azza1625/createdebate-arguments huggingface dataset:
Debate: Is the Christian God evil?
Side: Yep

They where nephilimIncluding the animals?Genesis 6What the heck? Everything is going fine, and all of a sudden God sees wickedness. That sounds exactly like reverse beer goggles.
Debate: Is the Christian God evil?
Side: Nope

Including the animals?Of the area where the flood occurred?What the heck? Everything is going fine, and all of a sudden God sees wickedness. That sounds exactly like reverse beer goggles.Well having humans half-human/half-demon hybrids probably won't end up too well.....
Debate: Is the Christian God evil?
Side: Yep

Of the area where the flood occurred?The entire world? That would cover all the animals in water, right?Well having humans half-human/half-demon hybrids probably won't end up too well.....I guess I missed the half demon part because the quoted text makes no mention of demons.
Debate: Is the Christian God evil?
Side: Nope

The entire world? That would cover all the animals in water, right?Whoever said it was the whole world?I guess I missed the half demon part because the quoted text makes no mention of demonsThe sons of God(s).
Debate: Is the Christian God evil?
Side: Yep

Whoever said it was the whole world?Bible, try to keep up.The sons of God(s).So, God is a demon?
Debate: Is the Christian God evil?
Side: Nope

Bible, try to keep up.Where does it say that?So, God is a demon?No but that is the same word used in Job 1:6King James Version (KJV)6 Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the Lord, and Satan came also among them.
Debate: Is the Christian God evil?
Side: Yep

Where does it say that?The part about the flood.No but that is the same word used inJob 1:6King James Version (KJV)6 Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the Lord, and Satan came also among them.So, Satan is nearby and that makes the sons of God demons. Doesn't make sense.
Debate: Is the Christian God evil?
Side: Nope

Murdering of 99.999% of the Earth population, for starts.He did that because people were sinning and were doing evil instead of good. Therefore what God did was just because He got rid of evil. What's the matter with you? Can an evil being lie?God isn't evil and He didn't lie.
Debate: Is the Christian God evil?
Side: Yep

He did that because people were sinning and were doing evil instead of good. Therefore what God did was just because He got rid of evil. Even the squirrels?God isn't evil and He didn't lie.I tried to rescue from being stupid, but it didn't work.
Debate: Is the Christian God evil?
Side: Nope

Even the squirrels?facepalm They were on the ark with Noah and his family.
Debate: Is the Christian God evil?
Side: Yep

facepalm Every single squirrel made it on the ark? Were there only 2 squirrels in existence at the time?
Debate: Is the Christian God evil?
Side: Nope

Noah only took 2 of each kind of male and female animal that was around during that time.
Debate: Is the Christian God evil?
Side: Yep

I think you mean one of each kind of male animal and one of each kind of female animal... right?
Debate: Is the Christian God evil?
Side: Yep

Which Means You Are Claiming That The Entire Squirrel Population Was 2 Squirrels Before The Flood. Don't You Think There Was More Than 2?
Debate: Is the Christian God evil?
Side: Yep

"Now, O Lord GOD, You are God, and Your words are truth, (2 Samuel 7:28)"Hmmmm."O LORD, You have deceived me and I was deceived (Jeremiah 20:7)"
Debate: Is the Christian God evil?
Side: Yep

What about those verses?
Debate: Is the Christian God evil?
Side: Yep

The first verse states that God speaks only words of the truth.The second verse states that God lied to someone.
Debate: Is the Christian God evil?
Side: Yep

Again just like any other non-believer on here you take things out of context and you don't know what is going on because you simply picked and chose a verse. The second verse doesn't state God lied to him. In Jeremiah, he is complaining to God about how people aren't listening to the prophecies and how he is being ridiculed.
Debate: Is the Christian God evil?
Side: Yep

You have just spoken about his lament that comes after his stating of deception by God, instead of addressing the actual main part of the verse in question. "You deceived me, Lord, and I was deceived"He says 'you' addressing God, 'you deceived' so he states that God had performed the action of deception (deception means 'to lie or mislead' or to act with dishonesty) 'you deceived me' Jeremiah states that God has taken an action of dishonesty upon Jeremiah, 'you have deceived me, lord' Jeremiah further states that it is the Lord God that took this action upon him 'you have deceived me, lord, and I have been deceived' Jeremiah admits that God's action of dishonesty had mislead him. Jeremiah was mislead by God.
Debate: Is the Christian God evil?
Side: Yep

That is the word that is supposedly coming from the source, why do you naively assume it is true?
Debate: Is the Christian God evil?
Side: Nope

The evidence that I have researched that supports it.
Debate: Is the Christian God evil?
Side: Nope

How can something that doesn't exist, be evil ?
Debate: Is the Christian God evil?
Side: Yep

For all we know the debate name could be highlighting a name of a fictional character. It hasn't specified.
Debate: Is the Christian God evil?
Side: Yep

Duh.
Debate: Is the Christian God evil?
Side: Nope

There is no good or evil, but only God .
Debate: Is the Christian God evil?
Side: Nope

If Christians believe in a God that isn't evil, he must not be evil...
Debate: Is the Christian God evil?
Side: Nope

First, there is no such thing as the Christian God. There is one God and He has revealed himself to our world through prophets and apostles. And everything we know of God verifies that God is holy. God is good and merciful.
Debate: Is the Christian God evil?
Side: Yep

What are all the other gods then? What makes your god the god? Other than your subjective and distorted personal beliefs.Everything we know of your God does not verify that God is holy, good, and merciful.
Debate: Is the Christian God evil?
Side: Nope

I'm not talking about gods of any religion. I'm talking about the ultimate God who has revealed Himself in time. There are objective arguments to conclude an ultimate God, so it is not my subjective and distorted belief."Everything we know of your God does not verify that God is holy, good, and merciful."You don't know anything about God and therefore cannot reach that conclusion.
Debate: Is the Christian God evil?
Side: Yep

I'm not talking about gods of any religion. I'm talking about the ultimate God who has revealed Himself in time.My point stands. You assert to know of the ultimate God because of some purported revelations. This negates the legitimacy of other peoples' interpretation and understanding of the ultimate God. There is no reason your ultimate God is any better than any other persons understanding of God. So, I ask again, what makes you correct?There are objective arguments to conclude an ultimate God, so it is not my subjective and distorted belief.What exactly are these objective arguments for the existence of an ultimate God? You will understand, I hope, when I do not simply take you on your word that they exist.You don't know anything about God and therefore cannot reach that conclusion.Just because I do not believe in God does not mean that I know nothing about God and am incapable of holding a legitimate opinion on the subject of God.
Debate: Is the Christian God evil?
Side: Nope

There are several objective arguments that verify the ultimate God. They include:1. Kalam argument2. Fine tuning3. Morality4. Free will5. NDEs
Debate: Is the Christian God evil?
Side: Yep

1. Kalam ArgumentAssumes the universe has a beginning. Further assumes that such a beginning demands a divine cause. For your point to have any validity and for me to refute further, you need to elaborate on this with actual proof of both.2. Fine tuningPremised upon a false assumption of subjective anthropomorphism applied to natural physical constants (i.e. the assumption that only carbon based life is feasible). An argument by lack of imagination, as it assumes no other forms of life are possible. It makes more sense that humans are adapted to the Universe through evolution rather than the Universe being adapted to us; to suggest otherwise is to commit the logical flaw of hubris.3. MoralityPredates religion, and is an evolutionary (by)product. Is inherently subjective at any rate, as it does not exist as an objective reality outside of human imagination.4. Free willDoes not exist, and is supported by zero objective evidence. See secular determinism by contrast, substantiated by a growing body of objective scientific research causally correlating human behavior with genetic predisposition triggered by environmental stimuli.5. NDEsInherently subjective and non-verifiable.
Debate: Is the Christian God evil?
Side: Nope

That the universe began is not an assumption but scientific fact. The Kalam argument argues for a transcendent and timeless cause since the universe would not have caused itself. The argument is a reasonable position and cannot be substituted by any other theory as rational.Fine tuning argument presents constants that whereby where changed would have greatly altered the universe that we know. Arguing that we evolved to fit into the universe is trumped by the fact that the constants were in place to begin that evolution that you speak of, without that evolution would not have began. Morality cannot have been solely based on sociobiology since it would have been solely subjective, while there has been a universal understanding of moral principles. NDEs isn't merely subjective as it has been debated in medical circles. People who have been declared dead all over the world have returned with out-of-body experiences and details that they would not have been known of considering that they were not conscious or even dead at the time the experiences occurred. NDEs thereby qualify as an argument.It's better you make an argument to show the fallacy of what I present, than simply say that what I present is a fallacy and not produce any convincing argument to show the position. You cannot just make statements like "free will doesn't exist," while free will is still debated and hasn't been conclusively dismissed by skeptics. There are agnostics who believe in free will, without the metaphysical explanation of free will of course. You can say in your opinion free will doesn't exist and present your argument with sources for pure determinism. That would be a better way to discuss than reaching conclusions without even taking the journey. That just shows that you are closed minded and not even willing to engage in a discussion.
Debate: Is the Christian God evil?
Side: Yep

Kalam That we lack a probable explanation for an eternal universe does not inherently preclude its existence, nor does it constitute proof of a divine origin. Further, there is a plausible alternative explanation: the Big Bang could very well have been the consequence of the collapse an earlier iteration of the universe that birthed the current iteration. Even were you correct on finite origin, you have not addressed my second objection regarding the assumption of divine creation on the sole basis that we do not yet understand how it could occur naturally. Fine Tuning You just restated the theory without refuting my objections. Try again. Morality There is not a universal morality. There has always been, still is, and will always be exceptions. So long as there is a single exception, morality is not universal. Further, it is a universal characteristic among humans that we all breath oxygen and that is biological... so why can a mental byproduct highly advantageous to human survival also not be so consistently selected for? Oh right, no reason at all.NDEs Cite me something legitimate to actually refute, and I'll lend this an iota of credence. Until then, just another assertion.Free Will Seriously? Piss off. Literally the only thing you wrote at all for your argument on this point was "free will." On what basis do you expect anyone to give you a highly detailed response when all you write is two words? By comparison, my response was already elaborate; in fact, it was 16X longer. I actually pointed to a specific theory (secular, biological determinism) and pointed to what is generally common scientific knowledge (that an increasing amount of human behavior is being linked to neurobiology). You did not even bother to address that, instead hiding behind the most hypocritical accusation you could have possibly picked. Do not attack my intellectual integrity when you give me nothing to work with.
Debate: Is the Christian God evil?
Side: Nope

I think it's best to take one argument for discussion and then move to another after thoroughly discussing one. I will start with fine tuning."If you change a little bit the laws of nature, or you change a little bit the constants of nature—like the charge on the electron—then the way the universe develops is so changed, it is very likely that intelligent life would not have been able to develop" (Dr. Dennis Scania)."If we nudge one of these constants just a few percent in one direction, stars burn out within a million years of their formation, and there is no time for evolution. If we nudge it a few percent in the other direction, then no elements heavier than helium form. No carbon, no life. Not even any chemistry. No complexity at all" (Dr. David D. Deutsch).“The remarkable fact is that the values of these numbers (i.e. the constants of physics) seem to have been very finely adjusted to make possible the development of life”. “For example,” Hawking writes, “if the electric charge of the electron had been only slightly different, stars would have been unable to burn hydrogen and helium, or else they would not have exploded. It seems clear that there are relatively few ranges of values for the numbers (for the constants) that would allow for development of any form of intelligent life. Most sets of values would give rise to universes that, although they might be very beautiful, would contain no one able to wonder at that beauty” (Stephen Hawking).Fine tuning has already been established by the top minds and there shouldn't be any argument about that. The question that one should reasonably ask from fine tuning is why and how the universe was fine tuned. My conviction is that God fine tuned the universe.
Debate: Is the Christian God evil?
Side: Yep

Agreed, one at a time is less cumbersome.You have completely misrepresented the views of these individuals. You do this primarily by conflating references to the concept of "fine tuning" with a scientific and/or personal belief in God. This is simply inaccurate. Addressing each of these individuals in order:Dr. Dennis Scania does not exist. Presumably, you are referring to a quote often mis-attributed to one Dr. Dennis Sciama. What he actually had to say on God was that he did not believe in it, and that physics does not demonstrate the existence of God. See a collection of excerpts and review on his position in his biography here, p.404. Dr. Sciama was an agnostic, perhaps even a soft atheist, who expressly denounced the very argument you are attempting to make.You have also taken Dr. David D. Deutsch out of context. He is a proponent of multiverse theory, a direct counter to pro-God arguments derived from the fine tuning stance. He has also made anti-theistic/pro-atheistic remarks and observations. See his website.Stephan Hawking co-authored an article explicitly deconstructing the very argument you are trying to substantiate by quoting him. See it here.So, now that you have successfully identified the very people (indeed, the "top minds" in your own words) who most undermine this particular argument shall we proceed to another of your notions?
Debate: Is the Christian God evil?
Side: Nope

I looked up Dr. Dennis Scania and there are some quotes from him, but it is odd that he doesn't have Website or Wikipedia page. My apologies for letting that slip. As for the rest, especially Hawking who is obviously atheist, I wasn't presenting them as theists, but in the context that scientists concur that the universe appears fine tuned. "Scientists call this extraordinary balancing of the parameters of physics and the initial conditions of the universe the "fine-tuning of the cosmos." It has been extensively discussed by philosophers, theologians, and scientists, especially since the early 1970s, with hundreds of articles and dozens of books written on the topic. Today, it is widely regarded as offering by far the most persuasive current argument for the existence of God" (Robin Collins).http://rintintin.colorado.edu/~vancecd/phil1000/Collins.pdf It is reasonable to say that the universe is fine tuned, hence why atheists have come up the anthropic principle based on the multiverse theory. But that falls short of explaining why this universe is fine tuned.
Debate: Is the Christian God evil?
Side: Yep

Effectively, you are willing to abuse and misrepresent the views of the leading professionals to the extent that it serves your argument but at the moment when their knowledge departs from and contradicts your claim they are inadequate dunces simply incapable of believing in God. The leading minds concur that while God proponents may see fine tuning as the strongest argument for the existence of God, the actual science surrounding the matter does not at all substantiate that conjecture. There is no scientific proof of God.Robin Collins is a philosopher, and with no intention of wholly dismissing the field, I respectfully turn to actual physicists to explain the plausibility of God based upon known evidence. The leading professionals in this and other pertinent scientific fields, as captured by the very individuals you quoted, are in agreement that fine tuning does not prove the existence of God. The multiverse theory (and others) did not arise to defeat the theist proposition, but rather as scientifically derived potential solutions based upon what evidence we do know. While the evidence is minimal and currently requires substantiation, it does actually exist... whereas there is no evidence beyond philosophical conjecture that fine tuning means God exists. That current theories "fall short" does not by default make the God conjecture true.
Debate: Is the Christian God evil?
Side: Nope

I didn't misrepresent any professional but gave statements on the observation that the universe appears fine tuned. If the universe is fine tuned, one can deduce that it is either fine tuned without any explanation or fine tuned with an explanation. The second deduction will make more sense. That Robin Collins is a philosopher means nothing. And saying that only physicists have the knowledge to prove theism is true or not is absurd. You haven't responded to the fact that the universe appears fine tuned and provided an explanation to why it appears so? I'm still waiting for an explanation to why the universe appears or is fine tuned?
Debate: Is the Christian God evil?
Side: Yep

I didn't misrepresent any professional but gave statements on the observation that the universe appears fine tuned. If the universe is fine tuned, one can deduce that it is either fine tuned without any explanation or fine tuned with an explanation. The second deduction will make more sense. Yes, you did. Not only did you decontextualize their statements, but you have flagrantly ignored their uniform observations that God cannot be logically deduced from the existence of fine tuning. You further ignored that some have even come up with alternative theories (actually premised in science rather than assumption), such as the multiverse theory, even though I pointed that out to you. That Robin Collins is a philosopher means nothing. And saying that only physicists have the knowledge to prove theism is true or not is absurd.I never said that at all. What I said was that on matters of physics I would take the word of a physicist over that of a philosopher. Collins commenting on physics (e.g. fine tuning) does not bear the same weight as the most reputable minds in physics commenting on physics.You haven't responded to the fact that the universe appears fine tuned and provided an explanation to why it appears so? I'm still waiting for an explanation to why the universe appears or is fine tuned?Yes, I did. I also pointed out that the absence of alternative explanations does not constitute proof that any other explanation is itself true; it just means we don't know yet. To prove that fine tuning means God is real, that idea has to stand independently upon scientific proof... something which the very leading physicists that you yourself cited say it does not do.
Debate: Is the Christian God evil?
Side: Nope

You didn't get what I was passing across in the quotes: that I was pointing out fine tuning that the professionals were arguing for theism. Fine tuning remains observable to theist and atheist experts."Collins commenting on physics (e.g. fine tuning) does not bear the same weight as the most reputable minds in physics commenting on physics." But the most reputable minds in physics have commented on fine tuning, which is they have used the multiverse and probability to account for fine tuning."It just means we don't know yet."If you don't know, then you cannot rule out theistic explanations with the certainty that you have purported.
Debate: Is the Christian God evil?
Side: Yep

You didn't get what I was passing across in the quotes: that I was pointing out fine tuning that the professionals were arguing for theism. Fine tuning remains observable to theist and atheist experts.No, I get it; you are just wrong. All of the people you quoted expressly state that there is no evidence supporting theism within their field of expertise. Fine tuning is not proof of god, per the experts. You defeated yourself from the offset. I have repeatedly observed all of this, and am not inclined to continue restating. Make a new argument on this matter, move on to your next "proof", or consider me done here. But the most reputable minds in physics have commented on fine tuning, which is they have used the multiverse and probability to account for fine tuning.That is not a refutation of my point about Collins. It is also not a refutation of the analysis of physics experts on the lack of evidence for any deity existing.If you don't know, then you cannot rule out theistic explanations with the certainty that you have purported.My argument in this thread has been that you have no evidence to prove that God exists. My certainty of the absence of God is another discussion entirely (one which sidesteps the corner you are presently backed into); in short, though, my certainty on this matter is a consequence of the combined utter lack of evidence supporting the existence of God and research indicating that theism and faith generally are neurobiological consequences of evolution.