azza1625/createdebate-arguments huggingface dataset:
Debate: Existence of matter proves a creator exists
Side: False

1) Almost every scientist affirms the idea of a beginning of the universe. People just disagree on what the origin of it was and how it came to be.Do they? I don't know. What I do know is that both Stephen Hawking and Lawrence Krauss, both world renowned physicists, believe that the universe created itself. 2) Everything in nature has a beginning and end, thus logically coming to the conclusion that so does nature itself.No, it does not logically follow. This is the fallacy of composition: The fallacy of composition arises when one infers that something is true of the whole from the fact that it is true of some part of the wholeThe universe need not necessarily behave the same way as objects inside the universe. 3. We do not know enough about the universe to conclusively decide that the only possible explanation is that God, operating outside of the laws of thermodynamics, created energy and the universe.
Debate: Existence of matter proves a creator exists
Side: True

Do they? I don't know. What I do know is that both Stephen Hawking and Lawrence Krauss, both world renowned physicists, believe that the universe created itself.Thus, there was a beginning. Also, something cannot create itself; for if something is not in existence then it has not capabilities of creating. Continued, if you are getting into the idea that the universe is eternal and that it has merely been fluctuating with energy, and at one point it was gaining energy, before the big bang, then you would be contradicting the 2nd law of thermodynamics. There had to be a definite beginning.No, it does not logically follow. This is the fallacy of composition: The fallacy of composition arises when one infers that something is true of the whole from the fact that it is true of some part of the wholeI knew someone was going to bring that up... haha But here's the thing, everything in nature does have a beginning and end and because the universe is only composed of the things within nature (and not an actual thing but a composition of things), that have a beginning and end, it would logically follow that when everything in the universe is finally ended that the universe would too. Likewise, the universe had to have a beginning with the same logic. It is not like that of the fallacy you have stated, because the composition of things, the universe, is merely an expression of every thing within the universe and nature itself. Thus, you can apply the subparts to the whole because the whole would not exist without the subparts (and there are no other subparts of the universe, which is equal to nature, which has everything in it requiring a beginning and end).3. We do not know enough about the universe to conclusively decide that the only possible explanation is that God, operating outside of the laws of thermodynamics, created energy and the universe.That is true.
Debate: Existence of matter proves a creator exists
Side: False

Also, something cannot create itself;What evidence do you have for this assertion? Stephen Hawking and Lawrence Krauss both believe the universe created itself, and they happen to be subject matter experts with PhDs in their field. So, why is your opinion or a creationists opinion, more valid than two subject matter experts who possess PhDs in this exact field? everything in nature does have a beginning and end and because the universe is only composed of the things within nature (and not an actual thing but a composition of things), that have a beginning and end, it would logically follow that when everything in the universe is finally ended that the universe would too. No, this is still the fallacy of composition. What is true of the parts is not necessarily true of the whole. It could be argued that the universe is actually the fabric of space time itself, a mere "enclosure" for the parts within if you will. Thus, you can apply the subparts to the whole because the whole would not exist without the subparts (and there are no other subparts of the universe, which is equal to nature, which has everything in it requiring a beginning and end).No, you cannot, not on that fact alone. You're are still committing the fallacy of composition. You are perfectly free to assign the qualities of things within the universe to the actual universe, so long as it doesn't violate the fallacy of composition. You are saying that because everything in nature has a beginning and end, that so much the universe, and then you argue that the universe itself is not a thing. Well then what is it? If the universe is not a thing, then shouldn't space go on for infinity? Since there is no "end" to it? That is true.I agree. I feel more comfortable saying "I don't know" than trying to pretend like I know.
Debate: Existence of matter proves a creator exists
Side: False

I read the article you linked. His basic premise is that in order for the second law of thermodynamics to even operate, someone would have to "create" that initial energy in the first place, so that it can then begin to decrease overall. This "someone" that created the energy for the second law of thermodynamics to operate is God, he claims. the entire universe is winding down like a giant wind-up clock, ticking down and losing available energy. Since energy is continually changing from available to unavailable energy, someone had to give it available energy in the beginning! (I.e. someone had to wind up the clock of the universe at the beginning.) Who or what could have produced energy in an available state in the first place? Only someone or something not bound by the second law of thermodynamics.Just so the relevant material is here at a glance ↑. How does John Cimbala know that the only possible explanation for the existence of energy, is God? He doesn't leave any possibilities open, except the one that he came up with. Seems rather closed minded and arrogant if you ask me.
Debate: Existence of matter proves a creator exists
Side: True

How does John Cimbala know that the only possible explanation for the existence of energy, is God? He doesn't leave any possibilities open, except the one that he came up with. Seems rather closed minded and arrogant if you ask me.He doesn't, however, energy can only be created by something that is capable enough of putting out enough energy to create everything. And if this factor was real, then it would have to be outside the universe, which is metaphysical and thus meriting the possibility of inconceivability.
Debate: Existence of matter proves a creator exists
Side: False

How does he know that energy, and by extension the universe, had to have been created by something other than themselves? Like I said before, we have John Cimbala a PhD in mechanical engineering vs Stephen Hawking and Lawrence Krauss both of whom are world renowned physicists with PhDs in their respective fields. What makes you think Cimbala is more qualified to answer this question when Cimbala's own degree isn't in this field? whereas the two physicists I mentioned both believe the universe created itself, and have PhDs in this field? If this is an argument from authority, then John Cimbala is no authority here since he is not a subject matter expert in this field. Stephen Hawking and Lawrence Krauss are indeed subject matter experts in this field, they are among the most intelligent in this field in the entire planet. You will have a great deal of trouble finding someone more qualified to answer the question of the universe's origin than these two men.
Debate: Existence of matter proves a creator exists
Side: True

Something cannot create itself; for if it is not created, then it is not in existence. If something is non existent, then it cannot "do." If it cannot do anything, then it cannot create. It is illogical to say that before something was created, it created itself; thus meaning that it is eternal and had no beginning. However, the universe did have a beginning as energy cannot be limitless in a state of nature, as it cannot be created or destroyed. Moreover, if we are going to a state of negative energy, then we are required to have a point in which the energy was at its height. It could not stay at this height of energy for an eternity in the past because this would break the 2nd law. Thus, the universe had to have been "created" as in given energy from an outside source with enough energy as to begin the universe. This, we call God.It isn't an appeal to authority. It is a simple statement to show that there are accredited scientists who believe the same as I do because people tend to say that anything I say is unscientific and has no backing in the scientific community.
Debate: Existence of matter proves a creator exists
Side: False

Something cannot create itself;How do you know? Thus, the universe had to have been "created" as in given energy from an outside source with enough energy as to begin the universe. This, we call God.This is where you strike an error. If God created the universe, there would have to be a time when god had not created the universe yet. But if god is independent of time and space, how could a "before god created the universe" exist? Before is dependent upon time, how can there be a before and after if there is no time in god's plane of existence? So the whole argument "God is independent of time and space" is also destroyed, because in order to say god created something, you would have to assume that "before" he created it, the universe did not exist, thus making time mandatory for god to have committed a sequence of events.
Debate: Existence of matter proves a creator exists
Side: True

How do you know?I have already said that if it is not in existence, then it cannot do, which is a fundamental key to creating.This is where you strike an error. If God created the universe, there would have to be a time when god had not created the universe yet. But if god is independent of time and space, how could a "before god created the universe" exist? Before is dependent upon time, how can there be a before and after if there is no time in god's plane of existence?Who said that God does not deal with time? God has everything to do with time! This is why Christians believe in predestination. The universe and time are mutually exclusive, which is why there had to be a beginning and an end to the universe. However, time is a standard of measure; because of this, time is eternal.So the whole argument "God is independent of time and space" is also destroyed, because in order to say god created something, you would have to assume that "before" he created it, the universe did not exist, thus making time mandatory for god to have committed a sequence of events.Time is unlimited and is simply a standard of measure. I have never said that God is outside of time and space. I have merely said that God is outside of the universe, which is everything naturalistic and spacious. Time measures the universe, but it is not tied to it.
Debate: Existence of matter proves a creator exists
Side: False

I have already said that if it is not in existence, then it cannot do, which is a fundamental key to creating.From our own personal experience, yes that is true. But how do you know that self creation is impossible for the universe as well? Who said that God does not deal with time? Not that this is your argument, but MANY creationists argue that god is independent of time. They argue for a "spaceless, timeless, immaterial" god. They claim that god created all of existence, including time. God has everything to do with time! This is why Christians believe in predestination. The universe and time are mutually exclusive, which is why there had to be a beginning and an end to the universe. However, time is a standard of measure; because of this, time is eternal.I'm not following, are you saying that the universe is independent of time, and time is independent of the universe? If there had to be a beginning and end for the universe, because you claim that self creation is impossible, how do you solve the problem of God? What was "before" God? If you claim that God has existed for an infinite amount of time, this is just special pleading for god. And even if it weren't special pleading, you'd still have to prove that God has existed for an infinite amount of time.  I have never said that God is outside of time and space. I have merely said that God is outside of the universe, which is everything naturalistic and spacious. Time measures the universe, but it is not tied to it.I didn't mean to imply that you claimed god was outside time and space, my apologies on not clarifying that. If time measures the universe, but is not tied to it, why is gravity capable of stopping time? The singularity of a black hole can cause time to stop outright. It would appear that gravity and time are very much intertwined. And as far as we know, gravity exists in the universe, but not outside. Nor do we have evidence that time exists outside of the universe. All I'm saying is that these claims of yours are unverified and have no evidence, or at least you didn't post any.
Debate: Existence of matter proves a creator exists
Side: True

I agreed with most everything you said except that part in which you said that evidence is support of "so and so." Evidence itself is a belief in of itself. You must justify your belief in evidence with evidence. That evidence then too must be supported through evidence. And so on and so forth. Evidence is not an indicator for truth; for there is evidence for everything including Elvis still being alive.If there must be an immovable mover, or an uncaused cause if you will, why not just say it was the universe that self created itself? I also, agreed with this point to an extent. The only problem is that by defining it as self-creating, it is self-defeat able. It can either be eternal or created, it cannot be both. Also, saying that it is eternal would then be in violation of the 2nd Law. However, as you have pointed out, we do not know if this applies everywhere. This means that the 2nd Law is questionable in its entirety. Because if a Law of the earth that has never been disproved is "skepticised" because we don't know whether the rest of the universe has the same laws or not, then we must question all other laws and theories as well; for we have not witnessed much of the things we so say that are true in the scientific community: gravity, evolution, thermodynamics, Newtonian physics, etc.But we have yet to conclude that anything supernatural even exists. So far, every single mystery that has ever been solved by mankind, has always had a naturalistic explanation. Not once have we conclusively shown that there was some supernatural phenomena going on. It may change in the future (I highly doubt it), but the only consistent evidence we have for the supernatural is personal testimony from people.This then relates to the debate I had with Cuaroc early yesterday. How do you come to "knowledge" of certain things? Did you witness them first hand? Have you seen Africa first hand? You rely on eyewitness testimony to find truth, which is why there is an entire field dedicated to it.
Debate: Existence of matter proves a creator exists
Side: False

I'm confused how someone with a Ph.D in Aeronautics, and being a Professor of Mechanical Engineering, can go and make ignorant statements such as the following:Fortunately, and by the grace of God, I began to read articles and listen to tapes about scientific evidences for creation. Over a period of a couple years, it became apparent to me that the theory of evolution has no legitimate factual evidence, and that scientific data from the fossil record, geology, etc. could be better explained by a recent creation, followed by a global flood.Perhaps it's just not his field of expertise? But before that he writes the following:I was raised in a Christian home, believing in God and His creation. However, I was taught evolution while attending high school, and began to doubt the authority of the Bible. If evolution is true, I reasoned, the Bible cannot also be true. Eventually I rejected the entire Bible and believed that we descended from lower creatures; there was no afterlife and no purpose in life but to enjoy the short time we have on this earth. My college years at Penn State were spent as an atheist, or at best as an agnostic.I'm curious, what is it that made so much sense in high school for him to completely get rid of religion, god, and the bible, but years later he randomly embraced god? I mean, why did it make perfect sense in high school, but just a few years later, it made no sense at all?
Debate: Existence of matter proves a creator exists
Side: True

I'm curious, what is it that made so much sense in high school for him to completely get rid of religion, god, and the bible, but years later he randomly embraced god? I mean, why did it make perfect sense in high school, but just a few years later, it made no sense at all?He was educated. haha^^^^^^^^^Very arrogant claim :3 haha
Debate: Existence of matter proves a creator exists
Side: False

He is educated, I agree. Which makes it all the more stunning when he makes such ignorant statements like "evolution has no evidence". The fact still stands though, that the theory of evolution has mountains of evidence to support itself. And neither does the second law of thermodynamics support god's existence. He says it had to have been a "something" or "someone", but he automatically assumes a someone? Why not a something, similar to the higgs boson? And in any case, how does he know something or someone created that energy to begin with? I mean, Stephen Hawking and Lawrence Krauss, world renowned physicists, believe the universe created itself. But John Cimbala disagrees? Well John Cimbala needs to get a PhD in physics before he can challenge two world renowned physicists.
Debate: Existence of matter proves a creator exists
Side: True

Fortunately, and by the grace of God, I began to read articles and listen to tapes about scientific evidences for creation. Over a period of a couple years, it became apparent to me that the theory of evolution has no legitimate factual evidence, and that scientific data from the fossil record, geology, etc. could be better explained by a recent creation, followed by a global flood.NZ: I have never met an engineer who put total faith in evolution. There simply is not enough mechanical proof. I am like you. I was taught in high school that evolution is fact, and doubted the existence of God. I was fooled by their circular reasoning on their own theories. I, too, absorbed later information about scientific evidence FOR creation, and displaying the lack of scientific method applied to evolution. That, and one other experience reinforced my belief that God exists. Kudos, Mr. Engineer. : )
Debate: Existence of matter proves a creator exists
Side: False

The same way as a school friend of mine who took Anatomy and Physiology, passed with an A and yet still believes God literally wakes her up every morning instead of her body.
Debate: Existence of matter proves a creator exists
Side: False

It's strange how these people do possess the ability to think both criticall and scientifically, but they choose to forfeit that type of thinking in favor of wishful thinking that makes them feel special.
Debate: Existence of matter proves a creator exists
Side: False

Pretty much. But I guess those deeply indoctrinated don't even realize their beliefs are in conflict with the information they just accepted.Not only that but she thought it was quite absurd that the class didn't acknowledge God within the structure of the body (the class touched on Evolution).
Debate: Existence of matter proves a creator exists
Side: True

You can't argue it one way or the other. We are too limited in our understanding of the universe and it;s history to make such a claim either way.
Debate: Existence of matter proves a creator exists
Side: False

So your philosophy is like the agnostic; we can't claim anything as humans because there are so many variables to consider? It's like saying "I know I can fall in love with ONE person, but there are multiple people in this universe so I shouldn't fall in love because there is no way I can meet every single person in the world."
Debate: Existence of matter proves a creator exists
Side: True

Trying to comparing finding scientific proof of God and entering the dating game are too completely different things. There are too many unknown things about God to draw such drastic conculsons. Atleast when you are looking for your soul mate your know they are human, and usally you know what gender they will likely be. We have no idea about God's history and characteristics other than what we are told in Church. While i do believe in God, i do no think we should try scienfically claim his existance. Maybe one day we will be able to, but that's a long way from now.
Debate: Existence of matter proves a creator exists
Side: True

true, there are scientific arguments, but the winning one is that science has proven itself wrong by saying that matter can neither be created or destroyed, thus the arguments that the universe was created from a nanostropic event would have to be wrong, also considering that the universe could not just pop into existence.
Debate: Existence of matter proves a creator exists
Side: False

I wouldn't say that is the "winning" argument, we don't know if the same laws of physics apply to universe creation. It's like how we try to apply classical physics to things at the quantum level, the math just doesn't add up or even function. We have to adopt a different set of rules and physics, namely quantum physics, in order for anything to work out. In this same way, there could be different laws of physics or no laws of physics that govern universe creation. This is all speculation, but it is to show you that science has not proven itself wrong. You also have not explained how the universe could not just pop into existence, because there are two world renowned physicists who believe just that. Stephen Hawking and Lawrence Krauss both believe the universe created itself. Would you rather believe the layman's idea, or the idea that the world renowned physicists came up with?
Debate: Existence of matter proves a creator exists
Side: False

I believe neither, i believe science when it explains that matter cannot be created or destroyed, and i believe in a double negetive that the universe created itself, in other words, if god exists than he/she is not made of any matter, and thus is nonexistent.Below is a fraction of my data, fact or not:Matter cannot be created or destroyedAny source of divine power contains no matterThe universe could easily create itselfThe universe stretches for infinityEnergy is merely motionit is by this data i have concluded that only the Ryuugian Gods that are my religion could possibly exist, for only they perfectly fit the data i listed above.
Debate: Existence of matter proves a creator exists
Side: True

here, this should clear things up, hopefully:God-Matter=Existence=Matter+Motion=Energy+Atoms=Fusion+Energy=Life God-Matter=Existence=Matter+Motion=Energy+Atoms=Fusion=Universe God+Matter=Nonexistence=Void+Motion=Void+Atoms=Void+Energy=Void God+Matter=Nonexistence=Void+Motion=Void+Atoms=Void=Void
Debate: Existence of matter proves a creator exists
Side: True

Regardless of the method, there is a creation. That alone is evidence of a creator, in my honest opinion. Until such time as I see irrefutable proof that there is no such creator, I will continue to believe it.
Debate: Existence of matter proves a creator exists
Side: False

Regardless of the method, there is a creation. That alone is evidence of a creator, in my honest opinionThis is a non sequitur. Creation is evidence of a creator? How? Your belief lies simply on the lack of "irrefutable proof" that your position is incorrect. You could therefore by extension believe anything, because there will never be irrefutable proof that fairies or werewolves do not exist. Your position is absurd.