azza1625/createdebate-arguments huggingface dataset:
Debate: Is there God?
Side: Yes

Natural selection is a process in evolution that can be observed and tested.So is Intelligent Design.The scientific method is commonly described as a four-step process involving observations, hypothesis, experiments, and conclusion. Intelligent design begins with the observation that intelligent agents produce complex and specified information (CSI). Design theorists hypothesize that if a natural object was designed, it will contain high levels of CSI. Scientists then perform experimental tests upon natural objects to determine if they contain complex and specified information. One easily testable form of CSI is irreducible complexity, which can be discovered by experimentally reverse-engineering biological structures to see if they require all of their parts to function. When ID researchers find irreducible complexity in biology, they conclude that such structures were designed.-EvolutionNewsOnly one of the statements is supported by evidence the other is just a assertion with no proof.Wait, are you still referring to the survey about the population of religious scientists or not?You are asking questions to things I have already outlined of why I disagree. This is just a continuation of you showing me you haven't mulled anything I said over. I can say the same thing I completely understand why you disagree. But your reasons does not carry enough weight to neutralize mine. And the same can be applied to my arguments I already told you thrice: Until we found a way to test our ideals, no progress will be achieved.Its up to you if you wish to prove me wrong, but be prepared to get exhausted
Debate: Is there God?
Side: Yes

Pseudoscience. Intelligent design is not testable, observable or falsifiable.Sums up what every Darwinist says.Your link seems to prey on those who are not science literate. You can get sued for what you just said. EvolutionNews is a credible source and quite famous in the world of science and faith. Or would you rather know them by their other channel:DiscoverInstituteIrreducible complexity is an argument from ignorance, it does not take into account of how things can arise slowly, part by part, and then change over timeNeither does Natural Selection solves the mysteries of what Evolution aims to be.When ID has tried to get into schools the courts have even noted that ID and IR are not recognized as sciences.You mean the criticism of ID?This are the people who forced Intelligent Design as a replacement to evolution and aimed to use it as a well-masked creationism. Not a surprising result if you ask me.sighIt takes only common sense to know that God cannot be proven nor disprove. Gaps in the scientific world does not prove a divine being but neither does explanations.I had lots of examples of your wording not being true to what was claimed by the authors or theoriesAnd so whats your point?All throughout the argument, youve been criticizing every word of my sources and claims that it will change meaning. So I asked you whats the new definition, but up until now, you still haven't given me anything that would change something in the poll.Its a simple question with simple answer. What's taking you so long?You have used this claim before against great weight of evidence that your claims were wrong, like in your claim of the Lady of Guadalupe earlier in this thread1. So where is the evidence that God does not exist?2. I never mentioned the Guadalupe in our thread. But if you are gonna claim it as fake, you will need to provide me some evidence.I respects everyone's claim and I am open to change my position based on new information. There's nothing new to be found here, though
Debate: Is there God?
Side: Yes

First off by 'in this thread' I meant this debate, not just ours. LilMisfit destroyed your claim about the Lady of Guadalupe, you just assert they are all wrong with no line of reasoning other than 'christians laugh at those claims'.sigh You do realize that you are being biased, right?I enumerated all the reasons why it became a laughing stock and gave him a chance to refine his answer. But instead, he end up using a research done by Dr. Callahan- a supporter of the Guadalupe.Its self explanatory.But hey, you do not accept my breakdown of it so here is a a bigger poll than yours that delineates the difference between the terms.The poll is about Americans who have a strong belief in God and those who have a shaken faith. What happened to the poll about religious scientists?I do not mind if you will jump on the bandwagon and say that those "who believe in a divine power" are not Christians. But in this case, are you saying that they are automatically atheists?I have no reason to believe in a god, it is not up to me to disprove something that hasn't been proven, that is shifting the onus.Actually, the proof lies on the one making the claim.I stood on the neutral zone but you burst out and say that God does not exist. From here, it will be your responsibility to prove it.P.Swhat happened to our ID vs Natural Selection? Also, stop trying to act like a villain. It does not suit you.
Debate: Is there God?
Side: No

Now you are completely straw manning my claims. My claim was the terms were not synonymous and that could lead to a larger number due to one term being more inclusive. You claimed the terms were the same and there is no difference. I stated the difference in wording matters, you said it didn't. You sad the end result would be the same, my polls prove that to be wrong, my original rebuttals were all directed at this, not saying anyone is an atheist.So....what does the new word mean and how does it make any difference in the end result?Here is one exchange to back this up (also called evidence!).http://www.createdebate.com/debate/show/IsthereGod#arg544031Another...http://www.createdebate.com/debate/show/IsthereGod#arg543590And another...http://www.createdebate.com/debate/show/IsthereGod#arg545012I stood on the neutral zone but you burst out and say that God does not exist.Complete falsehood. I have always been on the side that I have not seen any evidence of god existing.Here is one of our exchanges to show this. First line even.http://www.createdebate.com/debate/show/IsthereGod#arg543633And another...http://www.createdebate.com/debate/show/IsthereGod#arg543298How about a different debate where I hold the same position?http://www.createdebate.com/debate/show/ Do youbelieveinGod_s#arg534411Actually, the proof lies on the one making the claim.Yup. I do not see any evidence that there is a god. You do not cite negatives, for instance to answer 'what is America?' You do not start by lining out things it is not, like europe for instance. People say X is evidence for a god, and then people weigh it to see if the conclusion follows. Now should I link all the instances that you were not in the neutral zone but instead making claims that 'there is too much unexplained for their not to be a god."?You are either mistaken, dishonest or having issues such as extreme dissonance.Do not play the martyr, it doesn't fit.
Debate: Is there God?
Side: No

Seems the many people here have debunked your claims despite you claiming they haven't. Kaveri, Zephry, Lil Misfit.Really, last word is yours. There is no pulling out of this downward spiral you are in as you do not even seem to be reading what I write let alone your sources. You cited proof for your side a site that was actually satire mocking your side of the debate, either you do not read what you are using for evidence or you do not understand what you are reading.Have fun, thanks for the exchange.
Debate: Is there God?
Side: Yes

My claim was the terms were not synonymous and that could lead to a larger number due to one term being more inclusive.All of them leads to the same play of words. You simply scrutinized the poll but have you not realize that no matter how much effort you give, its will still lead to the same question of "Are you an atheist of not?"From there, there are three choices: Yes, No, and Agnostic. And it should have end there. But instead, you made it more complicated and divided the "No" into: "I believe in God" vs "I believe in a Higher Power"sighStop scrambling the results, it will never be in your favor. No matter on which angle you look at, there are still more scientist who believes than those who dont.I have always been on the side that I have not seen any evidence of god existing.Indeed, you started with a neutral view but your new argument:"You have used this claim before against great weight of evidence that your claims were wrong, like in your claim of the Lady of Guadalupe earlier in this thread."Challenges mine as saying that there is an evidence that God does not exists and the Guadalupe is a hoax. Or have I misunderstood?Please correct me if I am wrongYup. I do not see any evidence that there is a god.So do I. But the problem here is how you act like explaining a process can disprove an intelligent being. Do not be fooled I believe in one but I allow myself to be swayed by good reasoning. Or have you forgotten how many times I told you that God cannot be proven nor disproved?
Debate: Is there God?
Side: No

Ah heck..here is the support for the polls that say there is a difference in the wording as it matters. Thought I would put it here too as you keep ignoring these things. The last poll specifically backs my position even. http://www.nytimes.com/2005/01/01/national/01beliefs.html?pagewanted=2&_r=0 Data from six General Social Surveys conducted by the National Opinion Research Center from 1988 to 2000 actually show that 8 percent of the nation's adults opt for the statement "I don't believe in a personal God, but I do believe in a higher power of some kind."Don't like that poll? How about a Gallup poll that delineates the difference between the terms that you say are equal and it is within the same margin as the other poll.http://www.gallup.com/poll/147887/americans-continue-believe-god.aspx However, past Gallup surveys have shown that not all Americans are absolutely certain in their beliefs about God. Given the ability to express doubts about their beliefs, the percentage who stick to a certain belief in God drops into the 70% to 80% range. Additionally, when Americans are given the option of saying they believe in a universal spirit or higher power instead of in "God," about 12% choose the former. Still, the May 2011 poll reveals that when given only the choice between believing and not believing in God, more than 9 in 10 Americans say they do believe.
Debate: Is there God?
Side: Yes

Dont abuse bold face-it is meant only for dividing discussion. Italics would do just fine in quoting.I then showed you polls that differentiate between the wordings as they do matter and even account for the roughly 10 % difference in the wordings!uhh....what?a majority of scientists (51%) say they believe in God or a higher power, while 41% say they do notMeans that 51% are believers, 41% are atheist and 8% are agnostics. Even if you combine atheists and agnostics, the percentage of believers would still be superior. How was that supposed to change anything?It only challenges that the lady of Guadalupe is legitimately a miracle.So...are you saying that you recognize the Guadalupe as a valid evidence of the paranormal?You consistently misrepresent my stances, misrepresent your sources stances, avoid any refutations I make or others make Citation needed.
Debate: Is there God?
Side: No

Citation needed.I quoted and linked many in the last 2 rebuttals and a few in the middle of the debate. In fact I just showed where you state I am claiming there is no god, then I show you my claim is actually 'I have not seen any evidence there is a god' with a few quotes of our exchanges and even me holding that position in other debates. But really we don't need to go any further than your last post to me to show how you do not understand and misrepresent what your opponents say.It only challenges that the lady of Guadalupe is legitimately a miracle.So...are you saying that you recognize the Guadalupe as a valid evidence of the paranormal?To challenge an idea is to oppose it. To oppose that the Lady of Guadalupe is a legitimate miracle is to say no, it is not or I highly doubt it is a miracle. How do you get "are you saying that you recognize the Guadalupe as a valid evidence of the paranormal?" out of that?I think this shows enough that you are not critically reading much of anything.I have outlined where you did exactly this action as outlined above several times in our debate with me and your own sources. To ask for a citation when half a dozen examples have been used already in several places is poor form. You can use those other examples.See...If I claim I am leaving you respond to something I said....neat.But really this time. I am out.
Debate: Is there God?
Side: Yes

I just received an assignment. I will reply later or tomorrow.
Debate: Is there God?
Side: Yes

I quoted and linked many in the last 2 rebuttals and a few in the middle of the debateYou are pointing out your statements that says you are open minded. But you left the parts where you insists that the results of the poll would change depending on the usage of word.If my memories are to be exact, it is also the part where you kept on saying that I am wrong. Now, why did you skip it?To challenge an idea is to oppose it.But if you plan to challenge the divinity of the Guadalupe, please provide the reasons why you think its flawed so we can move the argument forward.
Debate: Is there God?
Side: Yes

1 You were never in the neutral zone, plenty of your arguments are on the other side of this debate claiming "there are too many unexplained things for their not to be a god."Being a part of the neutral zone does not mean I should be barren of my personal opinions. True neutral are the ones who stands with the voice of reason.Or should I remind you again of how I kept on saying that "God cannot be proven nor disproved?"2 I then gave many links of me in our debate saying my position isI have not been shown evidence that a god exists then summed it up again after all my links showing my stance to not be what you say it isBut you did not include the parts where you insisted that God does not exist in an event that can be explained.I noted that the statement only challenges the painting and not god,So, where is your evidence that the Guadalupe is flawed?Right after I showed where you did this exactly you ask for citationsYou were claiming that a change of words will change the poll. I showed how it does not, then you skipped it. And yet, you are still saying that it is I who is at fault. Why?Wow, you certainly do not read things wellThe question remains:Do you accept the Guadalupe or not?Four posts up from yours I proved the wording changes results in the Gallup poll that states this explicitly, using the same terms even.sighAnd would you mind explaining why you no longer argued against my response?>"a majority of scientists (51%) say they believe in God or a higher power, while 41% say they do not"Means that 51% are believers, 41% are atheist and 8% are agnostics. Even if you combine atheists and agnostics, the percentage of believers would still be superior. How was that supposed to change anything?Stop digging the past already! It is unrelated and uneducational. The topic at hand is completely laid bare. Use it
Debate: Is there God?
Side: Yes

I then gave many links of me in our debate saying my position is "I have not been shown evidence that a god exists"I said Evolution works without needing a god to explain it.This is clearly not me doing as you said"burst out and say that God does not exist". How long do you plan to dwell in the past?sighI do not mind it as reference but seriously, you know that denials can only get you so far, right?Link to your proof?Here you goMy responses were sufficient but you ignored them.You're not even trying, aren't you?You ignored thisYou avoid talking about the GuadalupeYou kept on bringing up the past instead of leading the debate forwardYou corrupted the our argument into a worthless flamewarP.SStop lying about your goodbyes. It is good as a joke, but it has overstayed its welcome
Debate: Is there God?
Side: Yes

sighMy links showed an additional 10% difference though when the wording changes.41% said they are atheist8% are agnosticWhat 10% difference are you talking about?Like what I said, the no matter how you put it, there would still be more scientists who believes than those who dontWhat about it? It is just a painting.Its not just a painting. Its the Tilma of the GuadalupeHundreds of scientists- NASA included- dared to explain its miracles. And they all failed.You mean by asking you to back up a comment you said I said, then you failed to show I said it.Here you goIt is the only way you will address anything I say is when you think you don't have to fear a rebuttal. Seems you are keen on my trick now though.I reply as long as the conversation is open. Lying about your words will devalue it. Keep it honest
Debate: Is there God?
Side: No

So same stuff I already refuted...but you don't address? You continue to press a dishonest representation of conclusions of others and the evidence presented. The NASA claim is another example of this behavior of yours. Another poster has already shown that to be a falsehood, yet you still use that framing of the evidence. An engineer who did contract work for NASA is hardly qualified to assess artwork, nor does that equal NASA having anything to do with the claim. If you were at all concerned with the truth, you would move away from that position. Buh by. Really this time.
Debate: Is there God?
Side: Yes

It was not done by a small engineer, but was inspected and tested by qualified professors and scientists-including Nobel prize winners. All confirmed that it is beyond any explanation. The documents are readily available online. Why not try it? Funny thing here is that despite all the emphirical evidence of NASA's attempt, they will still refuse to give any mention of it, and would rather keep their silence. Gee, I wonder why?
Debate: Is there God?
Side: Yes

All of Darwin's statements were myths not fact. Did you know that Darwin originally believed in God, but was mad at Him. He prayed that his daughter would live,she physically died. Afterwards he came to the conclusion that God wasn't real, & thus came up with the story of evolution of man evolving from apes. Will it take another so million years for an ape to turn into a human,if the earth was that old? Last time I checked apes were apes when they died. That also is true for every other animal including humans as well. Which makes me say that Darwin's calculations were incorrect.
Debate: Is there God?
Side: Yes

That's because you imagine "God" as a creature lol.
Debate: Is there God?
Side: Yes

Brilliant! We actually don't know what "God" is. It's a bit odd to imagine him as a creature. Lol
Debate: Is there God?
Side: Yes

I believe "God" is a type of energy of sorts. Energy is everywhere. Plus, it can be neither created nor destroyed. Sounds kind of godly to me.
Debate: Is there God?
Side: Yes

Mhmmm I fully agree. It's like indestructible. Cannot be destroyed but it can be changed. So that would be like pantheism in a way right?
Debate: Is there God?
Side: Yes

Yeah, in a way.
Debate: Is there God?
Side: Yes

It states in the bible that God isn't a physical but,supernatural being. If He was a physical being. If He was,He couldn't be everywhere,now could
Debate: Is there God?
Side: Yes

Yeah, I know.
Debate: Is there God?
Side: No

I don't believe so. Due to the evil nature of the God in the bible and the deceptive smoke and mirrors game he is playing with the world, I sincerely hope I'm right.
Debate: Is there God?
Side: Yes

You can't call someone evil that does not exist, Doc. .
Debate: Is there God?
Side: No

Of course you can. There are many evil characters in fiction.
Debate: Is there God?
Side: Yes

How can you argue with passion against something that does not exist?
Debate: Is there God?
Side: No

Well we argue against the idea of a god existing with "passion" because the belief effects people. We are not arguing against something that doesn't exist, we are arguing with the claim that this character in this story, being a hero. If someone said Loki was a good guy, or Joker was a hero whom deserved to be looked up to in society, I'd be like "what the fuck have you been smoking" but I would be ten times more involved, when they believe the story is actually true, and they support the bad guy.
Debate: Is there God?
Side: Yes

Good point. I see the negative affects of religion on people every day.
Debate: Is there God?
Side: Yes

As 4 real said,you can't argue with evil fictional characters,nor can you blame them for the disasters in your lifes,because they don't exist. However that's what athiest do all the time. They blame God for all the destruction that humanity has caused & have NOT told the entire story of the Bible. They claim that Hitler was a Christian,because of his Catholic routes. However,they've never studied the differences between Catholicism &,Christianity.He only used his so called Catholic routes to get in power & where he did 90% of the books he burned were bibles & killed over 11 million Jews,which the Christian bible was written by. However,athiest do NOT like to mention guys like Joseph Stalin,Mao Zedong,Than Shwe,Pol Pot,Benito Mussolini,Jeffrey Dahamer, etc. I God didn't cause those.messes, we did.
Debate: Is there God?
Side: Yes

non Everybody knows that in Marvel & DC that villains like Brainiac & Dr Doom don't exist & blame them for the problems in their lives. If they did influence people, they could just stop watching the TV show & watch something else. However, it's different with Go,now isn't it? The reason why is, people blame a so called non-existent being for real live causes. Now you say the bible contradicts itself,but isn't saying God doesn't exist & blame Him for the troubles in their lives contradicting? I think so,because when people say there's no God,they usually say it in anger don't they? So how can you be angry at something that doesn't exist? You can't,it's impossible.
Debate: Is there God?
Side: No

You have to be delusional to believe in a god.
Debate: Is there God?
Side: No

I think the problem with this question is that when it comes down to it, it's a matter of belief. It can't be altered with sources, or even logic to some degree.It's almost impossible to debate the existence of anything omnipotent, because you can always use the argument "that's how God chose it to be." There certainly may be a God, but at this point in my life, I'd probably say that there isn't one. But I have no way to prove this, and no way to try and convince anyone else of this fact. If you don't agree, fine. I don't want to change your belief. I just think this is a silly debate.
Debate: Is there God?
Side: No

Religion is something that isn't my cup of tea, so I'm just gonna say that I don't believe in him. I don't really care either way.
Debate: Is there God?
Side: Yes

Can you be certain that you'll cease to exist if you die. Remember,if you're right I have nothing to worry about. If I'm right,you have everything to worry about.
Debate: Is there God?
Side: No

Over time, concepts of God are naturally exposed as myths. We know, for example, that the Egyptian, Greek, Roman and Norse gods are myths. Eventually people will probably stop believing in our gods and call them myths too. If any evidence appeared I'd say yes, but in the absence. of evidence for God and the surfeit of evidence against God, the pragmatic answer would have to be "no".
Debate: Is there God?
Side: Yes

Yes, but there's been no proof of those Roman gods existing. In fact, only the bible has been known to intertwine with secular history. No religion can ever make that claim. All anyone has to do is research what I'm saying & they'll see for themselves.
Debate: Is there God?
Side: No

And so what if it intertwines with secular history? That has no bearing on whether or not it's true.
Debate: Is there God?
Side: No

God is not logical, people are dying over god, people need to forget about the fictional god