azza1625/createdebate-arguments huggingface dataset:
Debate: Is atheism the most logical theistic stance?
Side: Atheism is logical

I can give evidence that there's no god , but if you don't behave and merely assert I have none you're being a prick Your argument is nonsense , let me educate you ......next argument please (This argument is called the Watch Maker Argument and says that there appears to be design in a watch therefore there must have been a designer. A different example people use is a painting and a painter and they say that this same designing concept also applies to the universe and evolution.)The Counter Argument:The reason the watch and the painting arguments fail is because you know these things have been designed by people and there are many examples of these things being manufactured and built in workshops and in art studios. There are no examples on the other hand that humans have been designed in workshops or zapped into existence with a magic wand. Complexity does not mean design within the natural world. Simplicity can form complexity within the natural world. Many things that appear to be designed are not. Snowflakes and crystals are made by natural means and not by a Magical-Man in the sky. Snowflakes and crystals only occur under the right natural conditions. As in the case for snowflakes and crystals life also needs certain conditions in order to form. There are no known natural processes that allow watches and paintings to form whereas snowflakes, diamonds and the foundations of life have natural processes that allow for them to form under the right conditions. This argument contains the False Analogy fallacy because you cannot compare naturally occurring things to things that are not known to occur naturally under the right conditions. Watches and paintings do not have a way to replicate and do not occur naturally but living things and life can reproduce offspring and can occur naturally under the right conditions.Note: Humans were designed but it was not a top down design coming from a god but a bottom up design coming from gradual modifications over long periods of time. Gene flow and mutation explain how things change within evolution.
Debate: Is atheism the most logical theistic stance?
Side: Theism is more logical

I want to know something... Do you believe the earth randomly came into existence as a product of nothing?
Debate: Is atheism the most logical theistic stance?
Side: Atheism is logical

It could have , but how could I know for certain ?..................................
Debate: Is atheism the most logical theistic stance?
Side: Theism is more logical

You still haven't given an answer to my question. You say you can, so, by all means, please do. My question was simple, "Give me one piece of evidence that proves Atheism. another thing do you (as an atheist) believe in macro-evolution?
Debate: Is atheism the most logical theistic stance?
Side: Atheism is logical

Give me one piece of evidence that proves Atheism.You cannot prove the absence of something which could be anywhere in or outside of the universe without having first explored everywhere in and outside of the universe. In science, law and common logic, the burden of proof is upon the person making the affirmative claim.
Debate: Is atheism the most logical theistic stance?
Side: Atheism is logical

Yes I can but first you stated ......You say the idea of a God is ridiculous. creationism has more evidence supporting it than atheism, yet you choose believe in something with even less evidence than creationism, why? I would love fore you to give me one piece of evidence that supports atheism.You made a statement you didn't back it up regarding creationism, back your assertion up .You shall get your answer when you do so
Debate: Is atheism the most logical theistic stance?
Side: Theism is more logical

Intelligent creation. It is so clear, yet you are too blind to see it.
Debate: Is atheism the most logical theistic stance?
Side: Atheism is logical

What the Hell is " intelligent creation "? It's clear you're gullible and too blind to see it
Debate: Is atheism the most logical theistic stance?
Side: Theism is more logical

Constance (Environmental and physical factors), The earth's size is perfect. The Earth's size and corresponding gravity holds a thin layer of mostly nitrogen and oxygen gases, only extending about 50 miles above the Earth's surface. If Earth were smaller, an atmosphere would be impossible, like the planet Mercury. If Earth were larger, its atmosphere would contain free hydrogen, like Jupiter. Earth is the only known planet equipped with an atmosphere of the right mixture of gases to sustain plant, animal and human life.The Earth is located the right distance from the sun. Consider the temperature swings we encounter, roughly -30 degrees to +120 degrees. If the Earth were any further away from the sun, we would all freeze. Any closer and we would burn up. Even a fractional variance in the Earth's position to the sun would make life on Earth impossible. The Earth remains this perfect distance from the sun while it rotates around the sun at a speed of nearly 67,000 mph. It is also rotating on its axis, allowing the entire surface of the Earth to be properly warmed and cooled every day. Is that good enough for you?
Debate: Is atheism the most logical theistic stance?
Side: Theism is more logical

Scientists are convinced that our universe began with one enormous explosion of energy and light, which we now call the Big Bang. This was the singular start to everything that exists: the beginning of the universe, the start of space, and even the initial start of time itself.Astrophysicist Robert Jastrow, a self-described agnostic, stated, "The seed of everything that has happened in the Universe was planted in that first instant; every star, every planet and every living creature in the Universe came into being as a result of events that were set in motion in the moment of the cosmic explosion...The Universe flashed into being, and we cannot find out what caused that to happen."Steven Weinberg, a Nobel laureate in Physics, said at the moment of this explosion, "the universe was about a hundred thousands million degrees Centigrade...and the universe was filled with light."The universe has not always existed. It had a start...what caused that? Scientists have no explanation for the sudden explosion of light and matter.
Debate: Is atheism the most logical theistic stance?
Side: Atheism is logical

The argument fails because it contains two logical fallacies. The first logical fallacy this argument contains is Special Pleading because the argument creates a rule that only a god is exempt from and is able to break. It doesn’t explain what the cause of a god is. This is something called an infinite regress problem whereby there is no end to trying to figure out what was before the first cause. If a god does not need a cause then why not save yourself a step and say that the universe does not need a cause to exist either. There is no need to create an extra step for yourself so you might as well say that the universe does not need a cause to exist. It could be that the universe has simply always existed in one form or another. Energy may have always existed in one form or another. The second fallacy this argument contains is the Fallacy of Composition by assuming that because a portion of the universe has a reason for its existence means that the universe as a whole also needs a reason for its existence. It could be that the universe does not need a reason as a whole. It could be that the universe has simply always existed in one form or another. Energy may have always existed in one form or another.
Debate: Is atheism the most logical theistic stance?
Side: Atheism is logical

How does that prove a " god " , that's not Evan an argument
Debate: Is atheism the most logical theistic stance?
Side: Atheism is logical

The earth's size is perfectWhich is the only reason you are here to marvel at it. There are plenty of other planets which are not perfect, and that is why you are not standing on them.
Debate: Is atheism the most logical theistic stance?
Side: Theism is more logical

There "happens" to be humans on the only planet that can sustain human life? It's no coincidence, there was an intelligent creator.
Debate: Is atheism the most logical theistic stance?
Side: Atheism is logical

I'm still waiting on my answer regards creation ? What's Evolution got to do with Atheism ?
Debate: Is atheism the most logical theistic stance?
Side: Theism is more logical

Most atheists believe in evolution, so I was wondering, do you believe in evolution (Macro).
Debate: Is atheism the most logical theistic stance?
Side: Atheism is logical

Hold up , you still have not answered my question regards your assertions on creation , one thing at a time
Debate: Is atheism the most logical theistic stance?
Side: Atheism is logical

The universe has a highly complex design. Therefore, the universe has a designer. I told you several hours ago that this is not an argument. You have reached a conclusion based upon a hypothesis which you have not proven (i.e. that the universe has a "design"). What you are calling an argument is actually known as a false syllogism. It amounts to:-A) The universe has a design (i.e. unproven premise)B) Every design has a designer. Therefore:-C) The universe has a designer.Spectacular abuse of logic is not the same thing as an argument.
Debate: Is atheism the most logical theistic stance?
Side: Atheism is logical

I'm not an atheist myself, however it's undeniable that atheism is the far more logical position.Atheism looks at science, and scientific explanations; as we know, science is a direct path to the truth. Theism, on the other hand, relies massively on faith and I dare say the "hope" that there is a God. Science beats faith in the "logical" department. I neither believe or disbelieve however, so don't mistake this as an argument for the non-existence of God; it is not.
Debate: Is atheism the most logical theistic stance?
Side: Theism is more logical

Definition of "god" courtesy of merriam-webster1 capitalized :the supreme or ultimate reality: such asa :the Being perfect in power, wisdom, and goodness who is worshipped as creator and ruler of the universeThe ultimate reality is indeed worshipped as creator and ruler of the universe, the being perfect in power, wisdom, and goodness.Existing happens to be a defining characteristic of the supreme reality. There is nothing logical or scientific about denying God. Of course a God denier wouldn't know what they are talking about, they have adopted the position of one who is in denial of ultimate reality.That means they don't even believe in truth. They are telling you right off the bat that they are lying. They don't even know it. Make no mistake, God has been proven to exist. Nothing has greater scientific confirmation.
Debate: Is atheism the most logical theistic stance?
Side: Atheism is logical

Make no mistake, God has been proven to exist. Nothing has greater scientific confirmation.Has he? That's quite a remarkable find! Would you care to show me the proof?("proof" in this instance does not include the argument that "the proof is all around you!", by the way.)
Debate: Is atheism the most logical theistic stance?
Side: Theism is more logical

Reality according to merriam-webster is defined as "the quality or state of being real."Here are some definitions of "ultimate" according to merriam-webster"the best or most extreme"The best or most extreme state of being real"arrived at as the last result"The state of being real arrived at as the last result"basic, fundamental"The basic, fundamental, state of being real."original"The original state of being real"incapable of further analysis, division, or separation"The state of being real that is incapable of further analysis, division, or separation.~~~~What do you think "ultimate reality" means?Without God, the very concept of "proof" is nonsensical. Without God, assertions that are false carry the same weight as assertions that are true. Truly, scripture does not say in vain, "The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom:and the knowledge of the holy is understanding."
Debate: Is atheism the most logical theistic stance?
Side: Atheism is logical

I think that's one of the most nonsensical arguments for the existence of God I've ever read.
Debate: Is atheism the most logical theistic stance?
Side: Theism is more logical

The word "God" with a capital "G" means "The Supreme and Ultimate Reality".Clearly God exists. Maybe it doesn't make sense to you because you don't know what "The Supreme and Ultimate Reality" means. Contemplate on that a bit more, and it should make sense eventually. There is no doubt that God exists.
Debate: Is atheism the most logical theistic stance?
Side: Atheism is logical

If you do not believe that God is real, you are not accepting that when I say "God", I am talking about The Supreme and Ultimate Reality. You are taking it as if I am talking about something else.If you understood what "Supreme and Ultimate Reality" means, what I just said will make perfect sense.There is no doubt about the existence of God, because existence is the essential quality of God. If you are thinking of something that doesn't exist, you are not actually using the proper definition. You are attacking a straw man. You are attacking little "g" gods, not God with the big "G".
Debate: Is atheism the most logical theistic stance?
Side: Atheism is logical

Whilst the ontological argument is one of my favourite perspectives for the existence of God, I don't believe it's an absolute, objective proof that God does exist.You cannot attempt to simply define God into existence and leave it at that. It's not evidence, it's a theory.
Debate: Is atheism the most logical theistic stance?
Side: Theism is more logical

If you don't believe that God exists, we aren't talking about the same thing. If you want to be arbitrary about what it is that is being discussed because you have an aversion to the word "God", I can't be blamed for that. See, there is no proof without you accepting the definition of the word. If you don't accept the definition of the word, I might as well be arguing about a created thing.I'm not talking about a created thing, I'm talking about The Supreme and Ultimate Reality.If you don't accept what it is I am talking about, you aren't going to see how God is clearly exceptional. There is no argument that stands against God, it is a futile endeavor.The proof that God exists is all around you. The fact that you experience anything at all is proof that God exists. If you were to accept the evidence.See, if you don't accept the evidence, it isn't proof to you. "the cogency of evidence that compels acceptance by the mind of a truth or a fact"So, if you are dead set on not accepting something as being true, it doesn't matter if all the evidence in the world is presented to you.. If you are not compelled to accept The Truth of God, you can always say, "I see no proof", and be technically correct about that.Demanding proof is arbitrary if you don't actually care about what is true. Whether or not something has been proven to you has very little to do with whether or not something exists.God clearly exists, because we are talking about the essence of existence. If you say that God doesn't exist, you are not actually talking about God, because the defining characteristic of God is existence. You might as well be talking about stones when I am trying to have a conversation with you about trees. Really, you are talking about gods when I am trying to point you to God.I'm not trying to define God into existence, I'm telling you very plainly what the concept means. The concept means something greater than what the concept means. That is intrinsic to what "The Supreme and Ultimate Reality" means.See, you have already performed all the necessary scientific experimentation. You already have within you knowledge of evidence of God. Simply accepting what it is we are talking about should be enough for God to be proven to you.How are you going to understand the evidence if you don't understand the theory?What is the theory?The Supreme and Ultimate Reality.Yet, God is not simply a theory, but the evident truth. It goes beyond fact. The Supreme and Ultimate Reality. Not a theory, reality. The essence of reality itself. There is no reality without God.
Debate: Is atheism the most logical theistic stance?
Side: Atheism is logical

If you don't believe that God exists, we aren't talking about the same thing. If you want to be arbitrary about what it is that is being discussed because you have an aversion to the word "God", I can't be blamed for that.I don't believe that God exists, but I also don't believe that God doesn't exist. I think both concepts are possible.God clearly exists, because we are talking about the essence of existence. If you say that God doesn't exist, you are not actually talking about God, because the defining characteristic of God is existence. You might as well be talking about stones when I am trying to have a conversation with you about trees.Who says that God's defining characteristic is existence? To me, God's defining characteristic would be omnipotence. To others, it might be omnibenevolence... to others, God's defining characteristic is non-existence.You cannot use human-made words as a means of defining God into existence. I could say that the defining characteristic of God is that He's a transgender rabbit. That doesn't mean He is.The issue with the ontological argument, as much as I love it, is that it relies on using human logic to deduce God's existence. Yes, in theory, if God is all-powerful then he could make himself exist. But that ignores the fact that the universe doesn't always abide by human ideas - much of it is beyond our understanding.Your concept of God is that he exists because he must exist - because you say so, because human language proves it through definitions of "ultimate" and "supreme" and "existence".Those are human-made words. There is no absolute logic which links the fabric of the universe and our reality to our language. An alien society in another galaxy might have the definition of God as something which doesn't exist in the real world. Their "anti-ontological" argument would be just as legitimate - and logical - as yours.
Debate: Is atheism the most logical theistic stance?
Side: Theism is more logical

I am talking about The Supreme and Ultimate Reality.If you want to confuse things by talking about what other people say God is, it is irrelevant. There are a lot of people who are wrong. I'm telling you the truth. I'm also telling you that you are confused by superstition.God being THE TRUTH is the defining characteristic of God.I'm not defining things into existence, I'm making clear what I am talking about. That is what a definition is. You don't understand my argument. It might be because you don't understand what the intent of a definition is.What I am saying is very consistent with what has been consistent since the beginning. I only say one thing. God is The Supreme and Ultimate Reality.If your aversion is to the word God, why don't you tell me what your problem with The Supreme and Ultimate Reality is?My argument is that you can't even agree on what we are talking about, because if you were to agree with me on what it is we are talking about, it would make it very clear that God exists. There would no longer be a debate.Truly, the existence of God is not up for debate. If everyone in the entire world were to deny God, it would have no effect on God's existence. The Supreme and Ultimate Reality simply is, and it is not a contingent existence. We use words because that is the medium we are using, but what I am talking about is beyond words.Yet, the scriptures do speak about why it is that anyone would dispute what it is one means when they use the word of God properly...."..they strive not about words to no profit, but to the subverting of the hearers. Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth. But shun profane and vain babblings: for they will increase unto more ungodliness."The Word I speak of is not an arbitrary pronouncement of syllables. I'm talking about The Supreme and Ultimate Reality. The Word of God.
Debate: Is atheism the most logical theistic stance?
Side: Atheism is logical

God being THE TRUTH is the defining characteristic of God.Yes... to you.To an atheist, the defining characteristic of God is the opposite of the truth.To an agnostic, the defining characteristic of God is that we don't know.Your argument has no substance. It's just "my opinion of what God is is right. Everyone else is wrong".because if you were to agree with me on what it is we are talking about... There would no longer be a debate.Yes, congratulations, that is the purpose of a debate.Truly, the existence of God is not up for debate.I think that's up for debate.Yet, the scriptures do speak about why it is that anyone would dispute what it is one means when they use the word of God properly....The scriptures? Which scripture do you believe in? Do you believe that to be the absolute word of God? How can you link your God, who you claim undeniably exists, to religious scripture?Perhaps God does exist - or maybe many Gods - but I don't think you can use the argument for God's existence as an argument for religion's truth.
Debate: Is atheism the most logical theistic stance?
Side: Theism is more logical

The difference is, if you say there are is no God, you are clearly not talking about my God.Whether or not you have realized God, My God still exists. My God is not contingent on yours or anyone's belief. My God is not even contingent on my belief.The God I speak of is The Supreme and Ultimate Reality.To you, it is clearly an arbitrary matter.Also, your questions are superstitious. You have superstitious ideas about God. If you believe me, your questions would be revealed as being superstitious. All you have to do is accept that God with a capital "G" is defined as "The Supreme and Ultimate Reality", otherwise, you are not talking about the same thing as me.My argument is not, "My opinion of what God is is right. Everyone else is wrong."I am not expressing my opinion, I am expressing knowledge of theology. I am not saying anything that hasn't been said for thousands of years.
Debate: Is atheism the most logical theistic stance?
Side: Atheism is logical

The difference is, if you say there are is no God, you are clearly not talking about my God.So, in your perspective, there is a God. You have a personal God, which may or may not actually exist for other people.Also, your questions are superstitious. You have superstitious ideas about God. If you believe me, your questions would be revealed as being superstitious.I don't think you know what "superstitious" means.All you have to do is accept that God with a capital "G" is defined as "The Supreme and Ultimate Reality", otherwise, you are not talking about the same thing as me.I'm talking about god, God, gods, Gods. Overall. Altogether. Again, that is YOUR definition of God. That is not the universally accepted definition of God.Just because you believe it to be so doesn't mean that it is.
Debate: Is atheism the most logical theistic stance?
Side: Theism is more logical

There is no such thing as a universally accepted definition.Your whole argument is that language is arbitrary.I am talking about something beyond language, but you can't believe language long enough to even see that. The Supreme and Ultimate Reality is clearly something beyond words.This is why sincere faith alone is not sufficient to love God. It must also be coupled with charity. Without charity, you block yourself off from really understanding viewpoints you don't want to agree with. If you are wrong, you aren't really ever going to figure that out.Sincerity of faith and charity is the path of correction. I recommend Merriam-Webster, they have a fine dictionary on their website. If you want to have a serious discussion, it is important that we have a standard that defines the language we are using.