azza1625/createdebate-arguments huggingface dataset:
Debate: DO GODS EXIST??
Side: No

"Whatever. I don't need a religion to believe in God. No dogma either."God is a strictly religious concept. Creation is a textbook example of dogma."It's not unnecessary. For me, it explains God's existence.For you, you can say that everything had always been there and all the rules that bound everything together had always been there. But for me, a designer sounds more likely. So while it's unnecessary for you, it's very necessary for me and others who refuse to believe order was an accident that happened without a designer."You're using circular reasoning. Something like "god is necessary because it explains god's existence."Your second statement has no rational backing, you are actually arguing that a designer "feels" likely and therefore must be. Knowledge doesn't work that way. There is no positive evidence for a designer (saying something looks complex or improbable isn't an argument for design, it's an argument from your lack of knowledge of how the system works or became that way). Therefore, a designer can never actually be more likely, because in order for it to have any merit, it must be EVIDENCED."Actually, it makes me an imaginative thinker, and I'd like to quote Einstein at this point for effect:"Thou shalt not quotemine.
Debate: DO GODS EXIST??
Side: yes

God is a strictly religious concept. Creation is a textbook example of dogmaSays you.You're using circular reasoning. Something like "god is necessary because it explains god's existence.You should actually quote me properly, don't make up shit and then attribute that to me. I didn't say "god is necessary because it explains god's existence". I said "God is necessary because the universe is all matter and order". Or if you like: "The universe is made up of matter and has order, so someone must have created it". There's no circular reasoning in that.There is no positive evidence for a designer (saying something looks complex or improbable isn't an argument for design, it's an argument from your lack of knowledge of how the system works or became that way).  Does anyone know how the system "became that way"? No? So why don't we look at the 2 theories:1 - God exists because there's matter and order. Those 2 things inferred God's existence as their creator.2 - God doesn't exist because matter and order had always existed by themselves without the need to be designed/created.Since neither can be proven, I'm going with the one that sounds more likely, because:a) matter can't just pop into existence from nothingness.b) order results from design. No design = chaos, and the universe is void of chaos.Why is that so hard for you to get?Thou shalt not quotemineYou accuse me of quote mining, now come up with some evidence or reasoning. At least give us the context of the quote you accused me of misusing.
Debate: DO GODS EXIST??
Side: No

"Says you."http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/religion?r=75 http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/dogma?r=75 "You should actually quote me properly, don't make up shit and then attribute that to me. I didn't say "god is necessary because it explains god's existence". I said "God is necessary because the universe is all matter and order". Or if you like: "The universe is made up of matter and has order, so someone must have created it". There's no circular reasoning in that."I said something like.You said that god is necessary because the universe is matter and has order. You then proceeded to say that you find this helpful in understanding god.I paraphrased you in order to highlight your circular reasoning.You asserted that god exists as part of the universe, you then used this assertion, that it exists as part of the universe to help help you understand your first assertion."Does anyone know how the system "became that way"? No? So why don't we look at the 2 theories:"You're making an argument from ignorance. Big bang cosmology covers the early formation of the universe, stellar evolution covers another page, nebular hypothesis is the next step, abiogenesis covers the formation of life, evolution covers the diversity and change in life."1 - God exists because there's matter and order. Those 2 things inferred God's existence as their creator.2 - God doesn't exist because matter and order had always existed by themselves without the need to be designed/created."Number 1 negates the premise of god: god is undetectable and therefore cannot be inferred or deduced from anything by definition.Number 2 isn't a theory. The actual thing you refer to is thermodynamics which makes god creating matter impossible and unnecessary because according to the first law matter cannot be created or destroyed."Since neither can be proven, I'm going with the one that sounds more likely, because:"Thermodynamics is at the core of physics. It's proven.By default number 1 can never be likely because anything involving god will always have no evidence."a) matter can't just pop into existence from nothingness."Quantum vacuums provide empirical evidence to the contrary."b) order results from design. No design = chaos, and the universe is void of chaos.Why is that so hard for you to get?"You should be asking why you're still resorting to an incoherent argument.Order results naturally in this universe. See crystal formation, evolution, nebula hypothesis, just to name a few."You accuse me of quote mining, now come up with some evidence or reasoning. At least give us the context of the quote you accused me of misusing."Albert Einstein was never a theist in the same vein as you. He used god as a metaphor for nature, or the natural laws. He thought the theistic (religious) version of god was childish. Your attempt to use his quote to support you having imagination is therefore disharmonious with his views.
Debate: DO GODS EXIST??
Side: yes

God is a strictly religious conceptThis was your assertion. Not mine. Don't assert something false then go and look it up in the dictionary. Look up the word God alone, don't get distract my friend.http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/God Definition 1 says nothing about religion. You said religion. YOU.I paraphrased you in order to highlight your circular reasoningYou didn't just paraphrase, you made shit up.You asserted that god exists as part of the universeThere you go again, making shit up, I didn't say that God is part of the universe. God made the universe.You're making an argument from ignorance. Big bang cosmology covers the early formation of the universe, stellar evolution covers another page, nebular hypothesis is the next step, abiogenesis covers the formation of life, evolution covers the diversity and change in lifeI know all these theories. Except there's no theory to account for how matter and order (constants and rules of behavior) came into existence in the beginning. That's where God came in my friend! God created the universe and if those theories of Big Bang and whatever are true, they're simply how the universe was created following the rules.god is undetectable and therefore cannot be inferred or deduced from anything by definition.Which definition is this? I've just used logical deduction to say God exists and you say I can't by definition. But I just did.matter cannot be created or destroyedYeah, once it's there! God put it there in the beginning. Thermowatchamacallit is studying the existing matter. Humans created that law."Quantum vacuums provide empirical evidence..." that matter can pop into existence from nothingnessOk, when matter is successfully created, let me know.Order results naturally in this universe. See crystal formation, evolution, nebula hypothesis, just to name a few.You say it's natural (as in just happens by itself), I say God created the rules and order. For me, natural would be complete and utter random chaos. No regular shapes, no constants, no movements in straight lines.Albert Einstein was never a theist in the same vein as you. He used god as a metaphor for nature, or the natural laws. He thought the theistic (religious) version of god was childish. Your attempt to use his quote to support you having imagination is therefore disharmonious with his viewsOnce again I will confirm that I don't need a religion to believe in God and God is not strictly a religious concept. Einstein wants to inspire imagination from people like you (who think that science is the be all and end all). Have an imagination and look up Theistic Evolutionist. That's probably what I am.
Debate: DO GODS EXIST??
Side: SMOKE WEED EVERYDAY

Wouldn't the fact that the universe is "so perfectly formed and complex" just prove evolution? Think about it everything space happens from chemical reactions the motion of things throughout the universe. It HAS to be so perfect and complex because of the billions of years of things colliding and such. The only god that exists is time.
Debate: DO GODS EXIST??
Side: yes

Yes, humans explain the whole process with the term evolution. Evolution is how God made our universe.
Debate: DO GODS EXIST??
Side: yes

Why oh why is there so much bickering about this? One side hates the term natural while clinging to intelligence. The other abhors the term intelligent and insists (yet doesn't truly believe) that everything is natural.Sounds like the issue has to do with definition, not necessarily reality.The faithless half of this debate see the same universe we do. They just don't feel the attachment to it that we feel. I am pretty sure that it is faith that makes the difference.What amazes me though is the fact that what you have faith in and what I have faith in seem very much opposed now-a-days. You likely have faith in god or Jesus or some other weird old school religiousy thing.I have faith in naturalism. My understanding of evolution led me to believe that we are natural and I now believe it so deeply it can be considered faith.Once I realized that, it took about two weeks for the universe to shoot me in the head with big logic gun. Ever have thoughts that take your breath away? Anyway, I have felt an incredible connection and attachment to the universe as a whole ever since.How you and I define god when we write our descriptions down on paper, might not mesh well. But if we get to talking I bet we could find quite a few analogues between the two. In fact, I bet I could convert you :P
Debate: DO GODS EXIST??
Side: yes

hw can u say that???????? do u really know whether any proofs are there????????
Debate: DO GODS EXIST??
Side: NO

None that we have. On a topic like this you see the word "believe" a lot. You can't say God exist because it is your personal belief, there is no logic reasoning that can be used to explain the idea of God. On the other hand, you can't say there is no God, because they have no proof of his non-existence.
Debate: DO GODS EXIST??
Side: YES

Are you familiar with either of these:“Law of the excluded middle”‘A priori’ knowledge/justificationI ask because your assertions evidence the absence of those two principles. (I’ll explain at your request.)
Debate: DO GODS EXIST??
Side: yes

No I am not, please explain further -------------------------------------------------------
Debate: DO GODS EXIST??
Side: yes

The law of the excluded middle termSimplified, it teaches us that two contradictory propositions cannot both be both true and false, simultaneously. One must be false and the other true. For example:1) God exists.2) God exists not.As logical propositions they contradict one another; both cannot be false, both cannot be true, only one is true and its contradictory must be false. Bare in mind I have briefly addressed this principle, there is much more to it.A priori knowledge/justificationThere are two basic forms of knowledge: a priori and a posteriori.While there is much debate about the distinction of the two forms, ‘a priori’ knowledge is acquired by reason alone. And ‘a posteriori’ knowledge is acquired from scientific experiment. Now back to the question of this debate: “Do gods exist?”The existence of god is not discovered by scientific experiment. There is no experiment to affirm or deny the existence of god. The existence of god is a conclusion of reason alone. Ergo, any argument for or against the existence of god is ‘a priori’ knowledge/justification. And hence is not subject to scientific proof. (There are many resources available on the internet addressing the principles I have addressed.)Challenge:Man-like creatures do not inhabit the Earth’s moon.Man-like creatures inhabit the Earth’s moon.One of these propositions is true and its contradictory must be false. (Excluded middle)A priori or a posteriori knowledge: (your answer_______________)Now, substitute ‘the Earth’s moon’ with ‘the Sun’s inner core’.Again, one is true and the other is false; but this time our knowledge is not ‘a posteriori’.
Debate: DO GODS EXIST??
Side: yes

Since you're not a fence-sitter, then which side are you arguing for? Or do you have the habits of avoiding the actual debate topics everywhere you go?Gods exist even if you only see the result of their work, like electricity.
Debate: DO GODS EXIST??
Side: YES

Correct, I am not a fence-sitter and neither have I been accused of being other than such (well, at least by they who partially know my mind). Concerning debate subjects, it has been my experience that few at CD can argue the premises of a conclusion. Consequently, I tend to follow the straw-man arguments. Finally, concerning the existence of god, I am ignorant of the debate creator's meaning of God. However, I am on record as one who believes in One who is a god.
Debate: DO GODS EXIST??
Side: No

Electricity is not magic, you idiot. When they looked into the first micron telescope the didn't see Jesus waving at them.
Debate: DO GODS EXIST??
Side: yes

Where did I say electricity is magic? Stop embarrassing yourself. Having said that I think electricity is pretty magical, like all of God's creations.I once spoke to Jesus and he told me that a debater here by the name of EnigmaticMan is an idiot... I didn't believe him, but now... I dunno, I can't ignore the prophecy, y'know?
Debate: DO GODS EXIST??
Side: yes

you're denying the existence of proofs of gods here. the purpose of this debate is to present proofs or to counter them.therefore you are not participating.
Debate: DO GODS EXIST??
Side: yes

Oh, I see what you are saying.However, it is impossible to present proof on this because there is not proof either way. If the debate was about whether I believe in God and why/why not that would be different.
Debate: DO GODS EXIST??
Side: yes

The bible, for one thing, is real. You can close your eyes, and open it. It's still going to be there
Debate: DO GODS EXIST??
Side: No

"The bible, for one thing, is real. You can close your eyes, and open it. It's still going to be there"The bible is no more proof for god than the Quran is proof for allah. This is what is meant by a lack of proof.
Debate: DO GODS EXIST??
Side: yes

The bible, for one thing, is real. You can close your eyes, and open it. It's still going to be thereYou have provided evidence that the Bible exists. Congratulations! I'm not too sure God wants you in his corner when the method of battle is logic ;)
Debate: DO GODS EXIST??
Side: No

Is the Bible real? What is reality? What makes something real? You cannot "PROVE" anything. You can only supply evidence for it. What if you're dreaming, or this is like The Matrix? You cannot say anything for certain.
Debate: DO GODS EXIST??
Side: yes

Is the Bible real?YesWhat is reality?The sum of all things that are real.You cannot "PROVE" anything.To prove something means simply to test it. If it is a scientific proof, then the test takes the form of an experiment. Science has tested and confirmed many many things. The existence of God has not been tested because they can't think of how to perform the test.Is there a way to test to see if God exists?
Debate: DO GODS EXIST??
Side: yes

The Matrix is a great example. We're like individuals in the matrix and god created it. The difference is that in the movie, people can go in and out of the matrix. Here in reality, you can't.
Debate: DO GODS EXIST??
Side: No

The book will be there but the same goes for Harry potter doesn't make true
Debate: DO GODS EXIST??
Side: YES

Obviously gods don't exist. You're right. Only the one true God exists.
Debate: DO GODS EXIST??
Side: No

Well ignoring the definition of "existence" used on the other side, where stuff we imagine exists in that it is in our head,No, there's no such thing as a god or gods or any divine being in a religious sense.I mean, sure you could say that to an ant we are quite god-like, so I suppose it is possible somewhere in this vast Universe there could be some thing which would in comparison be god-like.But a god as in looks over us, or created us, or goes around playing tricks on people like Loki or something, nope, afraid they don't exist.
Debate: DO GODS EXIST??
Side: No

And if there were, you would see him. The world is based on observations, not perceptions.
Debate: DO GODS EXIST??
Side: yes

The fact that one doesn't "see" Gods, doesn't mean Gods don't exist. There's something I'd like for you to consider:there are approx 6 billion people on Earth, and you can't possibly see them all in your lifetime, you only read about them on the newspapers, magazines, see their images on TV, hear about them from others, and guess what? that's still not all of them! You're not likely to see or touch all of them in your life-time. So, do they exist?
Debate: DO GODS EXIST??
Side: No

Yes, because despite the fact that we can't see them, there is still evidence of their existence, in the fact that there are censuses conducted in most of the countries around the world.If you gave me the name of a specific person, I would ask you for proof, and if you could provide none, then I would have no reason to believe you.Even this isn't a good example, however, because there is a big difference between saying certain people exist, and an all powerful all knowing creator of the universe exists. I know that it is possible for people to exist because I've seen quite a few of them. Never have I encountered anything that even closely resembles what might be described as a god.This once again brings us back to the beginning...if there is a god show me evidence.
Debate: DO GODS EXIST??
Side: yes

"Census data"? written in books? evidence of existence from data in books? Books written by people you may never ever meet? that sounds like Gods to me!Also you can see people, but not Gods, that's because people can be seen and met. Gods can't be seen nor met. But just because something can't be seen nor met, doesn't mean it doesn't exist... So we're not back to the beginning, we're still on the point of: Just because you haven't met Gods, doesn't mean Gods don't exist. There is evidence of Gods' work all around you my friend... ;)
Debate: DO GODS EXIST??
Side: No

I'm going to ignore the 1st sentence, because I think we can both agree that it's a little silly.You are correct that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, however, I must also question your claim that there is evidence all around me. How about you give me an example?
Debate: DO GODS EXIST??
Side: yes

No no no, don't ignore it, you brought it up and I'm simply comparing what you brought up:Evidence of people on paper = evidence of Gods on paper. Census data evidencing people while bibles & korans, etc. evidence Gods. And we have agreed that just because Gods can't be met nor seen, doesn't mean they don't exist.Now, evidence of Gods' existence is in everything. The entire universe. In all things that can as well as cannot be explained by science. Science is how humans study and understand Gods' work. My friend, you think everything in the universe just happened? No design?
Debate: DO GODS EXIST??
Side: No

Okay, so you are giving 2,000 year old books the same credibility that you give census data? How do you account for the fact that many of them are contridictory, and some of them talk about many gods, whereas others talk about a single god? As I said before, I know what a person is because I have seen examples, whereas I have no experience in dealing with gods, therefore a census is much more reliable. Once again: this argument is silly and unrelated.You still haven't explained how the universe is evidence of gods existence. There are still many mysteries we have about the beginning of the universe, but from a few moments after the big bang on scientists can basically explain how the universe came about with fairly good accuracy, using relatively few sets of natural laws (quantum mechanics, general relativity). If the universe was designed for humans then God wasted a shitload of space. Earth is the only known place we can live, and even on earth, most of the planet is uninhabitable. So yes, I would say that there is no overarching design behind the universe.However, clearly you are of the opinion that it is designed, so, enlighten me.
Debate: DO GODS EXIST??
Side: yes

2000 years from now, your census data books will be just as old as the bible now. If you want to discredit the bibles and korans and whatever else, age is not going to do it sufficiently. I can't say if my god is the only one that exists and other gods don't. Perhaps there is only 1 god and that we all know that god by different names, perhaps there are actually many gods... I just don't know.In my previous post, I did say that science is how humans study and explain God's work, so all these quantum mechanics and whatnots are how scientists study God's work. What if I say to you the Big Bang was god's work? The efficient use of space by God is not our topic and it doesn't prove or disprove God's existence. Anyhow, I don't think God design things the way we do (efficient use of space, specific purpose, etc...). We have limited resources, so we have to maximize our use of them with our designs. I guess gods work with a different set of rules :)
Debate: DO GODS EXIST??
Side: No

The reason that I am saying that the books are unreliable is that they make outrageous claims with no evidence (much like you are doing now). Census data merely says that there are a certain number of people in an are: whether this number is accurate or not can certainly be questioned, but at least the concept of a certain number of people living in an are is plausable. I know, for instance, that there must be at least some people in China, because all my stuff says "made in China" on it. It therefore isn't that indredible for me to believe that there are 1.3 billion people living there. Any other explanation would involve some type of vast conspiricy, and when two thoeries explain the evidence equally well, the simplest is usually the best.I can't say if my god is the only one that exists and other gods don't. Perhaps there is only 1 god and that we all know that god by different names, perhaps there are actually many gods... I just don't know.That's pretty much what I've been saying, except that you also don't know if your god exists either... you couldn't. What if I say to you the Big Bang was god's work?Then you would once again be making an arbitrary statement without any proof. Look I can do it too: I am sitting next to a 3,000 pound monkey. There is no way for you to disprove this claim, but obviously you need more evidence if you are going to believe it. Me simply making a claim is meaningless without evidence.