azza1625/createdebate-arguments huggingface dataset:
Debate: Does God exist?
Side: No

The bigbang did happen, evidence? Background Microwave Radiation"Look at the complexity of the human body. The talent, emotion, power to think, look at the nervous system, the skeleton. Open the curtains and look out side.", nature does always create complex things, in fact in nature there is symmetry most of the time. And, with evolution, after a few million iterations (which would happen because of the earth's age), a fairly complex life form that is interdependent with others will occur since life tends to take advantage of the available resources it could use for survival.
Debate: Does God exist?
Side: No

10- You vigorously deny the existence of thousands of gods claimed by other religions, but feel outraged when someone denies the existence of your god.9- You feel insulted and "dehumanized" when scientists say that people evolved from lesser life forms, but you have no problem with the Biblical claim that we were created from dirt8- You laugh at polytheists, but you have no problem believing in a Trinity god7- Your face turns purple when you hear of the "atrocities" attributed to Allah, but you don't even flinch when hearing about how God/Jehovah slaughtered all the babies of Egypt in "Exodus" and ordered the elimination of entire ethnic groups in "Joshua" -- including women, children, and trees!6- You laugh at Hindu beliefs that deify humans, and Greek claims about gods sleeping with women, but you have no problem believing that the Holy Spirit impregnated Mary, who then gave birth to a man-god who got killed, came back to life and then ascended into the sky.5- You are willing to spend your life looking for little loop-holes in the scientifically established age of the Earth (4.55 billion years), but you find nothing wrong with believing dates recorded by pre-historic tribesmen sitting in their tents and guessing that the Earth is a couple of generations old.4- You believe that the entire population of this planet with the exception of those who share your beliefs -- though excluding those in all rival sects -- will spend Eternity in an infinite Hell of Suffering. And yet you consider your religion the most "tolerant" and "loving".3- While modern science, history, geology, biology, and physics have failed to convince you otherwise, some idiot rolling around on the floor speaking in "tongues" may be all the evidence you need to prove Christianity.2- You define 0.01% as a "high success rate" when it comes to answered prayers. You consider that to be evidence that prayer works. And you think that the remaining 99.99% FAILURE was simply the will of God.1- You actually know a lot less than many Atheists and Agnostics do about the Bible, Christianity, and church history -- but still call yourself a Christian
Debate: Does God exist?
Side: No

This is your standard "creationist" argument. Look, there is very strong proof that everything you have just said is completely and utterly false. You are the one who must face facts. THERE IS NO GOD.
Debate: Does God exist?
Side: yes

Nature made these things, not godCan you back up this claim? Or are you making bare assertions again?you're just begging for an infinite recursion problem where god requires a creatorIt only becomes an infinite recursion if you can prove that Causality applies to God. Can you?I think it is about time you started showing some proof for your claims, you know?
Debate: Does God exist?
Side: No

Can you back up this claim? Or are you making bare assertions again?http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Formation_and_evolution_of_the_Solar_System It only becomes an infinite recursion if you can prove that Causality applies to God. Can you?So now you're asserting that god is timeless. Considering that god is unknowable by definition (an agent above the natural law cannot be tested or modeled according to natural laws, which form the basis of our knowledge), you're just adding assertions you can't support.My statement is a logical one. If everything requires a creator, then so does god, and god's creator and so on. This is what logically follows.Making ad hoc assertions to try and evade this logic requires you to justify those assertions, which isn't possible since god is unknowable.
Debate: Does God exist?
Side: yes

Interesting. Are you attributing to evolution the formation of water? And the formation of the Universe as well?I will have to reverse your next answer as addressing them in order would be confusing.My statement is a logical one. If everything requires a creator, then so does god, and god's creator and so on. This is what logically follows.The fact that your statement ends in an infinite recursion means your statement is self-defeating, and thus illogical.Making ad hoc assertions to try and evade this logic requires you to justify those assertions, which isn't possible since god is unknowable.This isn't really my problem, you see? If you are free to make an assertion that you can't justify - because you claim that God is unknowable - and yet claim that the conclusion that arises from that unjustified assertion is correct and sound, then so can I. I am then, according to your own rules, free to make bare assertions (God is timeless), and claim that my reasoning that follows from it is correct and sound as well. Unfortunately for you, this is not true for any of us, and you still have the burden of proof to your claim that Causality applies to God. Can you? If you can't, be humble and drop the argument. There is a reason for the fact that no serious philosopher has approached this question using this line of reasoning for more than 50 years.Now to address your central point...an agent above the natural law cannot be tested or modeled according to natural laws,If God is above natural laws, as you state yourself, and entropy and causality are natural laws, as far as we can demonstrate, then God is above entropy and causality, and is thus timeless. Again, unless you can prove that causality applies to beyond our Universe, you have no way to conclude that God needs a cause, or that He can't be timeless.
Debate: Does God exist?
Side: No

Interesting. Are you attributing to evolution the formation of water? And the formation of the Universe as well?I will have to reverse your next answer as addressing them in order would be confusing.You didn't read the links. The universe and solar system didn't evolve as in biological evolution.The fact that your statement ends in an infinite recursion means your statement is self-defeating, and thus illogical.Logic: if the premises are valid and the syllogism consistent, then it must follow.Everything has a cause. The universe is part of everything. Therefore the universe has a cause.(God is asserted as the cause)Everything has a cause. God is a part of everything. Therefore god had a cause.This isn't really my problem, you see? If you are free to make an assertion that you can't justify - because you claim that God is unknowable - and yet claim that the conclusion that arises from that unjustified assertion is correct and sound, then so can I. I am then, according to your own rules, free to make bare assertions (God is timeless), and claim that my reasoning that follows from it is correct and sound as well. As the asserter of god, it falls to you to to justify those assertions you make that are tied to god.My conclusion isn't justified by my word, but by the definition of everything. Everything is omni-inclusive. God must be a part of everything, and if you state that everything has a cause then you are saying that god has a cause.Unfortunately for you, this is not true for any of us, and you still have the burden of proof to your claim that Causality applies to God. Can you? Is god a part of everything? If not, then he doesn't exist by definition.If you can't, be humble and drop the argument. There is a reason for the fact that no serious philosopher has approached this question using this line of reasoning for more than 50 years.No serious philosopher tries to prove god using logic, not anymore.If God is above natural laws, as you state yourself, and entropy and causality are natural laws, as far as we can demonstrate, then God is above entropy and causality, and is thus timeless. Again, unless you can prove that causality applies to beyond our Universe, you have no way to conclude that God needs a cause, or that He can't be timeless.Is god a part of everything? If so, he has a cause.Did you just say that supernatural things don't have a cause? Then the premise is negated, because not everything has a cause, and so your entire cosmological argument falls apart.Of course, what you don't realise is that being timeless means no work is done, it implies a fixed state. If you're arguing that god is timeless, then god cannot do anything without becoming "timeful."
Debate: Does God exist?
Side: yes

You didn't read the links. The universe and solar system didn't evolve as in biological evolution.The caput was not a question about how the Universe evolved. The caput was a person demanding to know an explanation to where all the water in the Universe came from, to which you answer, "Nature made it." I demanded proof for you claim, and you sent a link explaining evolution. So did evolution made the water, or do you still owe me proof for your claims?Logic: if the premises are valid and the syllogism consistent, then it must follow.Go back to College and study Logic all over again. You fail at it and you shame your teachers. God cannot be part of everything if He caused it. If the God was part of the everything, and He needs to exist to be able to cause the Universe, then everything needs to exist before it can be caused.Your logic is flawed and your premise that God is part of everything that has a cause doesn't hold. It generates a self-defeating argument.My conclusion isn't justified by my word, but by the definition of everything. Everything is omni-inclusive. God must be a part of everything, and if you state that everything has a cause then you are saying that god has a cause.I think I already addressed your idea of everything being omni-inclusive. It leads to self-defeating conclusions so it must be wrong. No logically sound and correct statement can lead to self-defeating conclusions. Your claim that God must be a part of everything must still be met with proof that you succeedingly failed to provide so far.I never stated that everything has a cause. I stated that everything in this Universe has a cause.Is god a part of everything? If not, then he doesn't exist by definition.Non sequitur.No serious philosopher tries to prove god using logic, not anymore.Alvin Plantinga, Anthony Flew, William Dembsky...Is god a part of everything? If so, he has a cause.I am tempted to think that you believe that your strawman was actually a good argument, by the number of times you keep repeating it.Did you just say that supernatural things don't have a cause? Then the premise is negated, because not everything has a cause, and so your entire cosmological argument falls apart.Your strawman falls apart, not my argument. I stated that everything in this Universe must have a cause, since this is as far as we demonstrated Causality to apply. If you want it to be applied to supernatural beings, prove. Stating that it does is not proof that it does, no matter how many times you keep stating it.what you don't realise is that being timeless means no work is done, it implies a fixed stateOk, now we are cherry picking. So, do "timeless" only mean what you say it means? Or are you claiming yourself to be Humpty Dumpty again, and deciding what the words do mean and do not mean to try to make a point?
Debate: Does God exist?
Side: yes

Nature made itself? See, you are begging for an infinite recursion problem too! Nature created nature. What created nature? NATURE! To be honest, a created b makes more sense then B CREATED B!
Debate: Does God exist?
Side: No

Nature made itself? See, you are begging for an infinite recursion problem too! Nature created nature. What created nature? NATURE! To be honest, a created b makes more sense then B CREATED B!Nature taking account of itself is more parsimonious than assuming an infinitely complex, unexplainable entity.Besides that, you're just invoking a god of the gaps because we don't have the beginning of the big bang worked out yet. Nature works on emergent properties so it's perfectly reasonable to assume a bottom-up approach to the universe's formation, and it doesn't even have to lead to infinite recursion if the stuff of the universe is eternal. God must lead to an infinite recursion because of the premise used to justify it, namely that everything has a cause.
Debate: Does God exist?
Side: yes

Alright, using your logic to defend my position: You're just invoking a god of the gaps because we don't have the beginning of the creation worked out yet. Also: god of the gaps? So you admit there is a god?
Debate: Does God exist?
Side: No

Alright, using your logic to defend my position: You're just invoking a god of the gaps because we don't have the beginning of the creation worked out yet. This statement falls into a number of problems.Thirdly, "creation" isn't meant to be an explanation of anything. It never specifies a mechanism. It's like if you see a cake on a table and ask "how was that cake made?" creation would specify "Bob made it." But you weren't asking for who made it, but HOW the cake was made. Creation further defines itself as supernatural (magic) so its mechanism can never be worked out, since only natural things can be understood this way. Going back to our cake analogy, it would be as if someone said "Bob made it, he spoke the cake into existence [magic words]." Really? How does that work? There still isn't a mechanism specified. Science would give us an explanation like "2 cups flour, 2 eggs, 1 cup milk, 1 cup sugar, 1/2 cup butter, 1 tsp vanilla, 2 tsp baking soda and 1 tsp baking powder were combined and baked in an oiled, aluminum tin. The flour when mixed formed gluten, a polymer protein that traps bubbles of gas which form when baking soda and powder are exposed to an acidic pH and heat, this causes the mixture to rise. The eggs form the texture, they give a spongy texture because of the albumen primarily, with the yolk mostly adding colour. The butter and milk add to flavour, and modify the texture a bit, making it 'fluffy.' The sugar and vanilla are flavouring agents."Secondly, "creation" is god-based, so invoking a "god of the gaps" on it leads to an infinite recursion, because the god of the gaps would have its own god of the gaps and so on.Third, "creation" is by its very nature a god of the gaps, because the more we learn, the more apparent it is that there was no creation, so the "story" of creation always tries to exist in what we presently don't know.Also: god of the gaps? So you admit there is a god?A god of the gaps means god is used to fill the areas where we lack knowledge.
Debate: Does God exist?
Side: yes

Natural Selection - What does it select and how it decides? What is the Intelligence that allowed to come to a conclusion?If we see few selections: 1. Week are Protected - Ex. Mammals overtook Dinosaurs 2. Wicked are destroyed - Ex. Evil civilizations always got destroyed 3. Planned Execution - Wonderful success rate (absolute no wast) 4. Beauty beyond description - Needs great skill set to achieve it!If this is done by Intelligence, How do we describe it? God!!!!Amazing you got it :)
Debate: Does God exist?
Side: yes

Interesting. I have some questions though.  According to the Bible, can one have faith in God but not man, and be right in the eyes of God? Assuming you have faith in God, you believe that Jesus was the son of God and that he died for our sins... and you love all people, wicked or not, as family. The only difference is you do not seek instruction or help from other people because they can or maybe corrupt in their understandings.
Debate: Does God exist?
Side: yes

He was making the point that religious people will bite into dogma that promises big things but overlook small details.The reason for those small details ceased to be. The reason for the big details didn't.Then god is responsible, as the maker and final authority of everything.Maker, yes. Final authority? Hardly. We still have free will. Lots of things happen that God is not responsible for.God being neglectful is the fault of god, not us.He isn't being neglectful. We refused his aid.I said these experiences are independent of religion.And I said that you can't affirm with all certainty that all of them are independent of religion. You can only affirm that there are some experiences considered 'religious' in nature that are not religious.If flat earth was obviously wrong, people would have dropped it long ago. Oh wait:Yeah, I know. Those scientists never give up when they believe something, even when proven wrong over and over. Like those evolutionists guy that are still at it, even after 150 years of being proven wrong over and over.Didn't say it did.Oh, yes, you did. Your sentence was, "We have now discovered that other planets and moons may indeed have life on them, albeit not the kind that you see in the movies."Timeline of Big BangShowing what happened planck time after the Big Bang already happened is reason for the Big Bang to have happened how? You completely missed the point.You're cute for shoehorning god into speculation, as if "god" is a concept coherent enough and established enough to be in the same league as physics speculation.I am not entirely sure of what fallacies you are commiting in this sentence. It is certainly an ad hominem with absolutely no substance behind it, but is there anything else as well. This sentence will be an interesting case study. You are cute for shoehorning ad hominem into nearly every sentence of yours, though. You can certainly type a lot and write nothing.A circle has no beginning. That's the point.And that applies to the question at hand, how?And the question about entropy is a good one, guess we'll learn one day won't we? No, we won't. We won't be alive to see it happen.Also remember that this discussion is entirely speculation and educated guesses until we build some really big particle colliders.We already have very big particle colliders. What we need is particle colliders that are as big as the Earth radius. We ain't getting any of those anytime soon. Anyway, thank you for confirming my argument that the only laws that appeared after the Big Bang are the ones reigning over the four fundamental forces. All the others were in place from time 0, thank you.Sorry, stating that the laws of nature are god's laws is a bare assertionYou failed to address my point. Answer it.I have no more time to address your points. I have to leave. I will address the others tomorrow.
Debate: Does God exist?
Side: No

Bahahahaha. The Bibe is firmly based on facts. You ever considered going into stand up comedy? You'd be great.
Debate: Does God exist?
Side: Yes

"If something is taken on faith then by definition there is no evidence."Correct. But nonetheless, whatever claim faith is taken on is possible, no matter how childish it sounds.
Debate: Does God exist?
Side: yes

Well, being a christian, yeah. He's been experienced by loads of people, and I have loads of other proof, but I don't have timne to write it all down!
Debate: Does God exist?
Side: No

i climbed everest blindfolded, with a hippo on my back in 30 seconds, and i also blew up the moon, i got looooooaaaaddddddssss of proof, but i don't have the time to write it down.
Debate: Does God exist?
Side: No

i climbed everest blindfolded, with a hippo on my back in 30 seconds, and i also blew up the moon, i got looooooaaaaddddddssss of proof, but i don't have the time to write it down.I believe you, because your autobiography says it is an infallible work and therefore means you MUST have done these things! It's completely logical!
Debate: Does God exist?
Side: yes

Well, I'm Christian too. And I say there is no proof. Not even the Bible is proof because the Bible was written by man and "inspired" by God. Can we even know if this was true?But for the record, I agree that God exists.
Debate: Does God exist?
Side: yes

i agree. there are plenty of reasons why God exists. Being a baptist i believe in the bible. but for those who dont believe where's your evidence that he's not real?
Debate: Does God exist?
Side: No

and wheres your evedince hes real? eveloution is a proven concept, christianity is not. "Being a baptist i believe in the bible"ive said it before ill say it again, it is completely impossible for the bible to be true, there are just a unlimited amount of contradictions.
Debate: Does God exist?
Side: which god are we talking about

god and evolution are compatible, don't position them as if their a dichotomy. The bible does conflict, also the very conceptualization which most people have as god is self-contradictory. God is a meaningless word in general. Some conceptualizations on what god should be conceptualized as makes sense.
Debate: Does God exist?
Side: yes

EVOLUTION IS NOT A PROVEN CONCEPT! IT IS A THEORY!Also, you say the Bible has contradictions? Where? Until you point them out to me, I think this is completely untrue.
Debate: Does God exist?
Side: No

"Also, you say the Bible has contradictions? Where? Until you point them out to me, I think this is completely untrue." http://www.project-reason.org/bibleContra_big.pdf enough contradictions for you? or do you need more?http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jim_meritt/bible-contradictions.html http://www.evilbible.com/Biblical%20Contradictions.htm now explain.http://www.notjustatheory.com/and the real meaning of "theory" in scientific terms.
Debate: Does God exist?
Side: yes

God's existence can not just be defined by what we believe in.There is an unlimited amount of proof coming out showing that the information in the bible is scientifically true.Also, I would like to know how the bible contradicts itself.
Debate: Does God exist?
Side: No reason to believe

God's existence can not just be defined by what we believe in.What do you mean by this?There is an unlimited amount of proof coming out showing that the information in the bible is scientifically true.Such as...?Also, I would like to know how the bible contradicts itself.Hope you have some time on your hands.http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jim_meritt/bible-contradictions.html
Debate: Does God exist?
Side: yes

1. God is a being that is greater than what we believe therefore we can not define that he exists with only our knowledge. But we can get close to what we can call 'proove' his existence.2.  The Noah's Ark, exact dimensions as the bible stated Wall of Jericho, Mechanical Resonance -> caused the back wall to slide down and fall on top of the front wall The splitting of the red sea was caused when a wind faster than 63km/h blew for a certain length of time around the same area Joshua stopping the sun - http://elmucho.wordpress.com/2010/06/19/ scientific-proof-for-joshuas-missing-day/ 3. The contradictions that are stated in here are, unfortunately, caused due to misinterpretations and incorrect translations. For example the last words of Jesus all mean the same thing: The will of the God is done and Jesus will give up his soul to complete the work of salvation