azza1625/createdebate-arguments huggingface dataset:
Debate: DO GODS EXIST??
Side: yes

the debate over the Criteria for existence continues:-is a lack of physical observation and materialistic experience sufficient to Disprove God's existence?-is emotional or immaterial experience of God sufficient to Prove it?here's an argument For the existence of God:1-god is spirit: therefore immaterial and invisible2-therefore the existence of God CANNOT BE TESTED by mere lack of physical evidence of his being or residence(2a-example: the loch ness monster. does it exist? well, can we find it? see it? does it leave 'footprints'? does it show up on sonar? we look for physical evidence of the existence of physical beings, supplemented by deduction and induction.)(2b-how does one look for immaterial beings?)3-immaterial, invisible things exist, such as: Purpose, Truth and Falsity, Knowledge, Character, Innocence, Logic, Commitment, and the Emotions.(3a-this is a short list. most any concept, quality, or abstract thing would qualify)(3b-materialists would say knowledge, etc, and especially emotions are not abstract but are merely chemicals and electricity in the brain.this is an insufficient description-emotions may have a physical cause (i disagree) and a physical manifestation (indisputable) and still transcend them-knowledge may be stored physically and still be abstract-form is not matter, yet interacts with it.commitment, etc, are even less physical.what of truth? logic? modern science has these as their foundation: having the intent to discover Reality (the True way things are) by methodical, logical means.)4-therefore, a materialist does not have a complete, comprehensive, exhaustive knowledge of the universe(4a-and can only describe the physical manifestations of immaterial things, not their essence. just like someone may follow the letter of the law and disobey the Spirit of it. this is the use of a technicality to escape the intent and purpose of a rule)5-therefore the test of God's existence is not materialistic.TO BE CONTINUED
Debate: DO GODS EXIST??
Side: Agnostic FTW

Scientists can induce the same feeling people experience at churchby poking there brains in certain areas with electric things.
Debate: DO GODS EXIST??
Side: No

yeah, I upvoted your downvote. You'll notice in religious debates you get downvoted for bringing up pesky facts, but I read the same study. Consequently there are drugs that induce the same feeling as church as well, wonder why church goers are so anti-drugs with that in mind...
Debate: DO GODS EXIST??
Side: yes

I'm sorry guys, but how does a drug that induces feelings prove Gods don't exist? I mean, if I can induce you to "see" a car in front of you, now that doesn't prove cars don't exist, does it?
Debate: DO GODS EXIST??
Side: No

The area of the brain they're talking about is the temporal lobe. This is the area that's connected to sensory data. When it's overstimulated, it can cause the feelings people associate with religious experiences. It doesn't prove that God doesn't exist, what it does do, however, is show that certain external stimulus can lead to these feelings. As a TLE sufferer, I can tell you that I get the same experience out of walking into a techno club as someone can get from going to a weekend long AOG retreat (having experienced a weekend long AOG retreat). I get the holy vision of whatever God I'm fond of at the time, or angel, or demon, or alien (I only saw an alien once). It's because my brain is more easily tripped than most people. A friend of mine, after giving away the religion he'd been raised in, said he had a "religious" experience from attending a U2 concert. It cemented his belief further that God wasn't real. Rather than evidence FOR a god, I feel it's more like evidence against, simply because it's such an easily triggered flaw in our brains.
Debate: DO GODS EXIST??
Side: yes

Ok, I didn't use induced feelings to evidence God's existence, I simply disputed its use to disprove God's existence. So no, I'm not simply using feelings at all! Feelings are feelings.To evidence God's existence, I referred to the universe, everything around us (as I have in arguments with other debaters here). God is evidenced through his work.
Debate: DO GODS EXIST??
Side: No

Unfortunately, I see no basis for any evidence within the Universe. I'm curious to see such evidence.
Debate: DO GODS EXIST??
Side: yes

ok so you believe that the universe just happened... I can see that for some it might be easier to believe that. I for one, can't believe that something as perfect as this can simply just happen so I choose to believe in its creation by someone.As an analogy, for me, it's easier to believe that someone built the Stone Henge (because there's some sort of design about it just like the universe) rather say that it just happened. The method of its construction can be explained by physical sciences, but these sciences won't be able to prove that someone didn't build it and that it just happened.
Debate: DO GODS EXIST??
Side: No

That's because someone DID build Stonehenge. People built it. It's difficult to believe otherwise. However, if I said that people built Mount Everest, that would clearly be ridiculous. However, you've provided me with a classic argument called the "Watchmaker Analogy". Here's a link directly to the Wiki about it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watchmaker_analogy Cut and pasted directly from there, because I'm lazy and I'd just end up coming to these eventually anyway, the three basic arguments against it: There are three main arguments against the Watchmaker analogy. The first is that complex artifacts do not, in fact, require a designer, but can and do arise from "mindless" natural processes (as in the "monkeys with typewriters" analogy). The second argument is that the watch is a faulty analogy. The third argument is that the watchmaker is arguably a far more complex organism than the watch, and if complexity proves intelligent design, then the question arises: who created God?
Debate: DO GODS EXIST??
Side: yes

to answer the question, "who created God?" : God is, by his nature, uncreated. either everything came from nothing, or everything came from something. nothingness cannot produce anything, ever, so the only option left is that SOMETHING must have always existed, and caused or created everything else.source: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sr5lY0TcdAw
Debate: DO GODS EXIST??
Side: yes

ID is about specific complexity and information."the letter A is specific but not complex; the sequence NDEIRUABFDMOJHRINKE is complex, but not specific; the sequence METHINKSITISLIKEAWEASEL has specific complexity and is recognizable as a sentence. the sentence contains the type of information we would like to describe, the kind of information characterized by specific complexity."--my paraphrase from Dembski's book intelligent design--there is specific complexity in the watch, such as refined and shaped metal; various gears, springs, and levers in concert (complexity) that move hands across markings in regular, geometric forms that convey specific meaning.these things DO NOT arise from nature-- particularly refined metal and plastic, and therefore also those shapes and qualities that refined metal can provide, such as springs, do not arise in nature either.no known mindless natural process can produce a gear, let alone multiple gears, levers, and springs that fit together in different ways to move a hand in a regular manner that provides information about the path of the sun through the sky.for that matter, what known mindless natural cause produces living beings? none. (read about Spontaneous Generation -- the first proof ever developed in modern science, the one that gave birth to the scientific method, proved that living things arise only from other living things.)
Debate: DO GODS EXIST??
Side: yes

--it is not a faulty analogy because humans, plants, and watches are more complex than rocks, though maybe differing by degree (and see above).and the degree does not detract from the argument, rather it strengthens it.--also, if the watchmaker is more complex than the watch, how does the principle of greater complexity allow complex artifacts to arise in nature? how does such a principle allow us to dismiss the analogy(see above--'degree')?what about entropy and the law of thermodynamics, in which collective complexity and order are lost over time?
Debate: DO GODS EXIST??
Side: yes

Someone will try and argue that it's a very very very infinitely slim chance that something as perfect as all this universe can simply exist spontaneously, but because it's so vast it may just be possible.... uh huh, sure.
Debate: DO GODS EXIST??
Side: yes

Stone Henge was just an analogy. Like the watchmaker analogy. I know that people actually built it. God created the universe, and in it, a mountain exist on a planet and we call it Mt. Everest.The arguments against the watchmaker analogy are just not agreeable:1 - complex artifacts can arise from mindless natural processes: who made the substances and the processes in the first place? Accident?2 - The watch is a faulty analogy: ummm says who? and on what grounds?3 - Complexity proves intelligent design so who created God?: I don't care who made God, doesn't that prove God exist anyway? For all I know God was created by something else or God may just be the top guy! Actually why does someone else need to create him just because he created us? Don't you think you can create something more complex than yourself? Why does the creator need to be more far more complex than his creation? What about your children? Aren't they more complex then you? Taller? smarter? healthier?
Debate: DO GODS EXIST??
Side: No

1. who made the substances and the processes in the first place? You don't seem to be grasping the concept. There was never a who made...2. Faulty analogy... on what grounds? On the grounds that it relies upon a "who made" and assumes a maker rather than allowing for formation without a maker.3. a. Like I said, I simply copy-pasted this from Wikipedia, I possibly would have used different wording. However, since we're following your analogy... Stonehenge is nowhere near as complex as a human, so following your logic a god must be far more complex than a human. And no, my children aren't more complex than I am. I have never created something more complex than myself, I don't think any human has. And I don't believe childbirth is me creating a child. I believe childbirth is a chemical process. It makes it no less astounding to be able to explain how it happens.Where did your god arise? What formed your god? You ask why someone needed to create God... I have to ask you why you think that someone needed to create us? It's the same basic premise. It's getting late where I am, I'm going to bed. I'll leave you with this link which may help somewhat with your understanding of why #3 is a big kicker.http://atheism.about.com/od/argumentsagainstgod/a/design.htm
Debate: DO GODS EXIST??
Side: yes

1 - you say noone made it, but I say God made it (and we can replace the word it with anything you care to: string, particles, dimensions, whatever)2 - we say "God made" which could actually cover the fact that God made the initial whatever" that allows for everything else to just happen... so I dunno, sounds like the God theory beats the just happens theory.3 - I say childbirth is magic, you say it's an astounding chemical process. I keep telling you that that's how you explain* things (you use chemistry). The astounding chemical process of childbirth is magical, isn't it? If you say it isn't, we're onto the definition of magic? Where did God arise? I don't know, but that's not the debate. What formed God? I don't know, but again that's not the debate.I said "why does someone need to create God", which was meant as a rhetorical question with an obvious answer: "noone needs to create God".We're here to debate the existence of God, and not why God was created or how or what created god.Thanks for the link anyway.
Debate: DO GODS EXIST??
Side: No

Well, you've come to the crux, and pretty much cemented Rev's point, though from my experience arguing religions with the religious I doubt you will see it.Just as "I said "why does someone need to create God", which was meant as a rhetorical question with an obvious answer: "noone needs to create God"." - your words.Just as you feel that to be the case. It could just as easily be said that "noone needs to create the Universe" or anything in it.If one does not need creation, then neither does anything else. If god simply can be then the Universe and everything in it can simply be.There is no logical reason why it should not simply be. In fact it makes the equation simpler. Why add god?At any rate. Just as it is impossible for you to prove god's existence, so it is impossible to disprove any negative.Here's the difference though.I can say I believe in Santa Clause. I can say that I take as proof the presents I got when I was a kid. It is impossible for you to disprove Santa Clause's existance to me. If I choose to believe, there's nothing to stop me from believing and all you can do is say so and so says it doesn't exist. You can tell me it doesn't make sense. You can argue till you are blue in the face.If I choose to believe in something that does not exist, you cannot disprove something that does not exist's existance.Same for god. I cannot disprove it because you cannot disprove a negative. What I can do though is point out the holes in your logic.
Debate: DO GODS EXIST??
Side: yes

Noone needs to create God, God created the universe. That sentence has no flaws in it. You can't say that because noone needs to create God, therefore...blah blah. Your saying that it's easier to believe that it could simply be, but it's not easier. You would have to explain it with really really difficult sciencitic principles and advanced maths. It's easier to believe that God made it all.About Santa Claus, I can prove that your parents bought the present for you instead of it being dropped-in by Santa Claus. I can prove conclusively most things about Santa Claus, but until I do, you may well be correct that Santa Claus exist! Do you see my point?About pointing out the holes in my logic, it's kinda not possible because we're talking about something that's probably not within our human mind's power to even understand... Non-believers will keep coming up with this and that, and believers will keep saying that God made this and that... The only "flaw" is the who made God question, which is easily answered with noone.
Debate: DO GODS EXIST??
Side: No

Okay, this particular line of debate is beginning to bore me.if you don't need to explain god's existance with complex equations and physics and whatnot because he "just is"Then there's no reason you would not also be able to say that all of the stuff making up the universe "just is"It's the same thing, if one thing can simply be, so can another. End of story.And no, you cannot dissprove Santa's existance. Even if you were able to somehow produce reciepts, I could just say "Santa works in mysterious ways." Or some other lame thing.
Debate: DO GODS EXIST??
Side: yes

My idea of god isn't Jesus or Alah because there are so many things wrong with that theory. People have picked Jesus and Alah to shreds with explanations of how normal they were. The same people can prove to you Santa doesn't exist and they'll do it with ease too. If you have a humanly possible finite idea of something, then it's humanly possible to prove it or disprove it: Ideas like Santa lives in the North pole, rides a sleigh in the sky, comes down the chimney, those ideas are so definitely human. Just like Jesus and Alah. So forget about them.My idea of God is not humanly possible to explain, because he is above human science or maths, what we explain so far with science and maths is his universe and things in it (his work)."If one thing can simply be, so can another" - can is the operative word here. "If one thing can simply be, so must another" would be a different thing.
Debate: DO GODS EXIST??
Side: yes

God exists outside of Space, Matter, and Time, therefore, he is uncreated. So, the whole watchmaker example doesn't really do much to benifit your point does it?
Debate: DO GODS EXIST??
Side: yes

this is a valid point because it introduces an implication:IF God exists THEN the Creation vs. Evolution argument is affected.
Debate: DO GODS EXIST??
Side: yes

I believe though that Creation and Evolution are dependent as in Creation allows for Evolution. Evolution is one of the processes of Creation.
Debate: DO GODS EXIST??
Side: yes

...and apparently this makes me either a Theistic Evolutionist or an Evolutionary Creationist, I think the former is probably closer to what I am.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_creationism
Debate: DO GODS EXIST??
Side: NO

@ "I'm sorry guys, but how does a drug that induces feelings prove Gods don't exist?"No one has made such a claim. They have only demonstrated that feelings are not evidence nor proof of the existence of any gods.  Feelings attributed to Jehovah are no more compelling as evidence than feelings attributed to Kali. Feelings are products of chemical changes in the brain. Dopamine is not a god.
Debate: DO GODS EXIST??
Side: yes

Yes.Anybody who has felt at peace with God would understand His existance.I need to get back in touch with my spiritual side. That's when I was most content with life.
Debate: DO GODS EXIST??
Side: No

That's odd.Because I thought I had experienced "His existance" back when I was indoctrinated,and I find that I am most content when I shed myself of silly dillusions.Feeling arguements are for church. This is a debate site.
Debate: DO GODS EXIST??
Side: yes

My friend, just because you are most content when you don't believe, doesn't mean Gods don't exist either. And surely all debate sites can accommodate debates on most matters, feelings included?
Debate: DO GODS EXIST??
Side: No

Just because people feel things to be true, that doesn't necessarily make them to be true. Certainly, you are correct when you say that iamdavidh's statement doesn't disprove the existence of gods. However in cases where someone states that something exists, and someone says "I don't believe you", the burden of proof lies upon the person who is stating that the thing exists. When a feeling can be shown to be replicated mechanically, or by certain mental or brain impairments, as has been done in other positions within this debate, other proofs must follow.
Debate: DO GODS EXIST??
Side: yes

And I have provided proof: The beautiful, harmonious, wonderful, awe-inspiring existence that is the universe!
Debate: DO GODS EXIST??
Side: No

How is that proof? It's beautiful, yes. It's harmonious, yes. It's wonderful, yes. It's awe-inspiring, yes. However, I don't see anything which points to a God as causation.
Debate: DO GODS EXIST??
Side: yes

ok, let me see... I don't know much about the material in the bibles and korans but i'm sure they mention something about the creation of man and woman and the universe! Is that what you need?By the way, what do you say created the universe?
Debate: DO GODS EXIST??
Side: No

"what do you say created the universe?" I don't. Create is a word I try not to use when considering the start of the universe, because "create" implies "creator". It's a difficult word to avoid, and sometimes I slip up when I'm talking about beginnings, but in these sort of conversations I prefer to use the word "formation" rather than "creation". I am agnostic. I simply don't know. However, I strongly lean toward M-Theory, Big Bang, and on a more local basis, current evolutionary theory. None of these implies the action of any being.I am asking for your specific proofs. If you aren't familiar with the Bible or the Koran, don't refer to them. I don't actually accept these texts as proofs.
Debate: DO GODS EXIST??
Side: yes

Ok so we have 2 camps:The yes side: - we explain the beginning by believing that God did it all.The no side: - you try to explain the beginning by believing in advanced sciences. What you don't understand is that all the sciences that humans have are simply means to explain God's work, they don't replace God's work. Aerodynamics explain how birds can be airborne, not make them airborne. Quantum mechanics explain how particles behave, not create their behaviors.So when you say you lean towards M-Theory and Big Bang (instead of God), you're actually saying "My aunt didn't bake this cake, but the Cake Bake Theory is how it happened!" It should actually be "Your aunt baked the cake and the Cake Bake Theory is how it can be explained"
Debate: DO GODS EXIST??
Side: No

I'm not saying instead of God. God doesn't even come into the equation. When you say "Cake Bake Theory" it implies that someone bakes the cake. M-Theory doesn't require God in the equation. It works without it. There is no causation. You've not shown me how God is necessary for the equation to work.
Debate: DO GODS EXIST??
Side: yes

Ok, when i say Cake Bake Theory I'm referring to the sciences of baking. This doesn't really require anyone to bake at all: The wheat can be accidently crushed (by falling rocks or trees perhaps) and then mixed with the crushed eggs because a chicken made a nest in the wheat field some time before and layed eggs in it, and then... i don't know, the sugar and yeast can also accidentally come into contact with that mixture somehow (I'm sure you can explain it string theory or something) and then the entire mixture gets exposed to the right amount of heat somehow (from the sun perhaps, or the whole thing could all occur next to a hot spring somewhere, and if the tree that had crushed the wheat in the beginning had cinnamon flavoured bark, we'll end up with my perfectly baked favorite!!!Sure the possibilities are low, but we've got soooo many things and possibilities happening in the universe that ofcourse it can theoretically happen... yeah.Oh and thanks to you I went and look up M-theory on Wikipedia, and I'd like to quote something from there: "Technologically, it may never be possible for it to be "proven." So you've made the choice to believe in some theory only a handful of humans have the time to theorize using maths and sciences while asserting that it may never be proven? I don't know about you but believing in gods actually sounds better :)
Debate: DO GODS EXIST??
Side: No

First, I don't think Wikipedia is the best place to be actually looking up scientific theories. It's okay for quick run-of-the-mill stuff, but when you're looking at hard core physics, Wikipedia just doesn't cut it. My suggestion is that you check out New Scientist and type M-theory into the search box. You'll come up with a number of articles about it.And of course it may never be able to be proven technologically. That doesn't mean it can't be supported mathematically. Nor does it mean that I'm going to hold onto it if something more plausible comes along. Whereas the belief in gods is unsupported and unsupportable. Favouring a theory I have a small amount of understanding of is not the same as having an idealogical belief.
Debate: DO GODS EXIST??
Side: yes

So, - your theory (of the beginning) that everything was accidental, can be theorized using the evidences of a few far-fetched scientific principles and maths, which may never be proven.- my theory is that someone did it all because it was way too complex (technologically impossibly complex) not to have been.Just like the cinnamon cake theory, - I choose to believe my aunt baked the favorite snack (and Cake Bake Theory is how she did it), while - you choose to believe it was all an accident and try to explain that with Cake Bake Theory and a few other scientific & maths principles.The only difference in our beliefs is the existence of a creator (baker). While my belief includes the principles of science and maths, yours exclude the creator. So I ask you: which is more likely? My aunt baked the cake or it happened accidently? I emphisized the words more likely.