azza1625/createdebate-arguments huggingface dataset:
Debate: Was the world really created by god or the big bang theory?
Side: Big bang theory

How can you say "There is no absolute proof..." then say "Its the work of God" in the same paragraph.The reason why there is no "absolute proof" is because regardless of the answer science gives you, you will simply ask another question until science can't answer it.
Debate: Was the world really created by god or the big bang theory?
Side: Big bang theory

You are incorrect, there is lots of scientific evidence that supports the big back theory, which is why scientific consensus throughout the world has made it the accepted theory of how the universe began. To actually get into detail and explain the evidence in support of the theory would just confuse most people, and often does, which leads to the commonly held belief by laypeople that it's an unfounded theory without any actual proof to support it. Additionally, the argument that the consensus of the scientific community is some kind of conspiracy in academia is similar to saying that the U.S. government planned the 9/11 attacks and are covering it all up..... it's just what it sounds like, a crazy conspiracy theory. You can't go blaming the media either, they have no real interest in supporting the theory. You're just reacting to the fact that the dominant theory threatens your world view. I could easily take your statement and replace the words "BB Theory" with "existence of God" and replace the word "science" with religion (and vice versa). You might think that such an event as the big bang is totally irrational, but there IS scientific data and logically derived conclusions that have convinced many very educated, very smart people that it is THE most plausible theory... however, there is no empirical evidence that God exists. As is clear from your statement, the argument for His existence is that "every other theory is impossible/unprovable so it MUST be his work." I could say the same about aliens from another dimension or magic, surely you wouldn't admit that they also could have created the universe or life on this planet? You are the one who is too stubborn to accept to accept such a simple explanation that the universe appeared out of no where, and that a tremendous amount of energy came out of what seemingly was nothing at all (similar to how splitting a single atom produces the greatest amount of energy humans have so far been able to produce). By no means does this mean you are wrong to have faith... but that's what religion and belief in God is, faith, and you shouldn't go asking for or offering proof for God's existence, faith is the only thing that matters in that regard. Science, however, is based on empirical evidence and the scientific method, and you obviously are throwing out blanket statements about a theory you don't fully understand. If you did, you would know that there is plenty of proof to support it, and it would not be the dominant theory and have the support of the world scientific community if there was none.
Debate: Was the world really created by god or the big bang theory?
Side: God

alot of the scientist dont have concrete info.If you read their books and tv programs it is always Maybe this happened or maybe that.and everytime someone else come change there theory and prove them wrong then they go with someone elses so call discovery.i think they are confuse.The Quraan explain stuff that scientist only came to figure out now.Scientist should studdy the Quraan then they will get all the answers they looking for.
Debate: Was the world really created by god or the big bang theory?
Side: God

if the big bang thing happened then who created the thing that caused the big bang.someone must have created the thing where it started.it could not have just one day appeared there and wallaa there it happened.everything starts somewhere.it had to be created.so somewhere along the line scientist will end up where our beliefs come in.
Debate: Was the world really created by god or the big bang theory?
Side: God

As an agnostic, I must say, we do not know. But it is my belief that God got bored one day and decided to create matter. And when he did, it resulted in a big bang that resulted in the universe.
Debate: Was the world really created by god or the big bang theory?
Side: God

I'll kill two birds with one stone. God created the big bang. BAM!
Debate: Was the world really created by god or the big bang theory?
Side: God

the big bang theory is purely scientific evidence. For sure science has gone a long way but they are trying to prove that the atmosphere created the big bang theory because the more they "research" the more money they get out of the findings, correct?
Debate: Was the world really created by god or the big bang theory?
Side: God

Its obvious that God created the world,but yet some people think that it was the big bang-but did they ever think that God created the big bang so it could create the world so really God was behind all this in the first place!!!????????
Debate: Was the world really created by god or the big bang theory?
Side: God

if the big bang created the earth how did people appear???
Debate: Was the world really created by god or the big bang theory?
Side: Big bang theory

You do realize the earth is 4.6 BILLION years old right? Things can evolve over long periods of time.
Debate: Was the world really created by god or the big bang theory?
Side: God

Wouldn't you like to think that you were created for a reason. I find that majority of people would like to think so. To me the big bang theory is the equivalent of giving a monkey a bag with a bunch of pieces parts and telling him to shake it, the finished product a watch!!! No thats not going to happen!!! Sorry if you thought it would, hey you can keep on trying but your monkey will probably get mad and start flinging poop at you. Anyway, God created everything! It was created by Him and for His pleasure. If you choose not to believe this thats cool, but HELL is also a very real place! Think about it, heaven or hell? Which would you rather be in for eternity?
Debate: Was the world really created by god or the big bang theory?
Side: God

It was Allah who created the big bang while the big bang created the world. So, scientifically The big bang. Truly, Allah.
Debate: Was the world really created by god or the big bang theory?
Side: God

God created the big bang just as the big bang created the world.
Debate: Was the world really created by god or the big bang theory?
Side: God

God created the universe. because god created the big bang
Debate: Was the world really created by god or the big bang theory?
Side: God

God created the big bang just as the big bang made the world
Debate: Was the world really created by god or the big bang theory?
Side: God

If the big bang theory is true, where did the big bang come from? Do you have a theory about where the big bang came from? IF so, do you have a theory about where that came from? If so do you have a theory of where that came from? If you dont believe in God, you cant believe in the big bang theory either. In my opinion, if you are an atheist and believe in the Big Bang, you are believing in something that contradicts science and is as silly as me holding out my hand and having a pile of poop appear out of thin air. Most people dont give the bible credit, because everyone is to busy trying to prove it wrong, when the fact is theres just as much proof jesus christ walked the earth as Caesar ruled rome. Research it your self! Sure, bible thumpers make everything seem unreal and corny, but when it comes down to it . . . . the beginning of time is incomprehensible by man, thats a fact(dont we all agree?) so we can all agree there is some form of higher power, because obviously man did not create the world and neither did nature (Have you seen another big bang since the first one? didnt think so!)
Debate: Was the world really created by god or the big bang theory?
Side: God

We all know that the universe is expanding, which leads to the conclusion that at some point in the very distant past the universe (all of space, time and matter) were infinitely small. This is known as the singularity. Some physicists have attempted to dance around the conclusion that if the universe had a beginning it must have had a cause. Einstein had to fudge his numbers to try and get around the singularity, Hartle and Hawking do the same now. The Big Bang was certainly the beginning of the universe. From there it is simple to induce that 'ex nihil nihil fit'...from nothing, nothing comes. To break it down into a logical syllogism...1. Everything that begins to exist must have a cause for its existence.2. The universe began to exist.3. Therefore the universe has a cause for its existence.The syllogism is logically sound and valid. Both premises are true and the conclusion follows necessarily from the premises.So what can we induce about the cause of the Big Bang.-it must be immaterial because it existed in the absence of all matter-it must be timeless because it existed in the absence of time.-it must be personal because it intended to create the universe.-it must be enormously powerful because it had the power to create the entire universeFolks, when we talk about something that is enormously powerful, timeless, immaterial and personal, we are talking about God.Some have suggested that the God hypothesis is false because God must have been caused, but this is simply not true. First of all, if God is timeless sans universe, then God is uncaused, eternally existent. Secondly, we do not need to know anything about the nature of the cause of the universe to know that the universe was caused. For example, if we land on Mars and discover a functioning Martian communication device, we do not need to know anything at all about the nature of the Martians to know that they exist.Those who deny that God created the universe are left to explain how something came from absolutely nothing. That is worse than magic. At least a magician has a hat from which to pull the rabbit.
Debate: Was the world really created by god or the big bang theory?
Side: God

Those aren't logical flaws or assumptions my friend."Everything that begins to exist has a cause for its existence"It is absurd to deny that something that begins to exist can do so without a cause. Please provide some examples of things that have begun to exist without cause. (Obviously you can't say the universe because that is exactly what is up for debate here.) Maybe you have a horse that began to exist without cause (no parents, no magician, no illusionists...it just appeared in your living room while you were trying to watch TV.) Maybe a car? Your only response to my premiss is to say "It could have existed forever", or "It couldhave been a previous universe." You posit fanciful imaginary scenarios to try and get around the fact that my premiss is plainly true."It must be immaterial because it existed in the absence of all matter."How is this an assumption? We cannot talk about 'before the universe' because time and matter came into existence at the same moment. If the cause of the universe existed without the universe, as it must have because the universe could not cause itself, then the cause of the universe existed in the absolute absence of matter. Something that exists in the absence of matter is necessarily immaterial.Same goes for the 'timelessness' of the cause.It must be personal...We know this because an impersonal set of mechanical causes could not exist without their resulting effect. If this were the case, then the universe would have always existed, which is mathematically impossible as it would constitute an infinite regress of cause and effect.Enormously powerful...you seem to agree, although you don't want to.Why am I comfortable with an eternal God but not an eternal universe? As I mentioned previously, the physical universe, if it existed eternally, would constitute an eternal regress of cause and effect. This is mathematically impossible as it lead to several contradictory conclusions, all of which must be true, but some of which are mutually exclusive. An eternal, immaterial, timeless being is certainly logically plausible as established by my arguments previously.The plain science says that the universe had a beginning in the finite past. This fact is just not up for debate among serious scientists. Your oscillating universe idea was debunked long ago, you should drop that one from your list of rebuttals.Sorry xaeon, but your comments do not demonstrate that my premisses are flawed. You seem to think that we can only know things that we can detect empirically. This is far from the truth. There are many things that we know that are impossible to detect empirically, things like the laws of logic ('A' cannot be 'Not A'). The things that we know about what could have existed without the universe are well established by the laws of logic.
Debate: Was the world really created by god or the big bang theory?
Side: Big bang theory

"It is absurd to deny that something that begins to exist can do so without a cause."You say it with such conviction, but you don't actually think that way because you're willing to accept that god existed without a cause. You keep saying it, but you still haven't explained adequately why god is an exception to the rule. "Please provide some examples of things that have begun to exist without cause. "Yes. According to you, god."You posit fanciful imaginary scenarios to try and get around the fact that my premiss is plainly true."I'm afraid that you are kidding yourself with this statement. Is this noty exactly what you are doing with the idea of god? Positing fanciful imaginary scenarios of a timeless immateral being (which can't be the universe, because... well, because it simply can't)?"We cannot talk about 'before the universe' because time and matter came into existence at the same moment."Can you back this statement up? It seems likely, but any statement about pre-big bang is, as I keep saying, purely speculation. Sure, it seems logical, but that's not how science works. As I keep saying, can you show me (with actual evidence, not just your continued assumptions about the universe) why god can exist without a causer but the universe cannot?"It must be personal... We know this because an impersonal set of mechanical causes could not exist without their resulting effect. If this were the case, then the universe would have always existed, which is mathematically impossible as it would constitute an infinite regress of cause and effect."What about a person set of mechanical causes? What are you going to make up about that and claim to be something you "know?" Can a personal set of mechanical causes just happen, or does it present the exact same problem you've just presented to me?"An eternal, immaterial, timeless being is certainly logically plausible as established by my arguments previously."Seeing as I showed all of your previous statements to be based purely on speculation and assumption, I would hazard to disagree with you on this point. You can say that a eternal, immaterial timeless being can exist, and you might think that it ticks all of your boxes. Unfortunately it doesn't tick mine, and it doesn't tick any boxes for science. Untill you can show a reason why god is a special exemption from the points you've made to me, god simply exists in the same set of logically inconceivable ideas, such as an infinite universe. (Notice I used the word inconceivable, not impossible; because to presume something outside the realms of the universe would be incorrect).
Debate: Was the world really created by god or the big bang theory?
Side: God

God didn't begin to exist without cause. The premiss is that everything that BEGINS to exist has a cause for its existence.God's begininglessness is not assumed by the argument, it is established by it.Examples of things that begin to exist without cause, please...(not God as established by my arguments)...under your view, this should happen all the time.The universe can't be infinite in the past because an infinite regress of cause and effect is an actually infinite set of events. Any mathemetician knows that an actually infinite set of anything is impossible. Therefore an eternal universe is impossible. This is not speculation. Time and matter came into existence at the same moment. Consult Einstein.I already told you about an impersonal set of mechanical causes. Are you seriously talking about a personal set of mechanical causes?? Read my arguments carefully.You have done nothing to show that my premisses are faulty.
Debate: Was the world really created by god or the big bang theory?
Side: Big bang theory

The main point of my argument is that you are assuming that the universe could not have been forever and assuming that it had to be caused. This is purely assumption. The big bang is the furthest point that we can go back to, and anything before that point is purely speculation. The big bang obviously had a cause, but the big bang does not equal the universe. This is the point that you are ignoring. You attempt to talk about matters that you and I are ignorant to as if you are privy to some kind of information that everyone else is not. Logic can not be used to talk about inconceivable concepts such as the state of the universe pre-big bang. The very idea of talking about an infinite universe is also pure assumption, as time itself could be only a property of the universe. Just because our heads can't fathom an existance without the concept of time doesn't mean that it could happen. In this universe there is cause and effect, but this is a property of the universe and may not be the case outside of the bounds of the universe.My problem with your argument is your assumption that god can be/is timeless, yet the universe can not be so. You can not back this assumption up because, as I've said, what happened pre-big bang is currently unknown, and possibly unknowable.
Debate: Was the world really created by god or the big bang theory?
Side: God

I really don't think that I am merely assuming that the universe is finite in time. A quick google search should confirm that for you.You say that the Big Bang obviously had a cause, and I agree. That is the central tenet of my argument. When astronomers and astrophysicists speak of the big bang, they are speaking about the beginning of the universe. So you are right in saying that the Big Bang does not equal the universe. But you are assuming that something physical , the singularity, existed prior to the beginning of matter. That is simply absurd.In cases like this, logic and the laws of logic are all we have to talk about the beginning of time, space and matter. Science is blind prior to t=0.Again, I am not merely assuming God's timelessness, it is established by the arguments. The fact that the universe is finite in time is well established in scientific literature. Again, these are not assumptions. And you labeling them assumptions does nothing to reduce their truth value.
Debate: Was the world really created by god or the big bang theory?
Side: God

Here is where I think we agree...-the big bang happened, likely around 14 billion years ago.-the Big Bang had something profound to do with the universe as we know and can measure it today.-time, space and matter are properties of the universe-the conditions prior to t=0 are not detectable through the scientific method or direct observationWhere we disagree...-whether or not anything existed prior to the big bang-whether or not the universe is or could be eternal-whether or not we can induce logically what could or could not have happened prior to the big bang.Is that a fair assessment so far? Would you add anything?
Debate: Was the world really created by god or the big bang theory?
Side: God

Pretty much spot on. I would hasten to add that some of the points are a little simple, and I am hesitant to completely agree with them. I'll just add some more to those points below to make my stance, hopefully, clearer."time, space and matter are properties of the universe"They are indeed properties of the universe, but may or may not also be properties of any past universes, any possible multiverses, etc, etc. Remember that accepting time as only a property of this universe, as you seem to be saying, makes it difficult for me to accept your infinite cause and effect argument, as to talk about infinity would require there to be a concept of time. Outside of the bounds of this universe you cannot confidently speak of such things, as to do so would be an assumption."the conditions prior to t=0 are not detectable through the scientific method or direct observation"I would like to add currently to this sentence. It may be possible in the future with technological and scientific advances to actually investigate the conditions of t<=0. We simply don't know yet."whether or not anything existed prior to the big bang"I'm comfortable to say that, yes, we can not know anything about t<=0. We can't even accurately say whether a t<0 even did or could have existed."whether or not we can induce logically what could or could not have happened prior to the big bang."Again, I agree with this point to a degree. We can certainly have a pop at what seems most logical, but to call it "deducing" would give it more significance that it deserves. I believe the concepts required to understand and deal with t<=0 are currently inconceivable. Pretty much overall though, a fair assesment of where we agree and disagree.
Debate: Was the world really created by god or the big bang theory?
Side: Big bang theory

ok so lots of your evidence and counter arguments are just plainly dumb. i was reading plenty of these posts and i could comment on all of them and i could tear apart everything youve said but, i dont feel like it. however, you did say one thing that i havent heared in a religious debate before and i had to point out why it is wrong. "You seem to think that we can only know things that we can detect empirically. This is far from the truth. There are many things that we know that are impossible to detect empirically, things like the laws of logic ('A' cannot be 'Not A')." to be empirical is to be derived from experience and experiment, or observing and testing. so everything we know is empirical because it had to be brought about by observations. you know what a tree is because sombody showed you a tree and said thats a tree. the laws of logic are empirical. i can test them and observe them in action. the laws of logic are like the law of gravity. you may not see a giant string saying gravity on it holding the planets around the sun but you do see the effect. laws of logic dont come in bottles saying logic either. and your specific example of the laws of logic is totally observable. think of any one object. your cellphone, your couch, your dog, or even yourself. lets take the cellphone example to test and observe the law of logic that A cannot be Not A. is your cellphone a giraffe? is it the moon? a car? your mother? a doughnut? if you said yes to any of these you are right that the laws of logic arent empirical, in fact now they are false. im going to guess you said no to all of them and now ask you did we just test a law of logic, and observe how it works, to proove its truth value? if you said no you are being a child. but if you said yes then by definition that law of logic is empirical. it has evidence that we can observe and test to proove its true. god can we say he is empirical? if we can, give me some evidence of things you can observe and test to proove he is real. but right now i see it as, we do not have anything that is specifically tied to god, we cannot observe god, and there is no experiment to test gods truth value. let me know what you have to say about this send me an email because i most likely wont look at this site anymore. [email protected]
Debate: Was the world really created by god or the big bang theory?
Side: Big bang theory

Good show my dearest friend. I thoroughly agree with every one of those points.