in Scripture are fully compatible with true science."
Debate: is god true?
Side: no ,god is not true

This is not the case. The word “science” is used in many ways. Many secular humanists try to redefine science as “naturalism”—the belief that nature is “all there is.” In other words, by attempting to equate “science” (knowledge) with “naturalism” (a secular belief) they exclude the possibility of miracles before they even examine the evidence.This is a strawman. Nobody is redefining science as naturalism, nor have they. Science does however exclude "miracles" in it's process of validation, although many things in science may seem miraculous. Science excludes the supernatural because it is not testable, nor falsifiable. The supernatural is not measurable nor does it obey the laws of physics, which is necessary to make scientific predictions.Science does not say that the supernatural does not exist, it simply cannot comment on the supernatural. The techniques utilized in science unfortunately are limited to the natural.Naturalism is not science; rather, naturalism is a fallacious philosophical bias.It's neither. Naturalism is a philosophy, which is not any more inherently biased than Supernaturalism or spiritualism. Despite your insistence.
Debate: is god true?
Side: yes, god is true

"Science does however exclude "miracles" in it's process of validation, although many things in science may seem miraculous. " That's not necessarily the case. Science is simply knowledge. When we get into observing and testing we do this by the scientific method. This typically rests in the realm of naturalism. Just because an event is supernatural doesn't mean it can't exist in science, that just means it doesn't apply to scientific method or naturalism. "Science does not say that the supernatural does not exist, it simply cannot comment on the supernatural. The techniques utilized in science unfortunately are limited to the natural."The techniques are limited to naturalism this is very true. The problem I have is when people say the Bible contradicts science. This is completely ignorant. Many people use naturalism and science to be synonymous with each other. Especially seeing how scientific method is only used toward naturalism. Science is knowledge and the method is used through observation and experiment. Can it not be said that an eyewitness is an observer? Perhaps the experimentation (or repeatable processes) could be the numerous miracles in the Bible that were observed? Whether you agree or not this hypothesis does have some validity. A science of supernatural occurrences can still be science, and not be limited by naturalism. Although the same natural laws apply, supernatural science will allow for miracles. Despite your pre-conceived notions of false eyewitness testimony, the shear amount of observers can't be ignored. Why would so many people lie? We see miraculous occurrences in Greek and Roman mythology, but none of those ideas are viewed as truth by anyone today.
Debate: is god true?
Side: no ,god is not true

That's not necessarily the case. Science is simply knowledge.No, science is a process. It is a search for knowledge using a specific method.When we get into observing and testing we do this by the scientific method. This typically rests in the realm of naturalism. Just because an event is supernatural doesn't mean it can't exist in science, that just means it doesn't apply to scientific method or naturalism.If it hasn't or can't be subjected to the scientific method, then it's not science. The supernatural cannot be subjected to scientific inquiry, because if there truly were an unseen intelligence causing a observable effect, these result wouldn't be consistent nor measurable. Nor would we be able to drawn any correlation betwixt the two. The problem I have is when people say the Bible contradicts scienceWhy is that?Especially seeing how scientific method is only used toward naturalism.Science tests the natural, because this is the only thing we know how to measure.Can it not be said that an eyewitness is an observer?I suppose, but not the kind that is useful in science. If an observation cannot be consistently reproduced and tested then it cannot be used in any scientific investigation. It's not simply enough that somebody saw something.Perhaps the experimentation (or repeatable processes) could be the numerous miracles in the Bible that were observedAnd how do you intend to do that?A science of supernatural occurrences can still be scienceNo it can't. For the reasons that I've already mentioned.We see miraculous occurrences in Greek and Roman mythology, but none of those ideas are viewed as truth by anyone today. So your argument is that it must be true because lots of people believe it?
Debate: is god true?
Side: yes, god is true

"No, science is a process. It is a search for knowledge using a specific method." You are wrong again. Science is the knowledge, the scientific method is the process to prove that knowledge. "If it hasn't or can't be subjected to the scientific method, then it's not science." Clarification is above this quote. "The supernatural cannot be subjected to scientific inquiry, because if there truly were an unseen intelligence causing a observable effect, these result wouldn't be consistent nor measurable. Nor would we be able to drawn any correlation betwixt the two." The scientific inquiry based on naturalism. Just because it is outside the realm of naturalism does not mean it is beyond science wholly. "I suppose, but not the kind that is useful in science. If an observation cannot be consistently reproduced and tested then it cannot be used in any scientific investigation. It's not simply enough that somebody saw something." According to naturalism. "No it can't. For the reasons that I've already mentioned." Yes it can for the reasons I mentioned. "So your argument is that it must be true because lots of people believe it?"No, what I am saying is there is an exorbitant amount of eyewitnesses to the supernatural accounts in the Bible. The fact that so many people still believe in these accounts has to bear some weight. The religions of old haven't lasted. Yet the oldest of them all (beginning in Judaism) has continued to grow even to this day. You can't simply shrug them off by saying "they just don't have any education" that is simply generalizing and itself uneducated.
Debate: is god true?
Side: no ,god is not true

Science is the knowledge, the scientific method is the process to prove that knowledge. Ahh, you are getting closer. The only correction I would make to the above is that science is not just any knowledge, it is specifically the knowledge acquired from the scientific method. And so if something hasn't or cannot be subjected to the scientific method then it cannot be considered science.The scientific inquiry based on naturalism. Just because it is outside the realm of naturalism does not mean it is beyond science whollyThat it is outside of what can be measured and tested, does however mean it is beyond science. The supernatural does not obey natural laws or explainable through natural phenomena. I don't understand why you so ardently insist on being wrong about this. I am the expert, trust what I say to you.You cannot amalgamate your supernatural beliefs with the scientific. No matter how incessantly you try. The supernatural is and always has been a matter of philosophy. This is the problem with neo-evangelistic movements, they're always trying to use science to "prove" what they accept upon faith. They do not see the problem with this.According to naturalism.No, according to real science. Naturalism says nothing about what is valid in science nor is it concerned with such.Yes it can for the reasons I mentioned.You did not convey any reasons, you merely postulated an unknown undiscovered method of testing foregone 'miracles'. Everything I have expressed up until this point explains why this would not be possible. As is usually the case, it goes in one ear, and out the other. Or you are simply in denial, that some of the things you believe cannot be supported by science.No, what I am saying is there is an exorbitant amount of eyewitnesses to the supernatural accounts in the Bible. The fact that so many people still believe in these accounts has to bear some weight.Exorbitant? You are expanding your vocabulary! Glad to hear it.Back to the discussion. Now whether these people all actually saw what they believe they saw, or whether there is some grand illusion created by their own minds, either way it is something worth being studied. That so many people experience the same or similar conditions means that there is a cause of some kind. It is not always the 'claimed' cause, however.There are defense mechanism programed into our minds, that have helped us survive for over 2 millennium, but as a result distort our perceptions of reality. One of these being anthropomorphism. The fact that so many people still believe in these accounts has to bear some weight. The religions of old haven't lasted.What does the age of a belief have to do with it's veracity? Yet the oldest of them all (beginning in Judaism) has continued to grow even to this day.The oldest of them being Vedic Hinduism. This being supported by actual historical evidence.
Debate: is god true?
Side: yes, god is true

"Vedic sanskrit texts such as the Rigveda dates to about 1500 BC. The Torah was written 1312 BC"I admit I was wrong about Judaism being the oldest religion. What I was trying to say is the worship of the God of creation is older then all other religions. I quoted the Bible in my previous post displaying the genealogy of Jesus Christ, which dates back 6,000 years. Whether or not you believe these people to have lived or not the time is there. What is the historical evidence of the Rigveda? You have to admit the only proof we have of certain historical figures is the stories we have of them. This is both Christian and secular alike. Much of the evidence is in writings much like the Bible. In fact we have less evidence proving Socrates ever lived. http://www.freethoughtpedia.com/wiki/Socrates_vs_Jesus  "Columbia Encyclopedia:" I would like to resubmit my source for the definition of science. Based on the fact it is the afore mentioned superior source for definitions in the english language. In which by its own words does not limit science to only naturalism or social. But merely its basic term is an understanding or knowledge. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/science  "It's not my theory, nor is it just one theory, You should read up on Psychoanthropology. Parts of our cerebral functioning can be traced to our neolithic past. Our very way of thinking was guided by human evolution." This is not a theory backed by any evidence. You would have to believe the Bible being true in its supernatural phenomena for you to believe this theory. It has the same evidence supporting it, conjecture at its highest. I am surprised you support it. I was also expecting you to state your expertise. You said in your previous post you were an expert I am curious about your credentials.
Debate: is god true?
Side: no ,god is not true

I admit I was wrong about Judaism being the oldest religion. What I was trying to say is the worship of the God of creation is older then all other religions.By "God of creation" I assume you mean Yahweh, but you must understand that other religions have their own gods some of which they regard as the creator. But even if I were to concede your point. Suppose people were worshiping Yahweh before any other deity, how does this translate in terms of veracity of your Holy book? What is the historical evidence of the Rigveda?The Rigveda is just one part of the larger Vedas, the rigveda does not contain the origins myths, it is more of a devotional text. I do not believe in the Hindu origin myths anymore than I believe in the Christian origin myths. They are both religions. You have to admit the only proof we have of certain historical figures is the stories we have of them. This is both Christian and secular alike. Much of the evidence is in writings much like the Bible. In fact we have less evidence proving Socrates ever lived.I would like to resubmit my source for the definition of science. Based on the fact it is the afore mentioned superior source for definitions in the english language. In which by its own words does not limit science to only naturalism or social. But merely its basic term is an understanding or knowledge.It sounds like, from what you are saying here, that you are only using the first definition from this source. Definition #3 (Part B) seems to contradict what you are saying.We cannot simply pick and choose which definitions best suit our arguments. It's important that while sometimes we may be using the same name/term to describe different subjects/actions.An athlete who triumphantly defeats his opposition, could be said to have murdered the opposition, but this is not the same as murder as it would be used in a legal technical sense.In this way it's important to make a distinction between informal and technical usages of words. This is not a theory backed by any evidence.What theory?I was also expecting you to state your expertise.I have a science degree in applied Social psychology.
Debate: is god true?
Side: no ,god is not true

The Bible does not require blind faith at all.Yes it does, have you ever seen God? No. Therefore you worship without any verifiable proof, Blind Faith. Biblical faith is not “blind”—it’s supported by good science.As opposed to bad science is it? The type that shows a lot of the Bible to be lies.The Bible teaches both that there are laws of nature (“ordinances of heaven and Earth“—Jeremiah 33:25) and that miracles happen, such as the resurrection of Christ.Can one miracle be proven, no, do we know that Jesus rose from the dead, no. All we have to go on is the Bible and that is not proof.The idea that science goes against the Bible is therefore not a biblical concept. So we can accept the Bible on faith and a world where physical laws are a constant." You have to accept the bible on faith, you have no other choice. What evidence is there of miracles, science does mean knowledge, but it is also an academic discipline that deals with answering question through the scientific method, without something to test the scientific method can not be applied. Therefore miracles cannot be accepted scientifically.Since the Bible has demonstrated itself to be accurate time and time again, we have knowledge from history that miracles have indeed occurred.Like Noah's flood, right? The Bible is not historical fact it is at best the opinions of men who were ahead of their time. This is not evidence of miracles. However, the miracles in Scripture are fully compatible with true science."How exactly?
Debate: is god true?
Side: yes, god is true

"Yes it does, have you ever seen God? No. Therefore you worship without any verifiable proof, Blind Faith." What is the verifiable proof to you? We have the word of God through his prophets. We have eyewitness testimony to the many miracles in the Bible. We have the same amount of evidence that is presented for many historical figures (written word, eyewitnesses, and historical accounts of similar occurrences). This is not blind faith at all. "Can one miracle be proven, no, do we know that Jesus rose from the dead, no. All we have to go on is the Bible and that is not proof." How would you validate a miracle anyway? The only way you could is to be an eyewitness yourself or the testimony of an eyewitness. Miracles can't be tested and repeated in an experimental fashion. The laws of natural science doesn't apply, because a miracle is a direct violation of those laws. That's why it's a miracle and not an ordinary occurrence. The eyewitnesses testified to the resurrection of Jesus. "However, the apostles were not the only ones who saw the risen Jesus. Mary Magdalene and Mary the mother of James were the first (Mark 16). Paul lists several witnesses in 1 Corinthians 15:3-8. Among Jesus' disciples, there were 500 other witnesses. And the Jewish Law of Moses required at least two or three witnesses (Deuteronomy 17:6)." Quoted source http://www.allaboutjesuschrist.org/witness-to-the-resurrection-faq.htm  "What evidence is there of miracles, science does mean knowledge, but it is also an academic discipline that deals with answering question through the scientific method, without something to test the scientific method can not be applied. Therefore miracles cannot be accepted scientifically." In other posts I have addressed what science is, in fact the scientific method applies only to the natural sciences. However, science as a whole does not depend on the scientific method. "Like Noah's flood, right? The Bible is not historical fact it is at best the opinions of men who were ahead of their time. This is not evidence of miracles." Noah's flood did occur. Why do we see billions of dead things buried in rock and mud all over this world. Especially so well preserved fossils. We observe today the decay and death of many things. However, we don't 'observe' mass extinctions of buried animals in rock layers today. "How exactly?" The miracles referred to here are ones of providence. Which are temporarily suspensions in natural laws. They are miracles that by the time and magnitude demonstrate a divine intervention. This is different then miracles of creation which violate natural laws (creation of new matter and energy). These miracles are for example creation of the universe, creation of all living things, and the resurrection of Jesus Christ.
Debate: is god true?
Side: yes, god is true

Good grief, you're annoying. Again, I invite you to study on your own. You either forgot everything you learned about God or didn't pay attention in the first place. Unless you simply choose to ignore what you learned, or were not taught very well. Before you argue, talking about definite and indefinite, study it for yourself and make sure you're right. You accuse me of being arrogant and tunnel-minded for saying that what I believe to be the truth is the truth. I can say the same to you. You are arrogant and tunnel-minded for saying that atheism is the truth. It's dumb to accuse someone for not believing in something that is not a part of their faith, or a part of yours. It's like accusing an African of not knowing Japanese, assuming that all people who don't know English speak the same language. I do not believe in Islam, because Islam is not the truth. Different religions are DIFFERENT, and yes, I say that Catholicism is the only true one, because it is. Your argument is not worth responding to in full because you are a narrow-minded fool who is himself full of all of the vices he points out in other people. If you wish to know my side of things, read my other debates. I know your side of things already, even though I do not agree with them. Explaining faith to you is like trying to explain how to use the internet to a stubborn old lady who refuses technology. You don't know how much it could improve your life, and you don't want to try to understand. I implore your to research.
Debate: is god true?
Side: yes, god is true

Sorry if I offend you. I respond to your insults with insults, it is a bad habit of mine. I had actually intended to drop this all together, but I have this little problem with persistence. I can't walk away from a fight.