azza1625/createdebate-arguments huggingface dataset:
Debate: Is the bible 100% true
Side: No

The very atoms you are made out of are energy in motion.Unreleased energy in motion fits the description of energy waiting to happen. For example, a grenade flying through the air has kinetic energy, but also chemical energy within it waiting to be released.How would an extant energy create matter? Yes that energy could "assemble" matter, but where would it originally come from?I do not know the answer to that, which is why I do not post one. However, to suggest that science's inability to presently answer that question posits a God is nonsensical. It merely means that we do not know yet.I like how atheists resort to supernatural and unverifiable occurences to explain the origin of the universe. Pot calling the kettle black.There is nothing supernatural about energy forming matter, which was revealed by the work of Albert Einstein. Extant energy on your part.It is a possibility. It does not equate to magic.The word of God, in scripture. You may not believe it, but it is evidence.Saying something does not make it true. A book saying something without verifying it does not equate to evidence.You have no evidence of your origin theory.It is not a theory, it is a suggestion of a possibility which I neither believe nor disbelieve.I have the inerrant word of God.You have to prove it is inerrant before you can simply say it is. What if I said my word was inerrant and that I was God? How much more evidence is there for either statement?You don't believe this is true which is not our argument here.It is an issue when you use an unverified claim as evidence.No it is not at all. You are still limiting God to scientific law, like it or not I believe he is outside of it. And you have to prove that before you use it as evidence.It explains the general principles, but it still is not a law only "widely" accepted. Just because it may be popular doesn't mean it is a definate fact.And scientific reasoning does not state it to be so. It merely says that a theory is extremely likely to be accurate, based on the law. The theory of energy levels, for example, is supported by huge volumes of evidence and credibly explains the observations of a line emission spectrum. Would you like to say that the theory which explains why planes can fly is wrong? Whether you believe it or not, the theory allowed us to build the planes, which do, in fact, fly.Suspecting is the same as belief.That is not true. When you believe something, you consider it to be true regardless of whether it is evidenced or not. When you suspect something to be true, you consider it highly likely to be true, but do not declare it to be so.Please, bring it on.I can't be bothered to type it out for you, so:http://www.gate.net/~rwms/EvoEvidence.html http://www.allaboutcreation.org/evidence-for-evolution.htm http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_of_common_descent
Debate: Is the bible 100% true
Side: yes

"I do not know the answer to that, which is why I do not post one. However, to suggest that science's inability to presently answer that question posits a God is nonsensical. It merely means that we do not know yet." And science will never be able to prove that theory, because the answer is outside of science. "It is not a theory, it is a suggestion of a possibility which I neither believe nor disbelieve." Then why use it? Why try to represent something you have no opinion of? "It is an issue when you use an unverified claim as evidence." Which I have shown you flaws in the evidences for evolution. Science is the laws of man and the creation, like I have said God is beyond it. "That is not true. When you believe something, you consider it to be true regardless of whether it is evidenced or not. When you suspect something to be true, you consider it highly likely to be true, but do not declare it to be so."I already gave you the definitions of theory and believe. You are simply mincing words now. Suspect and believe are of the same. To believe isn't only based on faith, but also perceived evidence. That is what I demonstrated in relation to your idea of a theory. "I can't be bothered to type it out for you, so:" I will put forth the same effort as you then. http://www.answersingenesis.org/get-answers#/topic/evolution http://www.creationism.org/topbar/evolution.htm http://www.conservapedia.com/Creation_science http://www.icr.org/http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/
Debate: Is the bible 100% true
Side: No

The bible is 100% true and all strong-minded people know it.That... really depends on your definition of strong-minded. If you mean stubborn, then probably.Someone without fear of disapproval of what might happen to them if they announce their doubts of the audacious claims of an extremely old book probably has a more powerful mind than someone who follows something blindly because they were told to.We could get into a fight over evidence and lack of evidence, but that's no fun. 100% true or not, faith doesn't have to be blindly and unexceptionally accepting something as the truth. Doubt isn't a bad thing, and it isn't always contrary to faith.
Debate: Is the bible 100% true
Side: yes

Doubt isn't always bad, but denial can be. To see the evidence of our created universe and believe that nothing created matter (big bang) and the complexities of life. Stubborn is denying the Creator when we see the evidence that proves he is real.
Debate: Is the bible 100% true
Side: No

Stubborn is denying the Creator when we see the evidence that proves he is real.And the evidence is?
Debate: Is the bible 100% true
Side: yes

"And the evidence is?"The creation is the evidence, the very same evidence we all have access too.
Debate: Is the bible 100% true
Side: No

The creation is the evidence, the very same evidence we all have access too.You're placing the horse before the carriage, my friend. That the earth exists, does not tell us how it came to be. You've only assumed a divine cause.
Debate: Is the bible 100% true
Side: yes

And who built the carriage (universe) their are only two options according to cause and effect?
Debate: Is the bible 100% true
Side: No

And who built the carriage (universe) their are only two options according to cause and effect?I don't think you understood my analogy. But to address your question, there are an unknown (possibly infinite) number of options here. Not to mention that Cause and Effect, may not even apply below planck level of time. Particles pop in and out of existence all of the time on a quantum level, so quickly that they can barely be said to have existed at all. Where is the cause and effect there? Science sometimes demands that we change our way of thinking, the things we thought we understood.Would would you be so quick to narrow the cause of our universe to simply two options? Why would you assume that there even is a "who" involved?This is why religion disrupts any honest search for the truth.
Debate: Is the bible 100% true
Side: No

According to Carl Marx, religion is used to cope with our harsh realities. To relegate our fears of death to fantasies of a Utopian afterlife.It must take a strong mind to live one's life whilst believing that death is the end, don't you agree?
Debate: Is the bible 100% true
Side: No

"The bible is 100% true and all strong-minded people know it."On the contrary, it actually takes a very weak and easily-manipulated human being to blindly accept what the bible says.
Debate: Is the bible 100% true
Side: No

exactly! people think that following an old book and doing whatever it tells them to do is strong minded. that really makes sense
Debate: Is the bible 100% true
Side: No

Well, God wrote the bible. Of corse it has been modified a little but for the bulk of it, it is the real thing.
Debate: Is the bible 100% true
Side: No

"Well, God wrote the bible."Correction: Man wrote the Bible and claimed it to be god's word.
Debate: Is the bible 100% true
Side: evidence proof false premise

When you say that God wrote the Bible, you presume that a god exists. You must present some proof that a god exists before you make this claim.
Debate: Is the bible 100% true
Side: No

No, God did not write the bible. It was written by people in the name of God. The ONLY thing "God" supposedly wrote, were the 10 commandments.
Debate: Is the bible 100% true
Side: yes

Lots of people rip on the bible for not being accurate. Yet many of them have never read it. They claim that many things "Did Not Happen" When there is no other historical record of it. HOW CAN YOU CLAIM SOMETHING DID NOT HAPPEN BECAUSE THERE IS NO OTHER RECORD OF IT. YOU DONT KNOW BECAUSE THERE IS NO OTHER RECORD. Such arguments defeat themselves
Debate: Is the bible 100% true
Side: No

No, that's actually not the case. There comes a time when we have to begin looking at the absence of evidence as evidence of absence. I have a degree from a bible college in bible, and have read it from front to back many many times. The Bible is a human book that reflects the morality of the times in which it was written.
Debate: Is the bible 100% true
Side: yes

why would you want to revere your god? He is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.A bully that gave you life.
Debate: Is the bible 100% true
Side: No

In this case you should worship your mother, she gave you life.
Debate: Is the bible 100% true
Side: yes

No she did not God did, your mother was simply the vessel.
Debate: Is the bible 100% true
Side: No

Why should I believe your superstition? No direct action can be linked to any supernatural entity, you can only ever suppose this to be the case.
Debate: Is the bible 100% true
Side: yes

its realy2 true,can u imagine that different people who right,different events,different time,different place...but how come they have the same principle,the same philosophy,and most of all,have the same message.. is that possible?no!why?because it is impossible...make things as one with different people?oh no...but why it happen?because GOD is true...and HE made all this things become possible..
Debate: Is the bible 100% true
Side: No

The pure stupidity radiating out of this comment made my brain hurt.
Debate: Is the bible 100% true
Side: yes

if it is not true...why there are many bad people became good because of the bible?it is true cause it change my life..
Debate: Is the bible 100% true
Side: yes

Of course the bible is true! It's TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE T.............R..........U.........E!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! and there's nothing on earth that can change that!
Debate: Is the bible 100% true
Side: No

My, you are repetitive...where is your evidence?and there's nothing on earth that can change that!Well then, everything on Earth should verify it, therefore, science should never be able to disagree...yet...it so often does.
Debate: Is the bible 100% true
Side: Yes

Why of course! It depends on your beliefs obviously, but I have always believed in God's words and have never once doubted them.
Debate: Is the bible 100% true
Side: Yes

.The Bible is a computer like written code. Digitalizing our physical existence, and programming full circle beginning to end. And to prove it, pi is right in the 1st verse. Gen 1: 1I'm amazed at this. And e in John 1: 1 which is in line with exponential growth out to all nations in the era of the new testament.An alien authored it, coincidences pile to high to dismiss. If an alien left a document in your attic, how hard would you look to find it? After you found it, how hard would you try to decifer it?.
Debate: Is the bible 100% true
Side: Yes

https://youtu.be/4UtOv2b60gchttp://www.unsealed.org/2012/10/the-woman-clothed-in-sun-2017.html?m=1 Fyi - The constelations even say 2017 is significant!Mind blowing. God went from keeping mysteries hidden and sealed to opening up understanding by the truck loads!
Debate: Is the bible 100% true
Side: No

So... the Qur'an is completely invalid... because the Bible says so?Got news for youThe Qur'an says the Bible is invalid. I'd love to see your apologetics prove the Muslims wrong.Oh, by the way, I'm something of a fantasy writer. See, I wrote this story where a prophecy was told.Wouldn't you know it? The prophecy came true.So, because my prophecy came true, is my story true?
Debate: Is the bible 100% true
Side: Yes

Yes,bible is true. Scientists refered bible and Proved the past.we can see the things really which are said in the bible.Example:NOHA'S SHIP Which is mentioned in the bible,have been found in the depth of see by the scientists.
Debate: Is the bible 100% true
Side: yes

Yes, the Bible is 100 % true. Every chapter, book and verse.
Debate: Is the bible 100% true
Side: No

Exodus 21:7"If a man sells his daughter as a servant, she is not to go free as menservants do."This is definitely True!
Debate: Is the bible 100% true
Side: No

When a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod so hard that the slave dies under his hand, he shall be punished. If, however, the slave survives for a day or two, he is not to be punished, since the slave is his own property. (Exodus 21:20-21 NAB)
Debate: Is the bible 100% true
Side: No

Really? What does he feel like?It is really shocking to realise that people waste their entire lives - short as they are - believing this crap. All I keep thinking is "What a WASTE!" Think about it. Living your one and only short little life devoted to a fantasy figure.
Debate: Is the bible 100% true
Side: yes

If this so called fantasy figure makes you feel better, joy, then I would not say it is a waste, even if the hope of resurrection were a false one.
Debate: Is the bible 100% true
Side: No

Thanks for the friggin book, i doubt that many people want to sit and read the damn dramatic story of your salvation. It's almost as long as the bible.
Debate: Is the bible 100% true
Side: No

It can't be 100% true, even the gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John contradict each other in places. Such as the birth place of Jesus etc. You have to take your own interpretation of the Bible, and you can't call any interpretation 100% true.
Debate: Is the bible 100% true
Side: yes

What are these contradictions you project? I would like a few verses to review such an accusation.
Debate: Is the bible 100% true
Side: yes

Just because the interpritations are not true, dosn't mean the actual original bible is
Debate: Is the bible 100% true
Side: No

Unfortunately, we do not have the original scriptures. We have copies of copies of copies, but not the originals themselves. What we see is that some of the passages we have in the current form of the Bible are not found in our earliest manuscripts. Let me show you two passages.The first scripture is the ending to Mark. If you take a look at Mark 16, you'll find that there is a short ending (ending at verse 8), and an ending that continues through verse 20. If the book that you hold in your hands is the inspired innerant word of god, then why would there be two endings? Why would we not know which one it is? Our earliest most reliable manuscripts say it ends at 8. This seems to be evidence that scribes through the ages added to the Bible.Another example of this is John 7:53 - 8:11, when Jesus says "all of you without sin, cast the first stone," to the Jewish leaders who want to stone the woman caught in adultery. This is a cherished story by many people, and I remember that I used to love this story. Many of our earliest manuscripts don't include this story. Why? I believe it is because it was added through the years by scribes with an agenda.
Debate: Is the bible 100% true
Side: yes

brilliantly said Spadedude, whoever you are. thanks for the support.
Debate: Is the bible 100% true
Side: No

Well, the Bible contains a passage in Leviticus, which counts Bats as members of the Bird (Aves) class, when they are Rodents (Mammalia). We can, thus, assert that literally - at least - one thing in the Bible is not only not true, but not factual.
Debate: Is the bible 100% true
Side: yes

Can you give the reference to that. I would like to look it up
Debate: Is the bible 100% true
Side: yes

Bats are not rodents. They are a different class entirely. (Leviticus 11:13-19) - "These, moreover, you shall detest among the birds; they are abhorrent, not to be eaten: the eagle and the vulture and the buzzard, 14and the kite and the falcon in its kind, 15every raven in its kind, 16 and the ostrich and the owl and the sea gull and the hawk in its kind, 17and the little owl and the cormorant and the great owl, 18and the white owl and the pelican and the carrion vulture, 19and the stork, the heron in its kinds, and the hoopoe, and the bat."In verse 13 Moses tells us about the birds and then he lists them out. In verse 19 we see the bat is included in this list. We know that a bat is not a bird. Does this not mean that the Bible is incorrect?The Bible is not meant to be a scientific description of modern biological categories. Instead, it is often written from the perspective of what we see. In other words, it makes generic categorizations. In this case, the bat is categorized as a bird because like birds, it flies and is similar in size to most birds. If we did not know that it was a mammal, it would be natural to call it a bird. To the Hebrew of ancient times, calling it a bird was perfectly logical. But, in modern times we categorize animal species more specifically, and have categorized the bat as a mammal and not a bird.Also, we must be aware that it is modern science that has a different classification system than ancient times. To the ancients, creatures such as a bat were considered birds since they categorized all flying animals as birds. If that is the category that they used, then they were correct. It is not an error. It is a difference of categorization procedures. The critic has imposed upon the ancient text a modern system of categorization and then said that the Bible is wrong. This is a big error in thinking.Quoted source http://carm.org/bible-difficulties/genesis-deuteronomy/bat-bird Please do proper research and critical thinking before speaking against an infalliable book.
Debate: Is the bible 100% true
Side: No

Please do proper research and critical thinking before speaking against an infalliable book.The book is not infallible. We have demonstrated this with the age of the Earth, and its being round.
Debate: Is the bible 100% true
Side: yes

Show me a verse that says the world is flat. What you believe about radiometric dating, and what I believe (the absurdity of constant decay rates, which we observe to change as early as the 1800s). Because of your presuppestions you won't accept the Bible. But if your claim of the age of the world and being round, then I want to see where this contradicts the Bible. If you say there is error in God's word then you will have to show me. Don't just vomit up accusations you are repeating from other lunatics, give me the evidence!!
Debate: Is the bible 100% true
Side: No

Show me a verse that says the world is flat.I quoted them to you in an earlier rebuttal. Apparently god's word is inerrant when you only wish it to be so, otherwise it is metaphor and ignorable.What you believe about radiometric dating, and what I believe (the absurdity of constant decay rates, which we observe to change as early as the 1800s).http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dating.html Try doing your homework.Because of your presuppestions you won't accept the Bible.The bible is a book of presuppositions called dogma, which by the very definition of close-mindedness cannot change due to new facts. That you deny radiometric dating is proof of this.But if your claim of the age of the world and being round, then I want to see where this contradicts the Bible.The world is dated at over four gigayears, using radiometric dating. The world is spherical, not flat, as implied in biblical cosmology.If you say there is error in God's word then you will have to show me. Don't just vomit up accusations you are repeating from other lunatics, give me the evidence!!People do not walk on water. People do not rise from the dead (when they are literally dead, not just organ failure). People do not survive in giant fish. Demons do not possess others or exist. We are evolved, not created. Virgins cannot give birth. There was no worldwide flood. Etc.
Debate: Is the bible 100% true
Side: No

Your assertions of radiometric dating are false. I see someone else has already linked to a page that demonstrates it. Here is another: http://www.asa3.org/ASA/resources/wiens.html#page%2019 It is a little long and you may not have time for the whole thing (but I hope you do). This section is a nice summation of why radiometric dating methods are reliable: " There are well over forty different radiometric dating methods, and scores of other methods such as tree rings and ice cores. All of the different dating methods agree--they agree a great majority of the time over millions of years of time. Some Christians make it sound like there is a lot of disagreement, but this is not the case. The disagreement in values needed to support the position of young-Earth proponents would require differences in age measured by orders of magnitude (e.g., factors of 10,000, 100,000, a million, or more). The differences actually found in the scientific literature are usually close to the margin of error, usually a few percent, not orders of magnitude! Vast amounts of data overwhelmingly favor an old Earth. Several hundred laboratories around the world are active in radiometric dating. Their results consistently agree with an old Earth. Over a thousand papers on radiometric dating were published in scientifically recognized journals in the last year, and hundreds of thousands of dates have been published in the last 50 years. Essentially all of these strongly favor an old Earth. Radioactive decay rates have been measured for over sixty years now for many of the decay clocks without any observed changes. And it has been close to a hundred years since the uranium-238 decay rate was first determined. Both long-range and short-range dating methods have been successfully verified by dating lavas of historically known ages over a range of several thousand years. The mathematics for determining the ages from the observations is relatively simple."It would also be worth reading the "APPENDIX: Common Misconceptions Regarding Radiometric Dating Methods" portion.It is worth noting that the person who wrote this is both a physicist with expertise in the area AND a Christian, and that this was aimed at Christians to help clear up misconceptions. Now that two of us have cited sources that conflict with your assessment, it is high time you link to a reliable source, at least if you still support your statements regarding radiometric dating.
Debate: Is the bible 100% true
Side: No

Show me a verse that says the world is flat.Luke 4:5"And the devil, taking him up into an high mountain, shewed unto him all the kingdoms of the world in a moment of time.". This would only be possible on a flat Earth.Because of your presuppestions you won't accept the Bible.Whatever a "presuppestion" is, we do not accept the Bible because it contains numerous factual errors.But if your claim of the age of the world and being round, then I want to see where this contradicts the Bible.We have already provided the relevant information. If you say there is error in God's word then you will have to show me.We have shown you.Don't just vomit up accusations you are repeating from other lunatics, give me the evidence!!We have given you the evidence. Whether you decide to accept it or not is your prerogative.