azza1625/createdebate-arguments huggingface dataset:
Debate: Does God exist?
Side: No

Belief in God does not impede one's ability to find the truth. Explain to me how there could be a contradiction. Science progresses from our ability to reduce phenomena into models that predict behaviour. In addition, as we learn more about the universe these models start to relate to each other, revealing symmetry in nature.God is the opposite. God works by taking a phenomenon and associating a complex, incomprehensible entity with it. It doesn't try to reduce the phenomenon down into smaller, more digestible parts, instead it invites that we dress god with more complex assumptions, in order to try and make it work in the minds of people. God produces no predictions for nature, god doesn't increase our understanding of how nature works.The classic example is life. When we didn't know how life came to be this way, god was invoked as the creator of life with no explanation as to how. Then more was added to god, he is merciful, he is punishing us with death for our sins, etc. Science on the other hand ignored god and discovered evolution and abiogenesis, two discoveries that allow us to understand how life changes, and that there may be more life in the universe.In other words, god violates the parsimonious and explanatory nature of science.I've heard the arguments before, but I want to understand why you are so adamant on disproving something that can't be disproved.I'm not interested in disproving god. God is an incoherent concept that collapse on its own. I'm interested in attacking bad (as in poor reasoning) arguments.
Debate: Does God exist?
Side: yes

"In other words, god violates the parsimonious and explanatory nature of science."The reason God and science don't contradict each other is simple, though. God is supernatural and science is natural. Natural phenomena can be predicted, manipulated, studied, etc. Supernatural phenomena cannot. But there are plenty of people like me, who understand that God is not a crutch to explain things that are too complex. Rather, we believe that He has little control over the world in which we live, other than in a psychological sense.
Debate: Does God exist?
Side: No

The reason God and science don't contradict each other is simple, though. God is supernatural and science is natural. Right. As long as you maintain this distinction.Natural phenomena can be predicted, manipulated, studied, etc. Supernatural phenomena cannot. Certo.But there are plenty of people like me, who understand that God is not a crutch to explain things that are too complex. Rather, we believe that He has little control over the world in which we live, other than in a psychological sense.This is deism.If you compare the deistic universe and atheistic universe, you will find that the deistic universe requires at least one assumption more than the atheistic universe. Therefore it is less likely to be valid in comparison. This is Occam's razor.If you try to use your deistic god to explain anything in the universe, you've crossed into contradiction with science. So remember this the next time you wish to invoke god to explain the start of the universe, that you are violate the parsimonious and explanatory nature of science by shoehorning god into the problem.
Debate: Does God exist?
Side: yes

I'm not interested in disproving god. God is an incoherent concept that collapse on its own. I'm interested in attacking bad (as in poor reasoning) arguments.You mean, by using your own poor reasoned arguments? You haven't made a single argument in any of the replies you sent me so far that went past bare assertions.
Debate: Does God exist?
Side: No

You mean, by using your own poor reasoned arguments? You haven't made a single argument in any of the replies you sent me so far that went past bare assertions.Creationists are not a threat to my knowledge, and never admit defeat anyway; That is why I don't bother listing academic references, and find it enough to explain errors using metaphor, or simply listing them.If I enter a challenging debate or one with people who are open minded, I will often list sources to facts that are contestable.
Debate: Does God exist?
Side: No

Not really if you read the post I disputed, I am aware that there is no way of proving either way. I was simply asking for a fact from a person that posted "The fact that God exists" as an answer to Does God exist
Debate: Does God exist?
Side: No

I can, I have, I will. http://www.createdebate.com/debate/show/ What_is_the_best_way_to_show_these_principles_as_contradictory
Debate: Does God exist?
Side: No reason to believe

It is not necessary to present evidence for the nonexistence of something. The burden of proof lies with the person who is making a claim, and atheists aren't necessarily claiming that god doesn't exist, but instead are claiming that they don't accept the hypothesis that god exists. In other words, atheism is a negative response to a positive claim made by theism. Therefore, the default position is nonbelief. Otherwise it would be logical to believe in unicorns, Santa, and Bigfoot.
Debate: Does God exist?
Side: No

the facts? what facts? please give links or proper evidence before making such statements.
Debate: Does God exist?
Side: yes

Here is proof there has to be a god - or a totally independant being if you are really stingy.Everything in this universe is winding down. Everything - everything is dependant on something else. We are dependant on Earth and the axel tilt, orbit, blah blah blah, so there has to be something (someONE acording to believers) in the centre of it all, dependant on nothing - totally independant, or the whole universe would collapse in on it's self. why hasn't it? Because there is a god.
Debate: Does God exist?
Side: No

The universe is destined to collapse on itself in the next few billion years, so your argument is invalid.
Debate: Does God exist?
Side: No

if god were real he wouln't have made you so ugly .
Debate: Does God exist?
Side: yes

What baffles me most is how a website where people are coming because they claim to be willing to have rational discussions can have this kind of comment (a mere insult with no arguments added to it) upvoted 3 times. I am not sure if I am sadder for you (who thinks that this was a good response) or for the people that liked your response. Allow me to downvote you and undo some of the damage.
Debate: Does God exist?
Side: yes

That is a sad reply this just means the other guy you were debating with has won because you obviously cannot come up with a better answer than that.
Debate: Does God exist?
Side: No

You confuse facts with faiths. The faiths say there is a god. But surely not all of these religions can be right. Factual matters become more unified over time, faith matters become more divided over time.
Debate: Does God exist?
Side: No

You know out of the four religions named, three follow the same God.
Debate: Does God exist?
Side: No

oh excellent, you've proven that you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about
Debate: Does God exist?
Side: No

"the facts of the Bible complement each other"you only need to simply type into google "bible contradictions" to be assulted with a array of results. if god is real, in any shape or form, i belive he dosnt give a rats ass, or he is completely incompetent http://uncyclopedia.wikia.com/wiki/Church_of_God_the_Wholly_Incompetent http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jim_meritt/bible-contradictions.html http://www.project-reason.org/gallery3/image/102/
Debate: Does God exist?
Side: yes

if god is real, in any shape or form, i belive he dosnt give a rats ass, or he is completely incompetent And your point is? Competency is a criteria for existence?
Debate: Does God exist?
Side: No

it means i believe he wouldn't have bothered with any divine intervention, ever. or if he did, it would have been retarded....well actually...now that i look at the bible....
Debate: Does God exist?
Side: yes

well actually...now that i look at the bible....Now that you look at the Bible... ? Care to elaborate?
Debate: Does God exist?
Side: No

"When men strive together one with another, and the wife of the one draweth near for to deliver her husband out of the hand of him that smiteth him, and putteth forth her hand, and taketh him by the secrets: Then thou shalt cut off her hand, thine eye shall not pity her" - Deuteronomy 15:11-12"to teh women he said: i will greatly increase your pain in childbearing: with pain you will give birth to children. your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you" -Genesis 3:16If a betrothed virgin is raped in the city and doesn't cry out loud enough, then "the men of the city shall stone her to death." (Deuteronomy)Heaven is to be inhabited by 144,000 virgin men who have not been "defiled" by women. (RE 14:1-4) [One wonders how this squares with God's command to, "Be fruitful and multiply...(Genesis )](war or peace?)EXO 15:3 The LORD is a man of war: the LORD is his name.ROM 15:33 Now the God of peace be with you all. Amen.
Debate: Does God exist?
Side: yes

Yes certainly. How can you deny the existence of God after seeing the many wonderful creations in this world. Where did water come from, where did trees come from? They do not just appear from no where. why is the sky blue? how can anyone answer that except we believe that there is a God who creates all these.
Debate: Does God exist?
Side: No

Yes certainly. How can you deny the existence of God after seeing the many wonderful creations in this world. Where did water come from, where did trees come from? They do not just appear from no where. why is the sky blue? how can anyone answer that except we believe that there is a God who creates all these.Nature made these things, not god. Besides, you're just begging for an infinite recursion problem where god requires a creator, and his creator needs a creator and so on.
Debate: Does God exist?
Side: yes

"Nature made these things, not god" - INCORRECT!!!!!!!!!!What I hate is, in a science lesson when children ask things like "Miss, who created water?" and the answer is "It was a chemical reaction which occurred during the big bang." The big bang did not happen. God created the world. Saying that a collision created life, emotion, death, has the probability of a metal factory exploding and creating a BMW with leather seats and an extra big boot. Look at the complexity of the human body. The talent, emotion, power to think, look at the nervous system, the skeleton. Open the curtains and look out side. If you see a rural setting, don't tell me God didn't create that, if you see an urban landscape, don't tell me the big bang created people with the ability to design and create buildings and the materials to make them. and the factories to make the materials, and the materials to make the factories etc...Just face the facts, Nature did NOT make these things, GOD DID!
Debate: Does God exist?
Side: No

Just face the facts, Nature did NOT make these things, GOD DID!Besides, you're just begging for an infinite recursion problem where god requires a creator, and his creator needs a creator and so on.Who made god?What I hate is, in a science lesson when children ask things like "Miss, who created water?" and the answer is "It was a chemical reaction which occurred during the big bang."I hate people who use the language poorly. The answer to your question is "No one" because no person created all the water.Water is a very simple molecule that forms from oxygen and dihydrogen. It would exist in nebulas because exploded stars create the oxygen from fusion.The big bang did not happen.Incorrect.Read a science book.God created the world.Wrong again. Gravity made earth from exploded stardust.Saying that a collision created life, emotion, death, has the probability of a metal factory exploding and creating a BMW with leather seats and an extra big boot. Nature isn't random on our scale.Look at the complexity of the human body. The talent, emotion, power to think, look at the nervous system, the skeleton. Open the curtains and look out side.Snowflakes are complex too. Nature made them, just as it made your human body with evolution.If you see a rural setting, don't tell me God didn't create that, if you see an urban landscape, don't tell me the big bang created people with the ability to design and create buildings and the materials to make them. and the factories to make the materials, and the materials to make the factories etc...You hit the nail on the head, sort of. The big bang lead to a universe which could make planets and evolve life intelligent enough to build things. Just accept it instead of living in denial and you'll join reality with the rest of us.
Debate: Does God exist?
Side: yes

Who made god?For this question to be valid, you need to prove the premise that God needs to have a creator. Can you?Water is a very simple molecule that forms from oxygen and dihydrogen. It would exist in nebulas because exploded stars create the oxygen from fusion.Hardly enough to justify all water in the Universe, given the fact that water molecules are destroyed by UV radiation.Gravity made earth from exploded stardust.There is no dichotomy between both statements.Nature isn't random on our scale.True. It is far more random and thus much harder to succeed by random chance.Snowflakes are complex too.Snowflake formation follows a specific law and never existe in a form that is not constrained by this law. Where did this law come from?The big bang lead to a universe which could make planets and evolve life intelligent enough to build things. Conditions for the appearance of life are not enough reason for the appearance of life, just a necessary one of them. The Big Bang theory alone fails to provide sufficient reason to assume a godless genesis.
Debate: Does God exist?
Side: No

For this question to be valid, you need to prove the premise that God needs to have a creator. Can you?It's not my burden since god is your assertion. You would need to prove that god is uncreated. However the premises of an argument already give us an answer. If everything requires a creator, then god requires a creator being as a part of everything. If nothing requires a creator (at least in the implied creation ex nilho sense) then the universe was uncreated and is the most elegant solution via Occam's razor.Hardly enough to justify all water in the Universe, given the fact that water molecules are destroyed by UV radiation.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abundance_of_the_chemical_elements#Abundance_of_elements_in_the_Universe Hydrogen and Oxygen account for the fist and third most abundant elements, respectively. There's your answer for where the water comes from.There is no dichotomy between both statements.Gravity accounts for the earth's formation, god is superfluous. Look up Occam's razor.True. It is far more random and thus much harder to succeed by random chance.Nature is random on the quantum scale, but on our scale there is uniformity. The fact that we're here however makes randomness arguments moot.Snowflake formation follows a specific law and never existe in a form that is not constrained by this law. Where did this law come from?Just as life follows heredity, mutation, competition for resources, and natural selection, ergo evolution.The laws of the universe formed at the earliest moments of the big bang. This is still an active area of research, and why we build particle accelerators.Conditions for the appearance of life are not enough reason for the appearance of life, just a necessary one of them. The Big Bang theory alone fails to provide sufficient reason to assume a godless genesis.There is no reason in this universe. The laws exist in a way that is conducive to life, and it may or may not form. We are here, which shows the the laws of nature allowed life to form on a planet at least once, although it is probably much more frequent considering the size of the universe.God is an assertion born of ignorance.
Debate: Does God exist?
Side: yes

It's not my burden since god is your assertionActually, yes, it is. Again, can you prove the premise that God needs to have a creator? You're making a claim (God needs a creator). You have Burden of Proof.If everything requires a creator, then god requires a creator being as a part of everything. The premise that everything requires a creator relies on the Principle of Causality (everything that is has a cause). The Principle of Causality has been demonstrated to apply to everything in this Universe, but has not been demonstrated to apply beyond it. So unless you can offer a successful demonstration that it applies to beyond it, I have no reason to believe that God requires a creator as well. Again, your argument relies on baseless premises.If nothing requires a creator This premise is contradicted by the Principle of Causality (and common sense as well). Be wary of universal premises as they are easily contradicted by counter examples. Your reasoning is unsound.is the most elegant solution via Occam's razor.You're misapplying Occam's Razor. Please learn how it works before attemping to use it.Hydrogen and Oxygen account for the fist and third most abundant elements, respectively. There's your answer for where the water comes from.They still need to be together and unbound to form water. The fact that they are abundant means nothing if they are an Universe apart from each other. Mere existence of hydrogen and oxygen is not enough to account for all the water, even if they are abundant.Gravity accounts for the earth's formation, god is superfluous. Look up Occam's razor.Yet, there is no dichotomy between both statements. There is nothing preventing God using gravity to form the Earth. The statement can be true regardless if God exists or not, and is thus, tautological. Tautological arguments are usually result from circular reasoning.The fact that we're here however makes randomness arguments moot.You're affirming the consequence. This is unsound reasoning.Just as life follows heredity, mutation, competition for resources, and natural selection, ergo evolution.This statement seem to have nothing to do with the question at hand. What is your point here?The laws of the universe formed at the earliest moments of the big bang. So is said, but why?There is no reason in this universe. The laws exist in a way that is conducive to life, and it may or may not form. We are here, which shows the the laws of nature allowed life to form on a planet at least once, although it is probably much more frequent considering the size of the universe.Your statement fails to address my point. My point was The Big Bang theory alone fails to provide sufficient reason to assume a godless genesis. We are here, and so what? What does it change the fact that the mere reason that the Universe can support life doesn't mean it will?
Debate: Does God exist?
Side: No

Actually, yes, it is. Again, can you prove the premise that God needs to have a creator? You're making a claim (God needs a creator). You have Burden of Proof.Using the argument from design as a base:Complex things have a maker.The universe is complex.The universe was designed.(Paraphrased mind you)Complex things have a maker.God is complex.God was designed.The premise that everything requires a creator relies on the Principle of Causality (everything that is has a cause). The Principle of Causality has been demonstrated to apply to everything in this Universe, but has not been demonstrated to apply beyond it. So unless you can offer a successful demonstration that it applies to beyond it, I have no reason to believe that God requires a creator as well. Again, your argument relies on baseless premises.What is everything? Everything is omni-inclusive.Now, what is the universe? Everything. The universe must include everything, there can be no "beyond."Is god a part of everything? Then he has a cause.You're misapplying Occam's Razor. Please learn how it works before attemping to use it.I guess you aren't keeping up with my reasoning. It was:(If things can pop into existence, creation ex nilho)God->creation->universeorCreation->universeGod is always trimmed away by occam's razor as an unnecessary assumption.They still need to be together and unbound to form water. The fact that they are abundant means nothing if they are an Universe apart from each other. Mere existence of hydrogen and oxygen is not enough to account for all the water, even if they are abundant.Why do to continue to argue from incredulity?Yet, there is no dichotomy between both statements. There is nothing preventing God using gravity to form the Earth. The statement can be true regardless if God exists or not, and is thus, tautological. Tautological arguments are usually result from circular reasoning.I said superfluous, not dichotomy.This statement seem to have nothing to do with the question at hand. What is your point here?Emergence arises from smaller behaviours, accounting where laws come from.So is said, but why?There is no why, only a how.Your statement fails to address my point. My point was The Big Bang theory alone fails to provide sufficient reason to assume a godless genesis. We are here, and so what? What does it change the fact that the mere reason that the Universe can support life doesn't mean it will?There is no reason, I told you that. Your question is one born out of looking for reason when there is none.
Debate: Does God exist?
Side: yes

Complex things have a maker.God is complex.God was designed.Interesting. So you understand enough about the nature of God to claim that He is complex? Can you back up this claim? Or this just another bare assertion fallacy?Moreso, what if God needs a creator? How does this supports your position that the Universe does not need a creator?Now, what is the universe? Everything. The universe must include everything, there can be no "beyond."Your reasoning is so unsound that it took me a while to understand what was wrong with it. It relies on yet more unproven premises (for which you are under burden of proof as well), which are, 'there can be no beyond,' and 'God is part of everything.' Can you back up those claim, or is this just more of your bare assertions? If you can't, then you must retract it, and your conclusion is incorrect.God is, by definition, supernatural. He does not need to be part of the Universe, as everything contained by the Universe is natural.I guess you aren't keeping up with my reasoning.I tried to find any reasoning, and I couldn't. Your argument is basically "Occam's Razor! Hah, I am right and you are wrong!."The correct expression is creation ex nihilo, by the way, not nilho, and although spelling mistakes don't really detract from the argument, you've made it twice, so please correct yourself in the future.The Occam Razor states two things: Among many unsupported statements, the one that makes the least assumptions is the likeliest to be correct.None of the statements are well supported. It means that you can claim that your statement is likelier to be correct (I disagree, you make a lot of assumptions that you ignore) because it makes less assumptions, but then you jump from that to claim that your statement is then the correct one. And claim Occam's Razor to back it up.Why do to continue to argue from incredulity?I could ask you the same question about God. You demand evidence for my claims, I am demanding evidence for yours. It is a fair game. The idea of an Universe self-creating itself is as outrageous as you claim that the idea of God is.Emergence arises from smaller behaviours, accounting where laws come from.Explain. I do not think you know what you are talking about.There is no why, only a how.Ah, a nihilist. So, there is no reason for the Universe to have laws?My point was The Big Bang theory alone fails to provide sufficient reason to assume a godless genesis.There is no reason, I told you that.Interesting proposition. If the Big Bang alone fails to provide sufficient reason to assume a godless genesis, and there is no further reasons to add, then a godless genesis can not be assumed. Are you aware that you are arguing my point for me?I believe you are mistaking the meaning of the word reason* in my proposition. You should understand what the Principle of Sufficient Reason states before attempting to argue further.