azza1625/createdebate-arguments huggingface dataset:
Debate: The God Debate: Does he exist?
Side: yes

I would say yes. Let my list of reasons start. First one if the earth was any closer or farther away from the sun we would all die that points to intelligent design which points to God. How come the bible is yet to be proven wrong? How come the bible goes along history book so well? The bible that have been found from when the bible was still being written ( some time in ad) match up with new translation almost word for word in ones being printed today. If science is so great how come we font Evan understand are own bodies. Yesterday another proven for intelligent design. How come the great flood that is written in the bible is also found in many other religions? For those of u who say that the bible is contradicting I vet u haven't read the bible from cover to cover yet u still claim to be all knowing on it.
Debate: The God Debate: Does he exist?
Side: No

First one if the earth was any closer or farther away from the sun we would all die that points to intelligent design which points to God.This is a nonsense argument for a number of reasons:1) The habitability zone within our universe is about 211.575 million miles wide and it is growing.2) There are 70 sextilllion stars or about 7.0x10^22 stars that we know of so far. And each of these stars have it's own habitability zone (some larger and some smaller). When you look at it that way, one water-bearing planet is bound to fall within one of those zones.3) This is all assuming all potential life would require the same conditions that earth-based life requires. How come the bible is yet to be proven wrong?It has:Bats are not birds.The sun is older than the earth.The moon is not a light nor does it produce light.How come the bible goes along history book so well?Perhaps for the reason the film Saving Private Ryan goes along with history so well.If science is so great how come we font Evan understand are own bodies.Science is a process, it is not a cognizant thing, it does not understand things but it helps us to understand things. Through science we have been able to learn a great deal about our bodies and the bodies of many other living things. Science has made modern medicine possible.Yesterday another proven for intelligent design.What? This is not even a complete sentence. How come the great flood that is written in the bible is also found in many other religions?Many cultures have a flood story because many cultures have at one time or another experienced excessive flooding. It may very well be a fictionalization of flooding which occurred at the end of the last glacial period.
Debate: The God Debate: Does he exist?
Side: yes

I will give u the earth one. The sun is older than the earth it says do in the bible. What is this about the bats not being birds where did that come from? The moon being a light who said any thing about that we all know it's not. Some if the Bible was written before to tell of things to come and those things that we written a hundred years before came true. It was supposed to say yet another prove of intelligent design but it should have said yet more prove of intelligent design. I was talking about the great flood as in the whole earth. And tell me have u even read the bible from cover to cover?
Debate: The God Debate: Does he exist?
Side: No

The sun is older than the earth it says do in the bible.It most certainly does not. The order within Genesis clearly shows the earth being created before the sun. According to the Bible the earth was created on day 1 and the sun was created on day 4.DAY 1: "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." -Genesis 1:1DAY 4: "God made two great lights--the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars." -Genesis 1:16The moon being a light who said any thing about that we all know it's not.See the verse above. The bible describes the moon as a light to govern the night. Yet the moon is not a light.What is this about the bats not being birds where did that come from?Leviticus 11:11-19"These, moreover, you shall detest among the birds; they are abhorrent, not to be eaten: the eagle and the vulture and the buzzard,and the kite and the falcon in its kind,every raven in its kind,and the ostrich and the owl and the sea gull and the hawk in its kind,and the little owl and the cormorant and the great owl,and the white owl and the pelican and the carrion vulture,and the stork, the heron in its kinds, and the hoopoe, and the bat."I was talking about the great flood as in the whole earth.I know what you were talking about, but the flood myth is precisely that...a myth. There is no geologic evidence of a global flood. If there was a global flood we would expect to see a universal layer of silt within the geologic column, precisely what we do not find.And tell me have u even read the bible from cover to cover?Yes, I have. And based on your responses above, I am more knowledgeable of the bible than you are. I have found that many Christians only reiterate the verses within the Bible that re-affirm their faith, without actually understanding the contents of the book itself. How many Christians are aware that the bible gives directions on how to sell your daughter into slavery? Read Exodus 21:7. Not surprisingly we don't see Christians quoting that part of the bible.
Debate: The God Debate: Does he exist?
Side: yes

I sorry don't know what I was think. The sun was after the earth. And please tell me hoe u think u can date the sun? It never Sayers the moon makes light. Yes a bat is not a bird but during the time when the bible was written the did not have a clear definition of what was a bird so to them any thing that flies is a bird. Yes I have read the bible. I continue to do so.
Debate: The God Debate: Does he exist?
Side: No

I sorry don't know what I was think. The sun was after the earthNo it wasn't. The sun is older than the earth. The earth orbits the sun, without the sun there are no days. Without the sun there is no light, and without light there can be no life.The story that you read within the bible is just that-- a story. It does not reflect our physical reality. People invent myths to explain what they do not understand.And please tell me hoe u think u can date the sun?I cannot, but astronomers can. The age of the sun is determined by it's stage in stellar evolution, by knowing how much fuel (Helium & Hydrogen) remains and how quickly it is burning this fuel. So yes, we do know that the Sun is older than the earth.Yes a bat is not a bird but during the time when the bible was written the did not have a clear definition of what was a bird so to them any thing that flies is a bird.Assuming there was no word for flying animals, nor a word for feathered animals, how can you possibly consider the bible inerrant if it is so crippled by the limitations of ancient human language? What else might be incorrect due to linguistic limitations?
Debate: The God Debate: Does he exist?
Side: yes

Yes with out the sun there is no way that life would exist on earth that'd why man was after the sun. These Astronomers are the same people who thought the earth was the center of the universe. These scientist also thought the earth was flat for thousands of years, thing scientist say and have been excepted has fact have change multiple times over the course of time. read on this website if u read a little u see where it explains the bats, it also explains about the sun/earth which was first argument. http://www.biblestudymanuals.net/contradict.htm
Debate: The God Debate: Does he exist?
Side: No

If you take the time to understand history you will find that it was primarily the catholic church that taught that the earth was the center of the universe, and Galileo was persecuted for 'blasphemous teachings' for contradicting the church.The flat earth view while certainly may have been held by some early scientists, it isn't in and of itself a scientific belief. The notion of a flat earth was not the conclusion of any empirical research. The belief in a flat earth, like the belief in God, while it was held by some scientists is not itself a scientific belief.All scientific evidence overwhelmingly points towards an older sun.As for the statement about bats, your source actually refutes your previous argument that the issue rises out of the uncertainty of the term for bird, the author of this states that in no uncertain terms it means "birds" and instead argues against the meaning of the word for Bat. This tells me first of all that your response was hastily contrived and secondly, that your author is in denial even knowing this. However you might want to translate it atallêph (bat) will not become a bird, and no translation will render it as such.If a single word is so uncertain that bats can become birds by translation alone, how can you possibly insist on it's inerrancy? Your mental gymnastics becomes more apparent by the minute.
Debate: The God Debate: Does he exist?
Side: yes

look GUYS,First, this topic is irritating me, Second, what is the religion of person, who created this debate? If he believed to religion, he wouldn't write this issue, and it is impossible to get conclusion from this site. I advise to him to discuss this kind of issue seriously. If he really wants to know about God, he should ask this question from experts, which are involved in this issue. My point of view to this issue: I believe, believed, and will believe to the existence of God. I am a Muslim. I believe, because something inside of me is telling this. Atheists and materialists think that human is created by chance. But, such branches of science as paleontology, genetics, biochemistry, and molecular biology have proven that it is quite impossible for life to come about as a result of chance and to emerge by itself from natural conditions. For that reason, the complex design in just one cell clearly shows that God created life. This is one of billion reasons, which shows that God exists!!!
Debate: The God Debate: Does he exist?
Side: No

look GUYS,First, this topic is irritating me, Second, what is the religion of person, who created this debate?The creator of this debate, does not submit to any religion. I posit that no religion adequately explains reality. Islam as well as Christianity and Judaism, are comprised of various archaic texts containing numerous myths, parables, and fables. The issue of the existence of God has been discussed innumerable times both formally and informally. Nor is there any way to establish who is or isn't an expert on the existence of God, we have only experts on various dogmas.I believe, believed, and will believe to the existence of God. I am a Muslim. I believe, because something inside of me is telling this.You interpret this 'something' as confirming your conviction because you want it to. The same religious experience can result in different interpretations to different people, which is influenced by whatever socialization one has undergone.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_helmetAtheists and materialists think that human is created by chance.There are both probabilistic as well as deterministic causes to nearly everything including the origin of mankind.But, such branches of science as paleontology, genetics, biochemistry, and molecular biology have proven that it is quite impossible for life to come about as a result of chance and to emerge by itself from natural conditions.There is no such thing as 'proof' in science, at least not in the sense lay people understand the term 'proof'. Science instead relies on evidence. Chance and probability play a role at nearly every level of science.Scientists have already observed the formation of self-replicating organic molecules under controlled conditions, in the lab. Conditions which are believed to be present on early earth.http://www.livescience.com/3214-life-created-lab.html For that reason, the complex design in just one cell clearly shows that God created life.The complexity of even one skin cell is the result of billions of years of trial and error thus there is no reason to posit the existence of God to explain what can already be explained without invoking the supernatural.
Debate: The God Debate: Does he exist?
Side: yes

The creator of this debate, does not submit to any religion. I posit that no religion adequately explains reality. I would argue that Christianity best explains reality. With the Bible you get a comprehensive historical account, a lot of it standing up to archaeological scrutiny. I've seen a lot of confirmations for the information that exists in the Bible but I don't recall seeing any refutations. Keep in mind, "There is no evidence for that" is not a refutation. I have not heard says/teachings from anyone else that are still applicable 2000+ years after they were first said. Jesus truly knew what made up human hearts and how to communicate that message.The same religious experience can result in different interpretations to different people, which is influenced by whatever socialization one has undergone.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_helmet Your link to the God Helmet is very misleading, considering Nature News of December 2004 updated the story and found that a double blind study using Persinger's experiment was not able to reproduce his results.There are both probabilistic as well as deterministic causes to nearly everything including the origin of mankind.Actually if you take into account the argument for fine-tuning then the probability of life springing up basically becomes 0.Scientists have already observed the formation of self-replicating organic molecules under controlled conditions, in the lab. Conditions which are believed to be present on early earth.Your link here is misleading as well. The article itself says that this is not life as these things do not gain novel, new functions.The complexity of even one skin cell is the result of billions of years of trial and error thus there is no reason to posit the existence of God to explain what can already be explained without invoking the supernatural.That is not fact, that is currently an opinion. There is still no evidence that life can spring from non-life. More importantly, one needs to explain where the complex information in DNA came from. DNA is a code that contains instructions telling the cell how to make all of its proteins.
Debate: The God Debate: Does he exist?
Side: No

Everything requires faith.If you want to insist that religious faith is the same thing as simply having trust in something, it's not. This is an equivocation of the word faith. Faith as it applies to religion is much more than than simply having trust in something.Having faith in numerous unevidenced uncorroborated supernatural events which defies the laws of physics, is not equivalent to having trust that a bridge won't give out. I have a good understanding of how much weight wood or steel can support with a given thickness. Furthermore if we apply some basic reasoning we can conclude that if a bridge cannot support my weight it probably won't support the weight of others and if the bridge has been recently traveled across it is probably safe. I have traveled across many bridges and none of them have given out, this is at the very least evidence that the next one probably won't give out.I do not require irrefutable proof, to not have faith in something.You can accept that the writer of Luke was so diligent that he correctly makes note of the direction of the wind in specific places Specificity does not equal veracity.but then say anything he wrote regarding the super-natural is false.So because the author of Luke sometimes mentions wind direction and water depth, the supernatural elements of the bible must be true?I would argue that because these writers were so meticulous in there recording of facts that the Bible should receive the benefit of the doubt in this regard.Well, considering the fact that the bible was written by numerous authors over such a long period of time it really isn't that meticulous, but even so:Specificity does not equal veracity.Feel free to do your own research. There's a lot of archaeological confirmation of many of the people and places.Ancient literature is notorious for combining historical events with mythological events. Ancient Jewish texts were no different. That somethings mentioned therein are true is not a particularly compelling argument for why we should believe that all of it is true.Hence the inability to provide one? I'm an open-minded person and generally respond well to examples.Shintoism in Japan. Hinduism in India. Islam in Saudi Arabia. Christianity in the United States. Judaism in Israel. Sikhs in Punjab. Mormons in Utah. Catholicism in Brazil.Geo-cultural influences are a much better predictor of one's religious faith than anything else.I've heard of Aristotle. I hope you're not claiming that his writings are more influential than the sayings of Jesus?Influential? No. Useful and relevant? Yes.Aristotle's teachings comprise some of the earliest scientific thought, and much of it is still applicable today. Muhammad is much more influential today than Aristotle ever was, but that's simply because we are talking about a revered religious figure.....I will get to your other points when I have more time.
Debate: The God Debate: Does he exist?
Side: No

I will insist on that yes.To believe the totality of a religious dogma is in no way equivalent to having trust that a bridge won't collapse upon crossing it. The later is trust based on evidence, the former is not.All of your arguments make it seem like you do. For me personally, if you take into account all of the evidence I'm much more compelled to believe in a creator than to believe the big bang happened for no reason.Who says it didn't happen for a reason? I'll defer to the Kalām cosmological argumentIf the universe has a cause of its existence then that cause is God.Any argument for the existence of God which includes the phrase "...then that cause is God" in the premise, is an invalid argument.Well that's a gross misinterpretation. I'm merely saying that there are over 80 historically confirmed details associated to Luke (there might be more now actually). It isn't just a couple things, he was a meticulous historian and thus I think should be given the benefit of the doubt.Once again, writers back then juxtaposed historical events with mythological ones, one cannot conclude complete veracity based solely upon the appearance of some factual details.Nor can you properly call these writers historians.Let's be honest, your disbelief in the super natural stems from you not believing in God.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_motive I will only point out that science is not the only way to absolute truth.There is no such thing as 'Absolute truth' and even if there was humans would not be capable of grasping it. However I will say that science historically has been the most reliable source of truth. Revealed Religion on the other hand has been the most reliable source of false promises and exaggerated claims.Actually I believe currently, there is a good case for many of the documents compiled into the Bible to have been written within 30 years of Jesus' death.Are we to believe the son of God is not capable of writing? Many of the details of Jesus' life were not written until 60 or 70 years later.That is certainly not enough time to be legendary as many historians would point out.The emperor of Ethiopia Haile Selassie I, was and still is believed to be the messiah by Rastafarians WHILE HE WAS STILL ALIVE, even after he explicitly told them that he wasn't.Its not just "somethings" there is a great deal that has been verified.Do any of these verified events include rising from the dead, walking on water, turning water into wine, talking bushes, angels, or stopping the sun in the sky?I was asking for an example of a historical fact in the Bible being wrong as I don't know any off the top of my head and haven't come into contact with any during my reading.Depending on how literally or metaphorically you take the Bible, I would argue that no Global flood ever occurred.
Debate: The God Debate: Does he exist?
Side: No

This is an argument that in order for us to exist, certain constants needed to be set at a specific value for our universe to occur the way that it has.For life to exist, the constants, mustn't be nearly as precise as you might suppose. The universe is large enough and old enough to where the conditions necessary for life are bound to coincide somewhere.99.9999% of the universe is completely uninhabitable, so if indeed the universe was designed for life, then it is apparently a very poor design. That life was able to thrive somewhere is not so much a result of divine intervention as it was a result of basic probability. I am not of the opinion that life HAD to be on earth, life could have been anywhere, but it happened on earth because the conditions were right for it, and that hasn't always been the case. The atmosphere of the early earth would have been quite poisonous to us and nearly all other non-microbial life.Is there any proof otherwise?In the colloquial sense proof does not exist in science. Nothing is truly ever proven, only in mathematics. I'm not making the argument that there is a multiverse, but certainly at least it seems plausible and it would lay the anthropic argument to rest. There is no more evidence for God than there is for a Mutiverse.How is it irrelevant?Because the experiment was repeated by another chemist with conditions much more similar to those of early earth, and got largely the same results.http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=primordial-soup-urey-miller-evolution-experiment-repeated Which have to be assembled in a very meticulous way which current probability is not in favor of it happening naturally.According to?How? Could you please show me the step that creates the information necessary for this to happen?If you wish to know, please visit this video which explores the process step by step.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3H0RXDrfyZc&feature=related John Horgan, "In the Beginning," Scientific American, vol. 264, February 1991, p. 119Don't bother giving me a citation that I know you got from a website, unless you physically posses this particular issue of Scientific American from 1991 which I highly doubt. What I want to know is what website you got this information from.it would seem this idea needs a lot more researchI agree.you can't make the claim that this RNA World is actually what happened until it becomes verifiable.It is verifiable. It has not yet been elevated to full-fledged theory yet, it has however undergone significant scientific testing and is much more scientifically supported than Intelligent Design. It is by no means the only hypothesis out there, but currently it is the most well supported explanation.