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

Who is to say that they would have achieved as much as they did?I suppose secular society does. Look at how much we achieved by not using god as our inspiration. It seems that not turning to god gave us answers to the universal questions in under half a millennium.Plus, religion is mass guessing at the nature of reality with little correctness, so the dogma wouldn't have necessarily helped them.The did achieve an extreme amount - what makes you think they'd have achieved any more?When you have men like Galileo and Newton, it's hard to imagine a limit on their ability to discovery except for time. Time was their limiting factor, and any religious distraction (which only leads to a dead end, see my secular society above) is a distraction away from productivity.
Debate: Does God exist?
Side: yes

I suppose secular society does. Look at how much we achieved by not using god as our inspiration. It seems that not turning to god gave us answers to the universal questions in under half a millennium.But the foundations were set by religious people.When you have men like Galileo and Newton, it's hard to imagine a limit on their ability to discovery except for time. Time was their limiting factor, and any religious distraction (which only leads to a dead end, see my secular society above) is a distraction away from productivity.Maybe they would not have bothered had it not been for their religiosity? I'd imagine that they set out to prove Christianity, just as many a modern scientist sets out to disprove Christianity.Ironic, isn't it?
Debate: Does God exist?
Side: No

You can't compare God to the toothfairy. The toothfairy actually has a coherent ontology. It can actually be considered a concept. God does not have a coherent ontology. God is nothing but a list of secondary and relational attributes, which do not make up a conceptual entity. Before one can even speak of the existence or nonexistence of God (like the existence or nonexistence of the toothfairy, for example), one must first provide a coherent ontology for God. Thus, both answers to these questions are wrong. You cannot discuss the existence of something that no coherent definition. In any other discussion, you would first have to define a concept and then discuss whether that concept exists or not. For some reason, people mistakenly assume that God has the necessary attributes to be considered a coherent concept, and thus can be discussed.
Debate: Does God exist?
Side: No

Thus, both answers to these questions are wrong. You cannot discuss the existence of something that no coherent definition. In any other discussion, you would first have to define a concept and then discuss whether that concept exists or not. For some reason, people mistakenly assume that God has the necessary attributes to be considered a coherent concept, and thus can be discussed.I wasn't using god and the tooth fairy for that purpose however. The comparison was insofar as people believing in things without evidence. People are happy to accept their pet god without evidence, but usually are dismissive of the idea of accepting other things without evidence. This was the point I was trying to illustrate.
Debate: Does God exist?
Side: yes

You cannot discuss the existence of something that has no coherent definition. You're making a Loki's Wager. Please refrain from using this fallacious argument in the future.
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.So by your logic, all these wonderfully complex things couldn't exist without an even more complex creator to create them. The obvious problem this line of thinking presents is this: Trees, water and the sky are so complex, that some divine creator must have put them here, yet an invisible god in some unknown dimension who knows what 6 billion people are doing at any given time and can hear them all mumbling prayers in their heads....that requires no creator at all...got it.
Debate: Does God exist?
Side: No

So by your logic, without a god nothing can exist? So where did god come from? Another god? Is their an infinite amount of gods that create other gods? Or was god more like the big bang, except without a scientifical explanation?
Debate: Does God exist?
Side: yes

I believe that it is very likely that SOME higher power created us, but honestly i don't think any religion we have here on earth has the right answer and I don't think any religion ever will. If a higher power did create us it was probably an accident anyways.
Debate: Does God exist?
Side: yes

The facts say there is a god. you don't have to be Cristian to believe in god other religions also have god/s like Muslim, Hinduism, Judaism in total a large proportion of people believe in god.
Debate: Does God exist?
Side: No

Tell me one fact that proves there is a god. .
Debate: Does God exist?
Side: yes

There is in fact a God in this world.According to the Christian Bible that was created over a span of about 1500 years by countless people, the facts of the Bible complement each other. How can this be possible except for divine intervention?Moreover, on earth, it is known that for something everything needs a creator. We do not just appear like that. We are given birth by our mother. Where then does the first man come from?We have heard of the "Potter and the Clay" theory, where the Potter is the creator.
Debate: Does God exist?
Side: No

There is in fact a God in this world.Really? Go on...According to the Christian Bible that was created over a span of about 1500 years by countless people, the facts of the Bible complement each other. How can this be possible except for divine intervention?No they don't. Have you ever read the bible?But even if it was consistent with itself, that's not beyond the ability of humans. Look at science, for example. Five-hundred years of work and we have a remarkably consistent image of the universe.Moreover, on earth, it is known that for something everything needs a creator. We do not just appear like that. We are given birth by our mother. Where then does the first man come from?Abiogenesis and evolution. Creation is unnecessary.We have heard of the "Potter and the Clay" theory, where the Potter is the creator.No idea what you're talking about.
Debate: Does God exist?
Side: yes

No they don't. Have you ever read the bible?Please capitalize the word Bible as it is a proper name. And yes, I've read the Bible, many times over, and yes, they do. Have you read the Bible? I mean, not the skeptic's anotated version of it?Look at science, for example. Five-hundred years of work and we have a remarkably consistent image of the universe.You mean, five-hudred years of work and we keep contradicting ourselves every six-months? Where is the consistency on this? Every new discovery deems a previous discovery wrong. Science is not consistent, specially because there is very little consensus on the scientific community.Abiogenesis and evolutionAbiogenesis is a joke. Do you know how much progress has been done on this field on the last hundred years and a half? None. If anything, we have proven that it is very unlikely to have happened.No idea what you're talking about.He is talking about the Argument From Design.
Debate: Does God exist?
Side: No

Please capitalize the word Bible as it is a proper name. And yes, I've read the Bible, many times over, and yes, they do. Have you read the Bible? I mean, not the skeptic's anotated version of it?Try reading the skeptic's annotated bible, it's a great resource. Or look at the following list:http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jim_meritt/bible-contradictions.html#contradictionsThe thing is, these types of lists are everywhere. Your presupposition is that the Bible is inerrant, you start from there and work down, trying very hard to reconcile contradictions or ignoring them. These sites take the bible at face value and determine consistency before leading to a conclusion.You mean, five-hudred years of work and we keep contradicting ourselves every six-months? Where is the consistency on this? Every new discovery deems a previous discovery wrong. Science is not consistent, specially because there is very little consensus on the scientific community.It would help if you got your science from the, you know, scientists and researchers but you use "Christian resources." Science doesn't work in a way that requires each strand of thread in the tapestry of knowledge to be immutable. It works by finding new discoveries, more elegant ways of representing theories, and correcting mistakes. This is why for example we knew about gravity since over three hundred years ago, and recently relativity EXPANDED upon Newton. This is why evolution started out as evolution by natural selection and is now the modern synthesis incorporating genetics, molecular biology, punctuated equilibrium, and other concepts. Scientific knowledge builds upon previous theory, it doesn't simply discard knowledge.So try and learn about how this works instead of spouting ignorance.Abiogenesis is a joke. Do you know how much progress has been done on this field on the last hundred years and a half? None. If anything, we have proven that it is very unlikely to have happened.More like 50-60 years. Evolution is 150 years old, the real work on abiogenesis began around 1953. However we still know much about the subject, it simply is a relatively young area of research.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AbiogenesisHe is talking about the Argument From Design.Oh, well it's incorrect.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teleological_argument#Formal_objections_ and_counterarguments You should read that link further.
Debate: Does God exist?
Side: yes

Try reading the skeptic's annotated bible, it's a great resource.I see. So you've read only the skeptics annotated version.These sites take the bible at face value and determine consistency before leading to a conclusion.Yes, because a website called infidels.org certainly has an interest at studying the Bible at face value, and has absolutely no agenda regarding their interpretation. That's why they make sure to call themselves infidels. That's because they have no agenda whatsoever.It would help if you got your science from the, you know, scientists and researchers but you use "Christian resources." And based on what do you make such assertions? Your own preconceived notions of whom I am? So, your conclusions are now based on fairy tales about me that you came up with in your head?Science doesn't work in a way that requires each strand of thread in the tapestry of knowledge to be immutable.It is not my problem, really. I am not the one claiming it is consistent, when it isn't. There is nothing wrong with it not being consistent. It is not necessary to be consistent for something to be correct. Your whole plea of justification does not address the point in any way. The way science works makes it inconsistent, and often conflicting. No matter how much rationalization about how it works you can write to waste server space with, it won't change a thing. It is inconsistent and often conflicting.Scientific knowledge builds upon previous theory, it doesn't simply discard knowledge.It discards knowledge if it was proven to be wrong. Yes, it simply does.More like 50-60 years. Evolution is 150 years old, the real work on abiogenesis began around 1953. However we still know much about the subject, it simply is a relatively young area of research.Again, it is not my problem. Evolution relied on abiogenesis since its inception. It is not my problem if no one decided to tackle the problem for a hundred years. It is still 150 years old and no progress has been made so far. All those things you claim we know about the subject? It is all about what we know that didn't happen.You should read that link further.I know all about the latest arguments and counterarguments and countercounterarguments and so forth. You should study it further.
Debate: Does God exist?
Side: No

I see. So you've read only the skeptics annotated version.I didn't say that.Yes, because a website called infidels.org certainly has an interest at studying the Bible at face value, and has absolutely no agenda regarding their interpretation. That's why they make sure to call themselves infidels. That's because they have no agenda whatsoever.Whether or not they have an agenda isn't relevant.And based on what do you make such assertions? Your own preconceived notions of whom I am? So, your conclusions are now based on fairy tales about me that you came up with in your head?Heuristics mainly.It is not my problem, really. I am not the one claiming it is consistent, when it isn't. There is nothing wrong with it not being consistent. It is not necessary to be consistent for something to be correct. Your whole plea of justification does not address the point in any way. The way science works makes it inconsistent, and often conflicting. No matter how much rationalization about how it works you can write to waste server space with, it won't change a thing. It is inconsistent and often conflicting.Your error is that you look at active research in established fields (which changes) without paying attention to overarching theory which is interdependent and hardly changes (with changes being consistent with that theory).You don't see the big picture, in other words.It discards knowledge if it was proven to be wrong. Yes, it simply does.The way science works is that that "discarded" knowledge will be amalgamated into the new theory.Again, it is not my problem. Evolution relied on abiogenesis since its inception. It is not my problem if no one decided to tackle the problem for a hundred years. It is still 150 years old and no progress has been made so far. All those things you claim we know about the subject? It is all about what we know that didn't happen.Evolution is distinct from abiogenesis. I know it's tough, being a creationist and having to conform to a quota of errors per paragraph, but commit this correction to memory.Evolution deals with diversification, so it wouldn't matter if abiogenesis were tossed out tomorrow, life could pop into existence interdimensionally and it would mean nothing to evolution.Anyway, I'm not going to entertain a big god of the gaps on your part.
Debate: Does God exist?
Side: yes

I didn't say that.I asked if you read any other version. You answered by stating that skeptic's is a good source, which implies that you read it. You didn't state any other version that you read. The conclusion follows.Whether or not they have an agenda isn't relevant.Of course not! A website created exclusevely with the purpose of making the Bible sound ridiculous can certainly be trusted to take the Bible at face value and interprete it fairly. What was I thinking when I doubted them? Their agenda is completely meaningless.Heuristics mainly.Heuristics can lead to incorrect results. In your case, it just did.You don't see the big picture, in other words.You're a science apologetics, then. It is still inconsistent and often conflicting and you have not addressed this yet.Evolution is distinct from abiogenesisTrue. It only relies on it. It states that abiogenesis happened, and then says "not our problem to confirm or prove it, but it happened. We take from here."Do you deny this as well?life could pop into existence interdimensionally and it would mean nothing to evolution.That would be a theist evolutionary hypothesis. True, it is a possibility, but if you believed it, you wouldn't be here trying to argue that God does not exist, would you?Or are you going to defend the theist evolutionary hypothesis while trying to defend that God does not exist at the same time? Hypocrisy much?
Debate: Does God exist?
Side: No

I asked if you read any other version. You answered by stating that skeptic's is a good source, which implies that you read it. You didn't state any other version that you read. The conclusion follows.The only conclusion you can infer is that I read the SAB.Of course not! A website created exclusevely with the purpose of making the Bible sound ridiculous can certainly be trusted to take the Bible at face value and interprete it fairly. What was I thinking when I doubted them? Their agenda is completely meaningless.Well besides the fact that you don't have to make any effort to ridicule the bible, taking it at face value does it for you, you're missing the larger point that a group's agenda doesn't determine the truthfulness of their argument. The argument stands or falls on its own merit.Heuristics can lead to incorrect results. In your case, it just did.Right, but your flawed sense of biology makes me think you got your "education" from Christian resources.You're a science apologetics, then. It is still inconsistent and often conflicting and you have not addressed this yet.I believe I just explained this already. Small details change but the big theories work together and stay awfully static by comparison.True. It only relies on it. It states that abiogenesis happened, and then says "not our problem to confirm or prove it, but it happened. We take from here."It doesn't even rely on it. Whether or not abiogenesis happens is irrelevant to evolution's ability to work. Just as Newtonian physics isn't in danger because it doesn't account for the big bang, or how chemistry doesn't care about the origin of the chemical elements. Science works in compartmental units, not as a monolithic theory of everything.That would be a theist evolutionary hypothesis. True, it is a possibility, but if you believed it, you wouldn't be here trying to argue that God does not exist, would you?Or are you going to defend the theist evolutionary hypothesis while trying to defend that God does not exist at the same time? Hypocrisy much?Not really relevant to the discussion. Try to stay on topic.
Debate: Does God exist?
Side: yes

If you argue that everything needs a creator, then your "higher power" also needs a creator. Which just leads to the conclusion that nothing can exist, since there would have to at some point be something that came from nothing, and the universe is just as likely to have created itself as any higher power would be really. And Occam's razor states that the simpler theory is generally the more likely one so logically one would say it makes more sense for the universe to have simply come from nothing than for it to have a creator.
Debate: Does God exist?
Side: yes

the universe is just as likely to have created itself as any higher power would be really. So, if you are okay with the idea of the Universe being self-created, why do you oppose the idea of God self-creating Himself so harshly? To reverse your point back at you, if you argue that something can be self-created, then I can argue that God can be self-created.Occam's razor states that the simpler theory is generally the more likelyNo, it doesn't. Please learn Occam's Razor correctly before attempting to use it. It says that the theory that makes the least assumptions is more likely. There is nothing on the Razor about being 'simpler.'so logically one would say it makes more sense for the universe to have simply come from nothing Please stop throwing the word 'logically' around in an attempt to sound smart. Your argument is not logical. It is plagued with circular reasoning since it assumes its conclusion. In fact, your logical 'conclusion' is your first premise. Assuming the Universe to be self-caused also means to assume an exception on the Principle of Causality, and such exception must be justified.
Debate: Does God exist?
Side: yes

That a number fo books are consistent with each-other does not necessitate divine intervention. Nor do priori assumptions constitute facts. Even if everything required a creator, who si to say that this creator must be your god? Rain comes into existence as the result of a natural process not from any particular creator.If the existence of god relied on facts, religions would not rely on faith.
Debate: Does God exist?
Side: yes

Tell me one fact that proves there is no God. Poor choice of argument because neither problem has an answer. I cannot prove God's existence, but you cannot prove Him to be fake either.
Debate: Does God exist?
Side: No

Tell me one fact that proves there is no God. Poor choice of argument because neither problem has an answer. I cannot prove God's existence, but you cannot prove Him to be fake either.If you can't prove god exists then there is no reason to assume he does.
Debate: Does God exist?
Side: yes

If you can't prove God doesn't exist then there is no reason to assume He doesn't. It's not as if I woke up one day and said "Gee, I want to believe in a divine being even though He doesn't exist. Let's make one up." I was raised in a religious environment and, sure, maybe that's where my beliefs started, but they sure as hell aren't going to change because of arguments like that.
Debate: Does God exist?
Side: No

If you can't prove God doesn't exist then there is no reason to assume He doesn't.Yes there is. It's called the burden of proof. It's one of the tools of sceptical thought.You make a claim, any will do, and then you must justify that claim with evidence, or logic. If you fail to do this, I can simply say "you're wrong" or "no" or dismiss you.You employ this tool every day, probably without even realising it. If a person comes up to you and says an alien is talking to them, you expect proof. But more casually you dismiss them because they have none.You came into this debate and effectively said "I have no proof but believe in god because it feels good." You didn't defend yourself, and so your claim can be simply dismissed.It's not as if I woke up one day and said "Gee, I want to believe in a divine being even though He doesn't exist. Let's make one up."No, but you admitted that the idea of god gives you peace of mind. You have no rational reason to believe so you chose an emotional one.I was raised in a religious environment and, sure, maybe that's where my beliefs started, but they sure as hell aren't going to change because of arguments like that.If you were born in Egypt you would be telling me that Allah gives you peace of mind, and that your beliefs won't change because of my arguments.People believe in silly things and live their lives by them all the time. Critical thinking is a journey to rid yourself of this problem, but because you value peace of mind over truth, you're probably not interested in such a life.
Debate: Does God exist?
Side: yes

So now my beliefs are "silly things"? Just because I believe in God does not mean that I don't value the truth. I'm a scientist at heart, a pre-med major to be exact. Science is what we do to explain the mechanistic workings of this Earth. And to explain these workings, they must be predictable and not subject to random change that can't be explained. I expect truth in the world through science and reason and my belief in God doesn't contradict either science nor reason.
Debate: Does God exist?
Side: No

So now my beliefs are "silly things"? Just because I believe in God does not mean that I don't value the truth. It isn't an exclusionary dilemma. However belief in god impedes one's ability to find the truth. God is an easy answer without depth, it gives you peace of mind when you shouldn't be satisfied with the answers you have.God is the philosophical version of junk food.I'm a scientist at heart, a pre-med major to be exact. And you don't see a huge contradiction here?I expect truth in the world through science and reason and my belief in God doesn't contradict either science nor reason.God is a cop-out, it's a non-answer. God doesn't belong in a reasoning discipline because he is an idea born from ignorance and begs the antithesis of reason: faith.
Debate: Does God exist?
Side: yes

Belief in God does not impede one's ability to find the truth. Explain to me how there could be a contradiction. I've heard the arguments before, but I want to understand why you are so adamant on disproving something that can't be disproved.