azza1625/createdebate-arguments huggingface dataset:
Debate: What's the difference between God and a common fairy tale?
Side: This...

I literally applied the exact same words you said about God's potential existence, to a fairy tale's. Same.God is maximally great; fairy tales are not.Physical proof the only thing that matters. Yet I may be ahead of myself. If it's irrelevant, what is relevant?Logic is what matters. The physical changes all the time; the empirical can only prove that which is not necessary. Logic is necessary.What makes him 'maximally great'?The definition makes Him so.That's the same scenario I just used to say my wizard is real. I imagined him all powerful, able to do the logically impossible.Well, then if the wizard is imagined as maximally great, then you are simply changing the name of God for "wizard" and are merely speaking of the same being.Okay, what does that prove? That humans' imaginations are greater than reality, that's obvious.No, its saying that it is illogical to say that one is maximally great but at the same time not real.If one can imagine a great being existing, that means he can exist right? Well one has imagined all the stories you ever heard being true, therefore they must be true. Therefore no one can even lie, because if you imagine it, then it is real.That does not follow. Stories do not take on the definition of being maximally great.Very much relevant. What makes my wizard different your God? I imagined him all powerful didn't I?The wizard, if maximally great, is the same being that I am referring to; they simply have different names.Then that is a strawman fallacy that it does not follow that God is real because he is possible. See how this works? Everything you say of your God, can be turned right back around and applied to fairy tales, therefore they are the same.It follows deductively that if God is possible, then He exists. Fairy tales do not follow deductively.
Debate: What's the difference between God and a common fairy tale?
Side: Nothing

God is maximally great; fairy tales are not.How so?Logic is what matters. The physical changes all the time; the empirical can only prove that which is not necessary. Logic is necessary.The physical changes? What, pray tell, are you talking about? Do you mean alchemy? Because yea, I totally see that every day.The definition makes Him so.What definition? What are you even talking about?Well, then if the wizard is imagined as maximally great, then you are simply changing the name of God for "wizard" and are merely speaking of the same being.Acceptable. My Wizard, just wiped your God out of existence with his maximally powerful power and he made it where he can never come back because no one can even imagine him truly again. Now your God doesn't exist anymore right?No, its saying that it is illogical to say that one is maximally great but at the same time not real.If we know of nothing maximally great, with our own two hands, or own two eyes, our own human senses, then how can we claim that because we imagined it maximally great that it must* exist?That does not follow. Stories do not take on the definition of being maximally great.How so?The wizard, if maximally great, is the same being that I am referring to; they simply have different names.Not at all, I just imagined him.It follows deductively that if God is possible, then He exists. Fairy tales do not follow deductively.How so?P.s. I actually want answers for these.
Debate: What's the difference between God and a common fairy tale?
Side: This...

How so?By definition.The physical changes? What, pray tell, are you talking about? Do you mean alchemy? Because yea, I totally see that every day.The capital of a nation changes. That cannot be proven rationally; it must be proven empirically.What definition? What are you even talking about?If you can imagine a being that is maximally great, whatever that being may be, then it follows that it exists.Acceptable. My Wizard, just wiped your God out of existence with his maximally powerful power and he made it where he can never come back because no one can even imagine him truly again. Now your God doesn't exist anymore right?You are now separating the wizard from God. God is defined the same as the maximally great being. The wizard and God are one in the same.If we know of nothing maximally great, with our own two hands, or own two eyes, our own human senses, then how can we claim that because we imagined it maximally great that it must exist?It deductively follows that if a maximally great being exists, then it does. It doesn't matter if it has been seen or not.How so?The definition of story is not being maximally great.Not at all, I just imagined him.You are making a logical impossibility. There cannot be two maximally great beings.How so?I have already told you.P.s. I actually want answers for these.I have.
Debate: What's the difference between God and a common fairy tale?
Side: Nothing

By definition.What definition?The capital of a nation changes.In what world is that a physical element? That is nominal, meaning only existing in name, much like God.That cannot be proven rationally; it must be proven empirically.A nation's name changing can be proven rationally. When a nation is taken over, rebuilt, or destroyed, who ever gave it that name, is no longer there to keep that name, so it is changed to whoever is there now. Much like God. His name for you may be Yahweh, while my Wizard is named Keith, and the Hindus have Birhma, Vishnu, and all of their other names. Does that automatically mean that all of their Gods are real? Since they too believe them to be maximally powerful.If you can imagine a being that is maximally great, whatever that being may be, then it follows that it exists.Okay, you said that before. Now what is that a definition of? It sounds like something you just made up.You are now separating the wizard from God.They were never the same person remember?God is defined the same as the maximally great being. The wizard and God are one in the same.Sorry, Keith the wizard is more maximally great than God. So Keith wins, god doesn't exist.It deductively follows that if a maximally great being exists, then it does. It doesn't matter if it has been seen or not.Then the maximally great stories that we have never made physical contact with, are also true, meaning they are the same as God, meaning their is no difference between God and a fairy tale.The definition of story is not being maximally great.How isn't it? People imagined the stories as real.You are making a logical impossibility. There cannot be two maximally great beingsAre you saying that a maximally great being, with the power to do anything can't exist in a world with another? Because from the logic you lied down earlier: "If you can imagine a being that is maximally great, whatever that being may be, then it follows that it exists." That means that only the first maximally great being imagined can exist, and the rest can not. And I already know that your God was not the first one imagined, his tale is only some 2-7000 years old.
Debate: What's the difference between God and a common fairy tale?
Side: This...

What definition?If you can define a being as being maximally great without a logical contradiction, then some being could be maximally great.In what world is that a physical element? That is nominal, meaning only existing in name, much like God.The capital of a country is empirical.A nation's name changing can be proven rationally. When a nation is taken over, rebuilt, or destroyed, who ever gave it that name, is no longer there to keep that name, so it is changed to whoever is there now. Much like God. His name for you may be Yahweh, while my Wizard is named Keith, and the Hindus have Birhma, Vishnu, and all of their other names. Does that automatically mean that all of their Gods are real? Since they too believe them to be maximally powerful.A nation's name is empirical. It applies logic, yes, but it is not necessary, as in a deductive argument, which is what I have been referring to as necessary. You are referring to inductive logic.Okay, you said that before. Now what is that a definition of? It sounds like something you just made up.A being that is maximally great is one that is maximally excellent in all capacities that do not make a logical contradiction.They were never the same person remember?The were the same person because God is the one who is defined that way in the Bible, the God we were implicitly referring to. If you want to say that it is Zeus, then your logic would work because he is not maximally great. However, referring to a wizard that is maximally great is referring to the same being as the one in the Bible. Though the Bible is not necessarily true; it says that a God like the one in the Bible is true.Sorry, Keith the wizard is more maximally great than God. So Keith wins, god doesn't exist.That is a logical contradiction. Either the God of the Bible is true or some other maximally great being is true. If you want to say it is Keith, then so be it.Then the maximally great stories that we have never made physical contact with, are also true, meaning they are the same as God, meaning their is no difference between God and a fairy tale.Stories cannot "do" anything.How isn't it? People imagined the stories as real.Stories are not living.Are you saying that a maximally great being, with the power to do anything can't exist in a world with another? Because from the logic you lied down earlier: "If you can imagine a being that is maximally great, whatever that being may be, then it follows that it exists." That means that only the first maximally great being imagined can exist, and the rest can not. And I already know that your God was not the first one imagined, his tale is only some 2-7000 years old.This is a red herring. The point of the argument is that a maximally great being must exist if it is not logically impossible for one to exist; if it can exist, then it is logically contradictory to say that one does not exist.
Debate: What's the difference between God and a common fairy tale?
Side: Nothing

If you can define a being as being maximally great without a logical contradiction, then some being could be maximally great.And any being can be maximally great, meaning your God, and my Keith and the Buddhas, and the Vishnus, and the Brahmas, the Abrahams, flying spaghetti monsters and the whole lot of them, including the fairy tales. Meaning, God has no difference from a fairy tale.The capital of a country is empirical.No logic can be used to verify a name, because it only exists in name. Things that don't require logic only exist in name. God, Vishnu, Brahma, Abraham, Flying Spaghetti Monsters, and fairy tales. Their is no difference between God and a fairy tale.A being that is maximally great is one that is maximally excellent in all capacities that do not make a logical contradiction.That is what you said to this.Okay, you said that before. Now what is that a definition of? It sounds like something you just made up.Now how is that an answer? I need answers if I'm going to dispute you logically.The were the same person because God is the one who is defined that way in the BibleThe bible is a book of fairy tales. There is no difference.Though the Bible is not necessarily true; it says that a God like the one in the Bible is true.The bible is not true, but it says something that is true? Do you realize the contradiction you made there? What can you trust in the bible? and how do you know?Stories cannot "do" anything.Hate to burst your bubble but neither can God. They are the same.Stories are not living.They are just about as alive as God. Making them the same.The point of the argument is that a maximally great being must exist if it is not logically impossible for one to existThat's the thing though. It is logically impossible for one to exist. The 'logic' you're spouting makes no sense because it offers a paradox potential. Logically speaking, for a being to do something scientifically impossible, he would not be able to exist. Therefore he is just as logical, and potential as a fairy tale, making him the same.All of my arguments have ended with how God in fact is the same as a fairy tale, can you dispute that?
Debate: What's the difference between God and a common fairy tale?
Side: This...

There can only be one maximally great being. What you are defining as Keith is actually God. Now, i have demonstrated to you that if a maximally great can exist, then it does exist, which is not the same in regards to fairy tales. Tell me how it is impossible for one to exist.
Debate: What's the difference between God and a common fairy tale?
Side: Nothing

There can only be one maximally great being. What you are defining as Keith is actually God. As your omnipotent God says in the bible you follow religiously, he can do anything, even make another maximally great being. yet you said that's not possible, so does that mean that the idea that a maximally great being must exist because you believe it can, false?Now, I have demonstrated to you that if a maximally great can exist, then it does exist, Then the maximally great fairy tales exist. God is the same as a fairy tale.Tell me how it is impossible for one to exist.Truthfully the question isn't to whether or not one can exist, because as an agnostic I don't wholly deny God's existence, what with no proof. The question is, is God's tale as likely as a fairy tale, and the answer is a resounding yes. Like you said, if God can exist, then he must exist. If a fairy tale can exist it must exist. They are the same.
Debate: What's the difference between God and a common fairy tale?
Side: This...

As your omnipotent God says in the bible you follow religiously, he can do anything, even make another maximally great being. yet you said that's not possible, so does that mean that the idea that a maximally great being must exist because you believe it can, false?We have already had this discussion. Your response is not an argument. Omnipotence is not defined as being able to do the logically impossible; if it is, then that means He can do the logically impossible, which means that your objection is pointless. Also, my argument is based in logic, which assumes that a maximally great being is contained within logic.Then the maximally great fairy tales exist. God is the same as a fairy tale.Fairy tales cannot "do" anything. They are, therefore, not maximally great.Truthfully the question isn't to whether or not one can exist, because as an agnostic I don't wholly deny God's existence, what with no proof. The question is, is God's tale as likely as a fairy tale, and the answer is a resounding yes. Like you said, if God can exist, then he must exist. If a fairy tale can exist it must exist. They are the same.It is logically contradictory to say that a maximally great being could exist but that it is unlikely. You are still not understanding the logic of ontology.
Debate: What's the difference between God and a common fairy tale?
Side: Nothing

Your response is not an argument. "God can exist because I believe he can" Is not an argument, I'm using your same arguments. What's limiting fairy tales? Nothing. Therefore we can imagine them maximally great and make them the same as God. Are you saying all fairy tales are God, since their is only one God? If you are, then that means God is the same as fairy tales. I can't simplify it anymore.Omnipotence is not defined as being able to do the logically impossible;When we had this discussion I offered you an official definition that said "Anything" in it. You offered a classical definition that also didn't say it couldn't do the logically impossible.Also, my argument is based in logic, which assumes that a maximally great being is contained within logic.Why is an all powerful being able to do anything contained within any finite area of possibility?Fairy tales cannot "do" anything. They are, therefore, not maximally great.Fairy tales, can and have done anything. All fairy tales do impossible things. Comics, are a form of fairy tales, movies, and all sorts of stories are basically fairy tales. They can and do do anything. Just like God.But we've been getting off topic. Ignore all of that above if you like and answer this, so we can restart.Why is God not the same as a fairy tale?
Debate: What's the difference between God and a common fairy tale?
Side: Nothing

Because by definition of God being maximally great, then He necessarily has to exist if possible. A definition created, as all definitions are, by man. A concept. A concept without physical proof or necessity.
Debate: What's the difference between God and a common fairy tale?
Side: This...

If it is not logically contradictory for a maximally great being to exist, then one can imagine that one exists. Therefore, because it is possible for God to exist, He exists. The logic still stands.
Debate: What's the difference between God and a common fairy tale?
Side: Nothing

Again, if I imagine that Keith exists then he must right. You remember where that went do you?
Debate: What's the difference between God and a common fairy tale?
Side: Nothing

Then a maximally great non-being must also exist.But existence is neither limited to, nor determined by what we can imagine. Using human thought processes without establishing objective certainty is a only having an imaginary leg to stand on.
Debate: What's the difference between God and a common fairy tale?
Side: This...

But existence is neither limited to, nor determined by what we can imagine. Using human thought processes without establishing objective certainty is a only having an imaginary leg to stand on.By definition of being maximally great, if one can imagine a maximally great being, then it exists.
Debate: What's the difference between God and a common fairy tale?
Side: Nothing

That is something you repeat over and over again as dogma, but do not support outside of the ontological argument. Though the argument itself is logically consistent, logic itself is not the same as truth. For instance:1. All beings that lay eggs and have bills or beaks are birds.2. The duck-billed platypus lays eggs and has a bill.3. Therefore it is a bird. The conclusion is a logical premise since it follows the rules of logic if the premises are presumed true. But since the first premise is not true, the statement, while logical, is not factually correct.The definition you propose for God is neither directly confirmed, necessary, or universally recognized. Even if you and I were to agree that God exists and is responsible for all He is given credit for in the Bible, it would be feasible for me to define God as the greatest thing that exists, though not necessarily the greatest thing conceivable. If my definition were true, your argument would be logically false, even in a scenario where God exists.Finally, you need to establish a precedent where reality is contingent on imagination, since there are countless examples that demonstrate that imagination is not contingent on reality.
Debate: What's the difference between God and a common fairy tale?
Side: Nothing

Just to help you out, the definition of God allows for this weird logical twist. Since God is defined as the maximally great being, then the logic is sound only for God because fairy tales are not defined as maximally great. It is a loop hole.
Debate: What's the difference between God and a common fairy tale?
Side: Nothing

I found a wrong inference in the ontological argument...1) By definition, God is a being than which none greater can be imagined.2) A being that necessarily exists in reality is greater than a being that does not necessarily exist.3) Thus, by definition, if God exists as an idea in the mind but does not necessarily exist in reality, then we can imagine something that is greater than a God that does not exist necessarily in reality.4) But we cannot imagine something that is greater than God that exists necesarilly.5) Thus, if God exists in the mind as an idea and only necesarilly in reality, then God necessarily exists in reality. WRONG It should be, then God that exists in the mind isn't God.The remaining two points are irrelevant from that point onwards. Your logic is not valid. It's fallacious.
Debate: What's the difference between God and a common fairy tale?
Side: Nothing

Logic proves Flying Spaghetti Monster: Flying Spaghetti Monster is not impossible.
Debate: What's the difference between God and a common fairy tale?
Side: Nothing

God is not necessary in combination with it's origins in myths based on ignorance ... makes him really unrealistic, but to be fair he is still possible as Harry Potter is.
Debate: What's the difference between God and a common fairy tale?
Side: Nothing

Prove it. .
Debate: What's the difference between God and a common fairy tale?
Side: This...

1. Maximal greatness is defined as being maximally excellent in all capacities (Definition applied).2. If a being with the predicate of maximal greatness is not applied to all possible worlds, then it is not maximally excellent in modality (Premise 1)3. Maximal greatness means that the being that possesses such a predicate must be applied to all possible worlds (Premise 2)4. Every possible world includes the actual world (Modal logic necessity)......... 5. It is possible that a maximally great being exists (Assume for conditional proof)......... 6. A maximally great being exists in every possible world (Premise 3 and 5)......... 7. A maximally great being exists in the actual world (Premise 4 and 6)8. If it is possible that a maximally great being exists, then a maximally great being exists in the actual world (Conditional proof from Premises 5-7)9. Impossibility is equivalent to not possible (By definition)10. If something is not impossible, then it is not not possible (Premise 9)11. Everything is either possible or impossible, though not necessarily necessary for possibility (Modal logic necessity)12. Everything is possible unless impossible. (Premise 10 and 11)13. Maximal greatness has no contradicting features (Premise 1)14. Maximal greatness is not impossible (Premise 13)15. Maximal greatness is possible (Premise 12 and 14)16. A maximally great being exists in the actual world (Premise 8 and 15)
Debate: What's the difference between God and a common fairy tale?
Side: Nothing

Deus, god of time and space, is real.
Debate: What's the difference between God and a common fairy tale?
Side: This...

That has no logical backing. A maximally great being can be proven a priori; a god that is not maximally great cannot be proven a priori.
Debate: What's the difference between God and a common fairy tale?
Side: Nothing

Deus exists in the mind- Yukiteru's mind to be exact, who in turn exists in Sakae Esuno's mind. Sadly, many Mirai Nikki fanatics neglect to consider that the logical conclusion of this is that Deus and Murmur exist.By now you may need to look up certain things to fully understand the concept of my argument as I have not explained them. Cough cough.
Debate: What's the difference between God and a common fairy tale?
Side: Nothing

Interesting... I've never heard of Deus. Where is it from? Also "Deus" is the Latin word for "God"
Debate: What's the difference between God and a common fairy tale?
Side: Nothing

I was too lazy to write out "Deus ex Machina" (God of the machine), a character in the manga Mirai Nikki.
Debate: What's the difference between God and a common fairy tale?
Side: This...

Here is a difference god is more ridiculous than fairy tales!
Debate: What's the difference between God and a common fairy tale?
Side: Nothing

Although I get the joke you're making. In all seriousness, the story behind God is no more unbelievable than a story of an Ogre falling for a princess...and getting her! Besides that depends on subjectivity, on what one considers 'ridiculous' or not.
Debate: What's the difference between God and a common fairy tale?
Side: This...

I assume you are talking about Shrek, which is a story about a princess who also turns into an ogre herself. Her falling in love with another ogre then becomes far less ridiculous than the stories about God.