azza1625/createdebate-arguments huggingface dataset:
Debate: Evolution is a lie
Side: True

The video is trying to show that there is no evidence for evolution and that all the "evidence" that they have is fake. If you want to believe in evolution go ahead and believe it, but everything past what we see today is pure religion and faith.
Debate: Evolution is a lie
Side: False

How many times are you going to keep having the same argument over and over? You're like the energizer bunny. Is it your strategy to wear everyone down until they resign that God created the universe in 7 days?
Debate: Evolution is a lie
Side: False

I'll log what I think as I watch itFirst impression: what a load of cr*pSecond impression (4 minutes in): ""3:"", and evolution is so a part of science, and not a reigion.4:"", and wtf proof is there that the spillover is of supernatural origin?5: I can't be botherd to watch all of this, I have more pressing things to do.
Debate: Evolution is a lie
Side: False

Exeption, "there is no evolution, just the things chuck Norris allows to live"
Debate: Evolution is a lie
Side: False

God is infinite and eternal. Anything infinite cannot have form. For example: You cannot make a line that is infinitely long, except in concept. You cannot have an infinite number of a sand grains. God is infinite, in the form truth and mathematical possibilities and infinite consciousness..Genesis 1:2Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters..Right there in the Bible is says, that even though the earth was created in spirit, that it was formless..Genesis 1:3And God said, "Let there be light," and there was light..The Big Bang was the Light. The creation of Earth spoken of in the Bible was it's spiritual form. As the Big Bang implies, the Light, (Christ) went on to be the Creator of all things. The Light took form according to the spiritual plan..Contrary to what many "evolutionist" believe, something can be created out of nothing, in terms of matter. Truth is foundation of the universe. The Living Truth is God. And the Living Truth is conscious. And consciousness has the ability to play roles. And consciousness reacts according it's needs and abilities. And so conscious is put into a position to react, either to light, or heat, it does with specific intentions. The primary intention is to survive..The Drive to survive is the strongest spirit that shapes the life form. Even the position of the eyes is a product of the survival spirit. For example: "Eyes in Front, I hunt. Eyes on side, I hide.".All things evolve according to desires and survival needs..God exists in an eternal and infinite realm and doesn't not change, sort of like mathematics. God Consciousness is slightly more flexible, but it starts in "non-form condition."
Debate: Evolution is a lie
Side: False

If there is no evolution and you believe man was created by God many questions arise - 1.God created Adam and taught him everything and Adam had seen things from heaven (that is from space or a different dimension whatever) so Adam must be knowing that earth is round / sun is a star and there is glaxies (or group of galaxies etc) and this knowledge will be passed on to his next generation quite easily. So human race will not be curious about any of the thing that man used to wonder for 1000s of years.2. It clear that God and Adam talked to each other and so there was some language. Humans would have used this language forever (Since this language already had words for everything and Adam knew the same) 3. Evolution is clearly supported by Fossils and any religious book more than mentioning about beliefs mentions the need to use reasoning which is gift to mankind. 4. No books clearly mention about Pre mankind age (though monsters etc are mentioned) - the scriptures ahs many versus that mentions God has detailed his verses where man will use his reasoning - so its quite obvious for man to use reasoning and god could have mentionedi t in clearer way5. if you believe God exists then why not God make his presence felt now so that it is now a generation who can verify things scientifically and no human can do miracles and cheat mankind. So why not god send a prophet now with miracles ( i mean anything that can convince mankind to velieve in God) 6. Evolution is an accepted theory and cannot say the whole of mankind is ignorant to the facts.
Debate: Existence of matter proves a creator exists
Side: True

I believe so. The universe must have been created or the motion itself of our existence must have been triggered by something of an outer stature than that of us. Though it is possible, such evidence is not present in time thus may still be considered a theory. But it is up to us to believe it or not. I believe it because of my faith while here are still no evidences. Religion does`t need proof anyway.
Debate: Existence of matter proves a creator exists
Side: False

Why do you think there is "no evidence" that something apart from we ourselves created us?Your question flies in the face of all physical reasoning and logic.Everything we see had a creator: the clock on the wall, the chair you sit on, the car y ou drive, the computer you are using. Why would that pattern not be completed by adding 'the ground you walk on, the water you drink and the air you breathe' to that list?That doesn't take faith. That takes reasoning, and don't let anyone else tell you otherwise!Evolutionists are the ones without the evidence! Life does not spring from non-living matter, and one species does not turn into another, which would have to be the case if all life came from one source--THOSE are PROVABLE scientific FACTS.Evolutionists can't be bothered giving what they think is evidence here so as to have a civil discussion. They merely call us stupid hillbillies who believe in God and creation, thus pointing their own insults back at themselves.
Debate: Existence of matter proves a creator exists
Side: True

There is so much irony in many of your statements. Why do you think there is "no evidence" that something apart from we ourselves created us?Your question flies in the face of all physical reasoning and logic.Everything we see had a creator: the clock on the wall, the chair you sit on, the car y ou drive, the computer you are using. Why would that pattern not be completed by adding 'the ground you walk on, the water you drink and the air you breathe' to that list?Because of the Fallacy of Composition. You automatically assume that because things within the universe share this property, that this property automatically applies to the universe as a whole as well. What is true of the part, is not necessarily true of the whole. That doesn't take faith. That takes reasoning, and don't let anyone else tell you otherwise!It takes faith and willful ignorance to allow the entire basis of your argument to rely on a logical fallacy. Evolutionists are the ones without the evidence! Life does not spring from non-living matter, and one species does not turn into another, which would have to be the case if all life came from one source--THOSE are PROVABLE scientific FACTS.This statement is completely false, there is plenty of evidence for evolution. It has already been confirmed thousands if not millions of times. Evidence for Evolution:E. Coli Long Term Evolution ExperimentShows that after X generations of E. Coli, the E. Coli developed a mutation that gave it the ability to consume an entirely different type of food. Smithsonian Institute: Human Evolution PBS Evolution FAQPay special attention to Question 2: 2. Isn't evolution just a theory that remains unproven? National Academy of Science: Evolution is a fact and a TheoryEvolutionists can't be bothered giving what they think is evidence here so as to have a civil discussion. They merely call us stupid hillbillies who believe in God and creation, thus pointing their own insults back at themselves.You haven't pointed out any flaws in evolution, other than your obvious distaste for it. Perhaps you should try learning something about the theory you know nothing about, that you love to criticize.
Debate: Existence of matter proves a creator exists
Side: True

I find it shocking that someone with qualifications such as his can let his mind become so deluded with christian nonsense. From wikipedia: John R. Baumgardner is a geophysicist, young earth creationist, intelligent design supporter and Christian fundamentalist.I have little respect for the ideas that come from people when they decide upon a conclusion, and then look for evidence to support that conclusion, all the while they reject anything that disagree with it. What Baumgardner did was decide "christianity is the truth, now let's go look for evidence". I also found this study done by Baumgardner, in which several papers were submitted that refuted his work.
Debate: Existence of matter proves a creator exists
Side: True

This is the argument that I have been trying to sell atheists for a long time.... they never accept it, though. Here is a Professor of Mechanical Engineering advocating God:http://www.personal.psu.edu/jmc6/second_law.html I'm glad that you are thinking about it at least! :D
Debate: Existence of matter proves a creator exists
Side: False

the second law of thermodynamics in no way proves that there needs to have been a singularity for the existence of the universe, all it states is that a system will continually get more distressed as it evolves, but this is not always truethe universe is like a muddy pond: its clear and still until you interact with it but if you leave it alone it will become still again, and thats when it is most beautiful
Debate: Existence of matter proves a creator exists
Side: True

The 2nd Law simply shows that there had to be an origin of the universe. The 1st Law takes care of the rest.
Debate: Existence of matter proves a creator exists
Side: False

there does not have to be an origin of the universe, how?
Debate: Existence of matter proves a creator exists
Side: True

Did you read the article?1) Almost every scientist affirms the idea of a beginning of the universe. People just disagree on what the origin of it was and how it came to be.2) Everything in nature has a beginning and end, thus logically coming to the conclusion that so does nature itself.3) "As time goes forward (assuming things continue as they are), the available energy in the universe will eventually turn into unavailable energy. At this point, the universe will be said to have suffered a heat death, just like the coffee in the room. The present universe, as we know it, cannot last forever. Furthermore, imagine going backwards in time. Since the energy of the universe is constantly changing from a state of availability to one of less availability, the further back in time one goes, the more available the energy of the universe. Using the clock analogy again, the further back in time, the more wound up the clock. Far enough back in time, the clock was completely wound up. The universe therefore cannot be infinitely old. One can only conclude that the universe had a beginning, and that beginning had to have been caused by someone or something operating outside of the known laws of thermodynamics."http://www.personal.psu.edu/jmc6/second_law.html
Debate: Existence of matter proves a creator exists
Side: False

no, no, nature does NOT have to have a beginning or an end, humans apply time to things, you yourself believe in a being that stands outside of time, that means outside of time exists, and that means there is no beginning or end to it, which is the very foundation for the universe we are in nowso we COULD say the universe had a "beginning" but then again we cant say that, and instead we can say that it has been going through infinite cycles
Debate: Existence of matter proves a creator exists
Side: True

You missed the entire point... The universe is everything that is of nature and in one sense it is nature itself. Nature has a beginning and end because everything in nature has a beginning and end. Thus, the universe had to have a beginning and the universe will have an end. God is not bound to the universe, the very thing that He created.so we COULD say the universe had a "beginning" but then again we cant say that, and instead we can say that it has been going through infinite cyclesNature cannot be bound to an infinite. It causes an infinite regress, which is logically incoherent.
Debate: Existence of matter proves a creator exists
Side: False

if god doesnt need a reason to have been created then why would the universe?
Debate: Existence of matter proves a creator exists
Side: True

Because God is not bound by nature, since He created it.
Debate: Existence of matter proves a creator exists
Side: False

So? If you want to throw logic at me ill just say energy cant be created or destroyed, but then youre just going to tell me well god created it, well im going to tell you thats against the laws of nature, so, its illogical to believe that all energy was created and hasnt been around for eternity
Debate: Existence of matter proves a creator exists
Side: False

This, pretty much.What lolzor is saying is basically purely illogical. He is presenting a premise: "God exists outside of reality and thus needs no creator", which is a simple statement in english, but if you look at the real world, it is such an insane and impossible thing that with no proof at all, there is no reason to even consider it. If God exists outside of nature and reality, then he is unnatural and unreal, thus he does not exist. This logic can lead you to both ways, because it is purely human logic. If you look at the world outside of human mythology, you see no gods, right? If I keep away from churches and away from religious people, I see no gods or supernatural. Something that is unmeasurable, unreal, unnatural, unrealistic and has no evidence is not worth my time. It is a grand subject because it is "GOD" the "ALMIGHTY", but in the real world, if you take away the reverence and respect people give it, it simply becomes an unrealistic premise based on wishful thinking and the desire to think you are special. "Chosen by God". Perhaps to deliver the message. That's a common psychotic delusional thought throughout history, I think.You are pretty much right, I think FT. Lolzors is simply repeating the same arguments as usual, which at the core of them say "I think I am correct, and you have to too, even though I can't prove it and there is no logic to it and everyone agrees with me until proven otherwise, I am still correct no matter if you beat my arguments.(Such as the 2nd law, which has nothing to do with a god at all.)"He is delusional. =D
Debate: Existence of matter proves a creator exists
Side: False

Well I still think that standing outside of time is possible, I dont think anything had to create it, or this, if there is a realm of existence outside of time, then that means it has been around forever, which USED to be the accepted view of life, but then some philosopher came along and was like "well i cant wrap my head around infinite, so it must be a finite system" -_-Lol, i know right, the second law of thermodynamics, i think what lolzors was referring to was that since a system will continually desolve into chaos over time, lolzors fails to realize that it can go back to a natural, peaceful state, its just cycling, peace, chaos, peace, chaos, etc...
Debate: Existence of matter proves a creator exists
Side: True

Peace and chaos is subjective.Same with disorder and entropy even. People might say your mind is extremely disordered, bordering on insanity, or even passing that line, but I would say that a mind like yours is quite excellent and able to do things many cannot. You can think of things most people will NEVER even think of.That is what someone else calls disorder, but what another calls near genius.Peace and chaos are also just simple measures. Right now, things are rather peaceful on the petal of a flower.A meter away there is chaos, wind speeds are far higher than ever noted before, and light is bouncing off in strange, yellow and black patterns. It is a bee. That is chaos, and the flower petal is peace. Beyond that there is the field of flowers swaying in the wind. To you or I, that seems peaceful, but for each leaf or stem that is rippling in the breeze, it is chaos.And beyond even that, the entire Earth is there. From space, it looks cool and blue, with a bit of land, but to people on it, there is war and hunger and terrible things. Earthquakes and hurricanes.And even beyond that, you can see the entire Earth orbiting the Sun. It is moving very fast around a massive nuclear reactor. To us, in our time frame it's quite stable. I don't notice it expanding or exploding.Yet, if you use the right instruments, you can see massive solar flares, like volcanoes. And beyond even that there is a cold, vast universe. Billions of years have gone by and only a few things have happened. Such as massive explosions in space like super novas. But also lots of peace.So really, peace and chaos and order and disorder is very subjective based on who is saying it is disordered, and where you are in the universe.From one second after the big bang, even though it was hot, it was uniformly hot, so you could say that the heat was so perfect, it was perfectly ordered. Or, because it was too hot for atoms to form, too hot for matter or light or anything to exist, it was a state of 100% disorder.
Debate: Existence of matter proves a creator exists
Side: True

Thats interesting, and true, but i was just referring to uh.... i dont really know now lolI guess i was just referring to the existence of human life, but idk... i just dont know...
Debate: Existence of matter proves a creator exists
Side: False

Well, before humans there was still a universe.No life, no consciousness, just physical matter that obeyed the laws of physics.
Debate: Existence of matter proves a creator exists
Side: True

The Laws of Nature only apply to the things of nature. God exists outside of nature and as a result can affect the laws of nature. The laws of nature, however, cannot affect the laws of nature; for they are apart of the laws of nature. Thus, energy cannot create more energy.However, if you want to get even more technical you can say that God is a limitless source of energy, thus allowing for energy to continue. However, God and His limitless power would still have to apply outside of the nature because the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics demands a beginning. Thus, the Laws of Thermodynamics contradict one another unless there is a God.
Debate: Existence of matter proves a creator exists
Side: False

no, if god is just limitless energy then you can also say that god is just energy, an infinite pool of energy
Debate: Existence of matter proves a creator exists
Side: False

I wasn't going to say anything, but one statement irks me.the Laws of Thermodynamics contradict one another unless there is a God.False.The laws of thermodynamics point to an origin. That's it. And, seeing as you're scientifically illiterate, you clearly haven't looked at what science proposes as an origin.
Debate: Existence of matter proves a creator exists
Side: True

Actually, because the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics says that there had to be start, the 1st Law contradicts it. The 1st Law saying that energy cannot be created or destroyed means that energy must be eternal, because it cannot be either created or destroyed. However, the 2nd Law states that there has to be a beginning because as positive energy is transferred to negative energy it shows that there must be an end; reverse that and it shows that there must be a beginning. They fundamentally contradict one another. An eternal power source is required to answer this question, one that is outside of nature because if it was apart of nature then the Laws of Nature would apply to it, requiring a beginning and requiring a limit to energy. We call this infinite power source God. You are wrong. And don't tell me that I am scientifically illiterate, I know more about it than you think.
Debate: Existence of matter proves a creator exists
Side: False

Firstly, I would like to apologise for being slightly abrasive in my first post. I was just coming down from a wee bit of fangirl-ism, and got all moody and shit. Now for your post.I'll use a quote firstly from PZ Myers as a foundation. It is satirical, but the point it raises is somewhat relevant here:"The second law of thermodynamics argument is one of the hoariest, silliest claims in the creationist collection. It's self-refuting. Point to the creationist: ask whether he was a baby once. Has he grown? Has he become larger and more complex? Isn't he standing there in violation of the second law himself? Demand that he immediately regress to a slimy puddle of mingled menses and semen"You see, the second law only applies to closed systems. For example, the reason we have life on Earth is because the Earth is not a closed system (we receive energy from the sun). And the reason we have things in the universe is because the universe may not be a closed system.Contemporary physics points us to a multiverse, which could have provided us with our universe (see M-theory for details). If this is true, then the universe is not a closed system, and thus the contradiction between the first and second law disappears.PS: I find it funny that the first thing I do after going to see Muse perform songs from their album "The 2nd Law", is to have a debate about the 2nd law. It makes me want to link something.
Debate: Existence of matter proves a creator exists
Side: True

"The second law of thermodynamics argument is one of the hoariest, silliest claims in the creationist collection. It's self-refuting. Point to the creationist: ask whether he was a baby once. Has he grown? Has he become larger and more complex? Isn't he standing there in violation of the second law himself? Demand that he immediately regress to a slimy puddle of mingled menses and semen"This is referring to evolution. I am not referring to evolution but to the universe.Contemporary physics points us to a multiverse, which could have provided us with our universe (see M-theory for details). If this is true, then the universe is not a closed system, and thus the contradiction between the first and second law disappears.Thus a faith. Plus, it still raises the same question for them too; for whether it is a multiverse or a universe, there still has to be a beginning for them all according to the 2nd Law and a transfer of that energy from somewhere that is eternal. The key word is eternal.
Debate: Existence of matter proves a creator exists
Side: False

This is referring to evolution. I am not referring to evolution but to the universe.The quote was not to be taken seriously, it was just something I found humorous and somewhat relevant.Thus a faith. Plus, it still raises the same question for them too; for whether it is a multiverse or a universe, there still has to be a beginning for them all according to the 2nd Law and a transfer of that energy from somewhere that is eternal. The key word is eternal.You can call it a faith if you want, I don't care.The multiverse is such a new concept that I couldn't even begin to speculate its properties (nor do I have the hubris). What I will say however, is that plugging God in is lazy, especially seeing as we are in the most exciting time for physics since Einstein.