azza1625/createdebate-arguments huggingface dataset:
Debate: Is there God?
Side: No

Anything that cannot be explained through science is considered supernatural. SimpleNo it's not, science is fallible, science doesn't know everything because science is a means of investigating things. We couldn't explain a lot of things via science, for a long time. (like lightning, the sun, the biodiversity of life, how people behaved, etc) doesn't mean those things are supernatural. If everything that hasn't been understood yet, via science is supernatural, then the supernatural is calculated to fade away.Preservation is easy. The painting itself is impossible.Or if, what is claiming is true, then we simply don't understand how the painting was preserved, not that it was impossible.
Debate: Is there God?
Side: Yes

No it's not, science is fallible, science doesn't know everything because science is a means of investigating things.So you are claiming that the research done is wrong?Science has already abandoned you. Ignorance is a choice, my friend.
Debate: Is there God?
Side: No

So you are claiming that the research done is wrong?I am saying that not understanding something scientifically, does not mean that it was supernatural... We didn't have a scientific understanding of lighting, but it wasn't supernatural at the time.
Debate: Is there God?
Side: Yes

Sorry I missed this one.I am saying that not understanding something scientifically, does not mean that it was supernaturalIt is actually. Modern science is not the same as primitive speculation.The Guadalupe is too mysterious to even allow any scientist to make a valid hypothesis about it.
Debate: Is there God?
Side: No

It is actually. Modern science is not the same as primitive speculation.The Guadalupe is too mysterious to even allow any scientist to make a valid hypothesis about it.How do you know thier isn't a valid hypothesis on it? Even if there wasn't perhaps when more knowledge accumulates, then we will be able to form a hypothesis.
Debate: Is there God?
Side: Yes

How do you know thier isn't a valid hypothesis on it?Easy. Because you dont see any scientist standing up against it. All who dares to are poorly made articles with limited views and laughable contents
Debate: Is there God?
Side: Yes

We couldn't explain a lot of things via science, for a long time. (like lightning, the sun, the biodiversity of life, how people behaved, etc)So how did we explain it? Supernatural and natural are words we created. We explain things in terms of what we have observed, and we explain those things in terms of what we have observed, and so on and so forth until we get to a point that we do not understand. In order for something to appear as if from divine origin, should it be totally exempt from scientific observation? How many layers do we need to get through to conclude that it is not related to God?
Debate: Is there God?
Side: No

In order for something to appear as if from divine origin, should it be totally exempt from scientific observation?No there should be a reasoning, or evidence to how it was divine, or of god. I need a reason to think it was, not just think it, just because. That's my problem with spirituality and religion, it seems the beliefs are based on just because, and it never gets around as to why people believe them, or when it does, it is usually for crappy reasons. How many layers do we need to get through to conclude that it is not related to God?We don't need to go through layers, if science can't extract any evidence that something is related to a god, then we need a reasoning, or logic, or a reason to think that it is related to god, not just because.
Debate: Is there God?
Side: Yes

No there should be a reasoning, or evidence to how it was divine, or of god.And what kind of evidence would that be?I need a reason to think it was, not just think it, just because.Do you need a reason why you are alive, or is it satisfying enough that you just are? Do you need a reason why someone loves you, or is it enough that they just do? Right now inside your skull is a chunk of meat, that through chemical reactions has come alive. It has given you the ability to see, smell, taste, feel and hear. Do you need to know why? Are you truly satisfied with the scientific argument which as of now is, just because? That's my problem with spirituality and religion, it seems the beliefs are based on just because, and it never gets around as to why people believe them, or when it does, it is usually for crappy reasons.At the core, most beliefs are just because. Science peels the layers away and discovers those strange things we gave names to. Names are illusions as well. Are you your name? Are calling atoms, atoms, or energy, energy really helping us understand those things more? At the core they are a mystery. We can come up with theories, but how will we ever know what they truly are or why they are here? I personally believe that we have to look within ourselves to find answers. I believe that is our purpose... To know who we truly are, but it is something that can only be accomplished spiritually. To people who aren't spiritual, that just sounds crazy, so they will always be living a mystery. This life is YOU though. Everything you perceive is within you. If you want to see what makes a clock tick, you look inside. You don't look all around it, trying to find evidence of a maker. The fact that it exists is evidence enough... But you are not looking for IF it ticks, you are looking for WHY it ticks... And that reason is found in the clock itself.
Debate: Is there God?
Side: No

And what kind of evidence would that be?It doesn't matter, as long as the evidence is sufficient. Do you need a reason why you are alive, or is it satisfying enough that you just are? Do you need a reason why someone loves you, or is it enough that they just do? Right now inside your skull is a chunk of meat, that through chemical reactions has come alive. It has given you the ability to see, smell, taste, feel and hear. Do you need to know why? Are you truly satisfied with the scientific argument which as of now is, just because?No, because I have sufficient reason to believe in those things... With someone loving me, and if I ask "why do you love me?" and they don't have an answer that might be concerning, although love is a subjective thing, your disposition towards someone is subjective.Are you truly satisfied with the scientific argument which as of now is, just because?But it's not just because in the same aspect of god, they give me reasons to think certain things. Why I am alive... well the evidence that I am alive is self evident, thus I don't believe I am alive just because... If someone loves me, and I know they genuinely love me, I don't need a reason as to why they love me, if I have a reason to believe it, then it's not "just because" in the same aspect of god. The thing is, I am not going to think something is true, just because, I am ok with not having answers, but I am not going to hold a belief... just because...At the core, most beliefs are just because.I see what you are doing here, but "just because" the way you are using it, is now how I meant it. I need a reason to think this or that, not just choose what I want to think. Science peels the layers away and discovers those strange things we gave names to. Names are illusions as well. Are you your name? Are calling atoms, atoms, or energy, energy really helping us understand those things more? At the core they are a mystery. We can come up with theories, but how will we ever know what they truly are or why they are here?Yeah, sure, but it's not the names that I care about, I acknowledge those names as... well arbitrary means of communicating, what I am interested is in what those words have in content. I personally believe that we have to look within ourselves to find answers. I believe that is our purpose... To know who we truly are, but it is something that can only be accomplished spiritually. To people who aren't spiritual, that just sounds crazy, so they will always be living a mystery. This life is YOU though. Everything you perceive is within you. If you want to see what makes a clock tick, you look inside. You don't look all around it, trying to find evidence of a maker. The fact that it exists is evidence enough... But you are not looking for IF it ticks, you are looking for WHY it ticks... And that reason is found in the clock itself.Answers to how we tick? I agree, that is why psychology this semester is fascinating ;P
Debate: Is there God?
Side: Yes

It doesn't matter, as long as the evidence is sufficient.Okay, so what kind of evidence? How would you know if something proves the existence of God or not?No, because I have sufficient reason to believe in those things... With someone loving me, and if I ask "why do you love me?" and they don't have an answer that might be concerning, although love is a subjective thing, your disposition towards someone is subjective.And your beliefs aren't?But it's not just because in the same aspect of god, they give me reasons to think certain things.And what are those reasons? Why I am alive... well the evidence that I am alive is self evident, thus I don't believe I am alive just because...No? Then why are you alive?If someone loves me, and I know they genuinely love me, I don't need a reason as to why they love me, if I have a reason to believe it, then it's not "just because" in the same aspect of god.Some people have a genuine reason as to why they believe in God, just as you have a genuine reason as to why you believe someone loves you... But both could be wrong. The person may not actually love you, and God may not actually exist. To people who believe in God, their reason why is not just because, unless they truly don't have a reason... But name one thing you believe in without having a reason to believe in it. Reasons aren't always good, but there are always reasons for beliefs.The thing is, I am not going to think something is true, just because, I am ok with not having answers, but I am not going to hold a belief... just because...You should have said "just because" a few more times ;)You can believe whatever you want! However, you can't hold a belief just because. That shows ignorance (I am not calling you ignorant as in stupid, just so you know) in your understanding of the other sides opinions. It suggests that you are so consumed with one view, that you refuse to understand the other. The scientific studies that you use to back up your beliefs, I also use to back up mine. So what reasoning could you have that trumps mine? How is yours any less "just because" than mine?I see what you are doing here, but "just because" the way you are using it, is now how I meant it. I need a reason to think this or that, not just choose what I want to think.Like I said, all beliefs require reasons.Yeah, sure, but it's not the names that I care about, I acknowledge those names as... well arbitrary means of communicating, what I am interested is in what those words have in content.Like I said, "at the core they are a mystery." Answers to how we tick? I agree, that is why psychology this semester is fascinating ;PPsychology Today has a fascinating article on how time doesn't exist ;Phttp://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/biocentrism/201202/does-time-really-exist By the way, not HOW we tick... But WHY we tick.
Debate: Is there God?
Side: Yes

Dude, we are making absolutely no progress. You appear to be disputing just to dispute. I think the main reason we aren't making any progress is because you are disputing definitions. As much as how and why seem like they can be used in place of each other, they actually can't... Not if you're trying to use proper English. When someone uses how, they are basically asking for a demostration. Using why, the person wants to know why something happened. I can see how someone could easily think of them as being the same, but they aren't, and if you were to answer a how question the same way you would answer a why question, then you are not answering them properly.The reason I typed up the difference between materialism and spirituality is because they are literally opposites. You seem to think that spirituality only applies to theists. Many atheists are actually spiritual, as well.I also pointed out that most people belonging to a religion are materialists, as well. I did not say that only atheists are materialistic.Another thing, a belief cannot be objective, or else it wouldn't be a belief. Objectivity isn't related to personal opinion.You also seem to be thinking that I consider my opinions to be facts, and you also seem to think that all opinions should be based on facts, or rather be facts... Making them not opinions. Also, this is related to our other debate, but you seem to think that to exist means something outside of presently being here and now, which can't be accurate unless you have created your own version of the word. It is one of those things that seems like it can work, just like how and why, but that would just be a misuse of the English language.If this is going to continue the way it is, then we are just going to have to agree to disagree and move on.
Debate: Is there God?
Side: No

Spiritual- "of soul: relating to the soul or spirit, usually in contrast to material things"Spirit- "life force of person: the vital force that characterizes a human being as being alive"Materialism- "focus on possessions: devotion to material wealth and possessions at the expense of spiritual or intellectual values"So one can only be non-materialistic if they believe in a soul?To an extent. I believe that the world is older than six thousand years because of dinosaur fossils. The existence of dinosaur fossils is a fact. But a lot of our beliefs are based on theories. I believe in the Big Bang and evolution because there is evidence, but they aren't facts. A lot of what people see as evidence against God, I see as evidence for God. So it all depends on the person.No they are explanations, a scientific theory, is an explanation based on scientific evidence, that are falsifiable. Evolution and the Big Bang aren't facts, but they are factual, they they are the most efficient means of explaining. They can predict what happens next, and accounts for all things we know. The existence of a God doesn't have any more evidence against it than your beliefs, so what are you calling false? Ultimately, we have never observed an intelligent being come from something that is non-intelligent, so it can even be said that evidence for an intelligent creator is more plausible than there not being one... But we can't prove it. You can point out the evidence against the world's religions, that is fine, but there is evidence for an intelligent creator, and there is also, depending on the interpretation, evidence against an intelligent creator. Who can disagree with that?If that is true, god would have to come from an intelligent being, and that being would have to come from an intelligent being, and so forth, resulting in an infinite regress. That isn't a very solid argument for intelligence behind intelligence being necessary.Illusion- "something with deceptive appearance: something that deceives the senses or mind, e.g. by appearing to exist when it does not or appearing to be one thing when it is in fact another"Would you say darkness is an illusion?That is assuming that there is no purpose.No, that is neither assuming either way. Their isn't a reason to think there is a purpose behind everything, that their is an intelligence, or intention behind everything. So we go off not assuming that.But why do we exist? We didn't have to exist and we have a good idea of how we exist, but what is the reason? It could very well be that there is no reason, therefore the why question is unnecessary. Scientists often try and solve the how... Philosophers usually deal with the why.Only philosophers that believe there is an intention or purpose behind everything.
Debate: Is there God?
Side: Yes

So one can only be non-materialistic if they believe in a soul?I gave the definition of spirit, instead of soul, for that reason. You obviously don't believe in a soul, but the term spirit can be applied to your beliefs. You don't have to believe in a soul to be spiritual.No they are explanations, a scientific theory, is an explanation based on scientific evidence, that are falsifiable. Evolution and the Big Bang aren't facts, but they are factual, they they are the most efficient means of explaining. They can predict what happens next, and accounts for all things we know.This is what I mean by you addressing the first layer of my arguments, so to speak. You know what I meant. I even said they were based on evidence and you even agreed that they aren't facts. So all you did was add your two cents as if you were actually disputing anything I said.Those theories are factual, yes... And that is why I said evidence.One of the first things you learn as a science student is how often scientific theories are falsified. For example, we had assumed that all life needed the sun to survive, until the 1970's when we explored the dark depths of the ocean and found life! Scratch that theory. So although these theories are based on evidence, they are falsifiable, like you said.So, I don't know why you said "no"... You agree with me! lolIf that is true, god would have to come from an intelligent being, and that being would have to come from an intelligent being, and so forth, resulting in an infinite regress.You're assuming God is bound by time, as in aging. Picture something that cannot be created nor destroyed, now imagine God as having similar properties. People who have had NDE's say that they discovered that God is energy. Energy has neither a beginning nor an end. Do you picture God as flesh? We've only observed living organisms bound by time and flesh, but like the sun and life theory, there may be properties we cannot comprehend yet.No matter your belief, everyone agrees that something has always existed... So why is it hard to believe that "God" could have always existed?That isn't a very solid argument for intelligence behind intelligence being necessary.Ultimately, intelligence had a source, and whatever that source may be, it always existed.Would you say darkness is an illusion?I think just about everything is an illusion lol.No, that is neither assuming either way.Didn't you say that why and how only differ when there is a purpose or intent?Only philosophers that believe there is an intention or purpose behind everything.And those are often the philosophers people quote. However, I think the why question applies to most philosophers. Philosophers are thinkers, where as scientists are doers. Doers search for the how. Thinkers search for the why.
Debate: Is there God?
Side: No

I gave the definition of spirit, instead of soul, for that reason. You obviously don't believe in a soul, but the term spirit can be applied to your beliefs. You don't have to believe in a soul to be spiritual.Sorry, my mistake. Then yeah, I don't disagree with being "spiritual" I don't like the term personally because it implies a belief in superstition.Those theories are factual, yes... And that is why I said evidence.One of the first things you learn as a science student is how often scientific theories are falsified. For example, we had assumed that all life needed the sun to survive, until the 1970's when we explored the dark depths of the ocean and found life! Scratch that theory. So although these theories are based on evidence, they are falsifiable, like you said.Yes, they are best means of explaining the world around us, do get falsified and replaced, however the theory of evolution is the most efficient means for understanding the biodiversity of life right? The more evidence and facts your belief incorporates the better.You're assuming God is bound by time, as in aging.How can anything be bound by time? Time doesn't exist, you can't be bound to something that doesn't exist. Doesn't matter if god is eternal, or never aging, god is intelligent, and you asserted that intelligence can't come from non-intelligence, so god would have had to come from an intelligence no? If god didn't come from an intelligence, then we have intelligence coming from non-intelligence, proving intelligence can come from non-intelligence, making an intelligence behind our intelligence unnecessary. People who have had NDE's say that they discovered that God is energy. Energy has neither a beginning nor an end.If god is energy, god is an intelligence with no intelligence behind it, because it didn't come from anything, it always was.No matter your belief, everyone agrees that something has always existed... So why is it hard to believe that "God" could have always existed?Because their still isn't a reason to... Ultimately, intelligence had a source, and whatever that source may be, it always existed.So intelligence, came from an intelligence, that didn't come from an intelligence because it just has always existed. Totally legit.Didn't you say that why and how only differ when there is a purpose or intent?Yes. Purpose does exist, I was talking about purpose in the context you most likely meant it. There is a purpose as to why I am typing on this laptop, not necessarily their is a purpose to the existence of everything.And those are often the philosophers people quote. However, I think the why question applies to most philosophers. Philosophers are thinkers, where as scientists are doers. Doers search for the how. Thinkers search for the why.I would agree.
Debate: Is there God?
Side: Yes

Where's the proof that the earth is millions of years old? Nobody has been around that long,so how would evolutionist know that,if they weren't around that long? In other words,they have no proof to backup what they're saying & yet they want you to accept it as fact. If I was in court & said that person killed that woman,because I drew him doing it &/or did computer animations that would never hold in court &,we all know that. So in other words, why aren't evolutionist held to the same accountability? That's my question.
Debate: Is there God?
Side: No

Where's the proof that the earth is millions of years old?http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/EvidenceagainstarecentcreationNobody has been around that long,so how would evolutionist know that,if they weren't around that long?You realize that exact same argument can be used against you and what you believe in, right?In other words,they have no proof to backup what they're sayingThey have evidence from every major branch of science. Just because you are ignorant of this evidence doesn't mean it is absent. If I was in court & said that person killed that woman,because I drew him doing it &/or did computer animations that would never hold in court &,we all know that. So in other words, why aren't evolutionist held to the same accountability?Ummm....what the hell are you talking about? Do you even know?
Debate: Is there God?
Side: Yes

maybe ...
Debate: Is there God?
Side: No

Nice, didn't even feel like giving a dispute.
Debate: Is there God?
Side: Yes

yes because the lord has helped me in many times he has been a guide a freind is there such thing only jesus knows but jesus couldnt be alive if god wasnt alive and who made the race of men and women i belive that when the world ends god will take me to a safe place where we all can live happy
Debate: Is there God?
Side: Yes

how do you think we are here even now. do you think we just pop-ed out of thin air. something had to create us and I see that as god.
Debate: Is there God?
Side: Yes

I say yes, yes there is a god. Everyone has this theory about science and everything but who created science. I believe there is a higher power that humans are too scared to admit is there. I know there's theories such as the big bang but I believe it is more than mere coincidence that our planet is perfectly shaped and placed in just the right distance away from the sun for us to survive.