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

Put it this way: a maximally great being is simply a being that no other being can be greater than. I am great. Someone is greater than me. Something is greater than that person. So on and so forth until you get the greatest being there is possible without being a logical contradiction. It is not logically impossible to believe that a being can be the greatest in all capacities (knowledge, power, morality).
Debate: What's the difference between God and a common fairy tale?
Side: Nothing

It would need to be greatest in all things including things we do not know about. My argument still stands.
Debate: What's the difference between God and a common fairy tale?
Side: This...

No it doesn't actually. Simply because we don't know about what is good is not a requirement of imagination. You are misunderstanding the argument about imagination. When modality is referring to imagination, it is referring to possible worlds.
Debate: What's the difference between God and a common fairy tale?
Side: Nothing

If this is true, then the ontological argument becomes "God exists because we say he exists"
Debate: What's the difference between God and a common fairy tale?
Side: This...

Not at all actually. It is simply saying that if God is possible, then He exists. You are still tasked with determining whether it is logically impossible for one to exist. Usually arguments then come in various shapes and sized: "Can God make a rock bigger than He can lift?"
Debate: What's the difference between God and a common fairy tale?
Side: Nothing

Put it this way: a maximally great being is simply a being that no other being can be greater than. Which does not actually mean that no greater being can be conceived. It only means that no greater being has existed or maybe could exist.
Debate: What's the difference between God and a common fairy tale?
Side: This...

No, a being that no greater can be conceived is the same thing as saying that a maximally great being is a being that no other being can be greater than.
Debate: What's the difference between God and a common fairy tale?
Side: Nothing

Only if you can prove, or even provide a convincing argument for, imagination being congruent with reality.
Debate: What's the difference between God and a common fairy tale?
Side: This...

Are you serious? The entire argument is of such. The majority of philosophers agree with the logic and say that God is either real or impossible. It is an a priori scheme.
Debate: What's the difference between God and a common fairy tale?
Side: Nothing

Yes the entire argument is of such, and yes I am serious. Just demonstrate that reality is dependent on imagination, or fail. If it is so obvious, this should be an easy task, right? And I'm not privileged to debate with the majority of Philosophers, I am debating you. So, support your side like a good debater, don't just appeal to authority like a novice.
Debate: What's the difference between God and a common fairy tale?
Side: This...

Reality isn't dependent on imagination. However, imagination does tie into reality, thus the argument.And I'm not privileged to debate with the majority of Philosophers, I am debating you. So, support your side like a good debater, don't just appeal to authority like a novice.The problem with that statement is that I have already defended it and your appeals are not arguments. You are begging the question with what is assumed based in the questions you are asking. So the only thing I can do is point it out; however, the majority of the time that doesn't work for people on this site because they can't even see the end of their noses.
Debate: What's the difference between God and a common fairy tale?
Side: Nothing

However, imagination does tie into reality,Sure imagination ties into reality. Reality can give a starting point to imagination. This does not mean that imagination stops where reality stops.  You are begging the questionNo, I am asking a question. How is reality defined or determined by our imagination? Show an applicable example.  the majority of the time that doesn't work for people on this siteYou are not debating the majority the people on this site any more than I debating the majority of philosophers. Now...establish that the premise is factual. Relying strictly on the argument itself when I am challenging the validity of the argument only solidifies how weak the argument is.
Debate: What's the difference between God and a common fairy tale?
Side: This...

Get rid of imagination then. Is it possible for a maximally great being to exist? That is all the notion of imagination plays in the argument: to determine whether it is possible for a being of such to exist.Now...establish that the premise is factual.That is irrelevant if the premise of whether God is possible or not is true. The ontological argument does not do that; the argument is to inform people that maximal greatness necessarily means that if a being is not logically impossible, then it is real.Relying strictly on the argument itself when I am challenging the validity of the argument only solidifies how weak the argument is.You aren't challenging it though. You are committing a red herring: it has nothing to do with the argument.
Debate: What's the difference between God and a common fairy tale?
Side: Nothing

Is it possible for a maximally great being to exist?It is possibile that a being that is greater than all others exists. It is not established whether a being that is greater than all others that can be conceived exists. Unless you can establish that, the premise may not be factual and if it isn't, the conclusion isn't factual. This is first semester logic, lolzors. That is irrelevant if the premise of whether God is possible or not is true. It is not, however, irrelevant to the conclusion that a possible God must exist. the argument is to inform people that maximal greatness necessarily means that if a being is not logically impossible, then it is real.Which is why it is inherently flawed. Something being possible is no more proof of something existing than saying that something is unnecesary is proof of it NOT existing. Both concepts hold the net open, but to throw in the fish, you need to work a little harder. You aren't challenging it though.I certainly am. The definition of god is not mandatory, therefore it can be questioned. The idea that because a thing that exists is greater than a thing that does not exist is not proof that such great thing actually exists. It simply says that IF it did, it would be greater. Hell, the word greater is ludicrously subjective, itself. The conclusion is not factually substantiated, only logically. There are holes all over the damn place. You are committing a red herring: it has nothing to do with the argument.Tossing around well-known logical fallacies instead of demonstrating the fallacy, not to mention completely failing to support your premise, is amateur and will not convince me. Try using your own words instead of a dusty and myopic argument that has been contested since its inception for any number of obvious problems.
Debate: What's the difference between God and a common fairy tale?
Side: This...

I'm done arguing with you. You aren't presenting logic and you are straying from the argument and do not understand necessity based in definition. If you can't understanding the grounding works of deductive arguments, then I can't help you.
Debate: What's the difference between God and a common fairy tale?
Side: Nothing

If you can't understand that logic by itself does not dictate reality, then, you are absolutely correct: you can;t help me, or even help yourself. And if you can't support your claims, then what the hell are you doing on a debate site?
Debate: What's the difference between God and a common fairy tale?
Side: This...

Here's the thing. This is my last post in hopes that you will actually understand deductive logic, which means that if the premises are correct, then it necessarily follows that the conclusion is true.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

5. It is possible that a maximally great being exists (Assume for conditional proof)While I see the validity in assuming for conditional proof, practical application is problematic. We have no precedent establishing this. We have nothing in our collective knowledge pool the demonstrates this concept of maximal greatness. Contrarily, we can identify many things, from people, to objects to political theories that demonstrate that excellence in one area inherently decreases capacity in another. A bodybuilder may generate great strength and bulk, but doing so imposes some limit on their flexibility. Economic practices that maximize efficiency cannot maximize equity. Etc. It is therefore highly unlikely that any being could be maximally great, and if it is truly possible, work needs to be done to establish this. 15. Maximal greatness is possible (Premise 12 and 14)16. A maximally great being exists in the actual world (Premise 8 and 15)The most obvious flaw with this conclusion is that it assumes that possibility=reality. The duality that is established in 11 fails to accept that possibility expresses its own duality, which we can call active/inactive. In a common coin toss, both heads or tails are possible outcomes. But since both landing simultaneously on the same toss IS impossible, one possible outcome must become inactive for the other to become active. If the coin lands tails, this does not mean heads was conceptually impossible, just inactive at this time.DNA is so complex that a seemingly infinite array of possible life forms could be present. But it is known that there are almost infinite varieties of any given form that are not presented. Those that are not, are possible within the confines of DNA structure, but are not active and may well never be. Impossibility does preclude reality, but possibility does not guarantee it.
Debate: What's the difference between God and a common fairy tale?
Side: This...

While I see the validity in assuming for conditional proof, practical application is problematic. We have no precedent establishing this. We have nothing in our collective knowledge pool the demonstrates this concept of maximal greatness. Contrarily, we can identify many things, from people, to objects to political theories that demonstrate that excellence in one area inherently decreases capacity in another. A bodybuilder may generate great strength and bulk, but doing so imposes some limit on their flexibility. Economic practices that maximize efficiency cannot maximize equity. Etc. It is therefore highly unlikely that any being could be maximally great, and if it is truly possible, work needs to be done to establish this.Palm to face. 5 is a conditional proof. In logical proofing you can do it anytime and anywhere. It is simply to say that "if" the first premise is true, then the final part of the conditional proof follows. It is all bound in premise 8.... seriously, the people on this site need to understand formal logic....The most obvious flaw with this conclusion is that it assumes that possibility=reality. The duality that is established in 11 fails to accept that possibility expresses its own duality, which we can call active/inactive. In a common coin toss, both heads or tails are possible outcomes. But since both landing simultaneously on the same toss IS impossible, one possible outcome must become inactive for the other to become active. If the coin lands tails, this does not mean heads was conceptually impossible, just inactive at this time.Reality necessarily follows if it is possible. Philosophers do not contest that point. You are arguing the parts of the ontological argument that philosophers agree is logically necessary; philosophers concede that God necessarily has to be impossible or real. The only question is whether or not this being is possible or now, which is what I took on by saying that it necessarily is maximally great in possibility. The fact that you don't see a problem with the possibility proves God.
Debate: What's the difference between God and a common fairy tale?
Side: Nothing

Palm to face. 5 is a conditional proof. In logical proofing you can do it anytime and anywhere. It is simply to say that "if" the first premise is true, then the final part of the conditional proof follows.AND...in the very first part of the statement you bolded, I said "While I see the validity in assuming for conditional proof"...so get off your high horse. I know how this game works. It helps establish the logical validity of the argument. But in practical application assumption is not enough. There are reasons to question if it is truly possible. As long as that is in question, your premise and conclusion are too. Reality necessarily follows if it is possible.Only if possible and active. You never dealt with either of my examples, or provided your own. Stop with this "philosphers agree" BS and start demonstrating your OWN thoughts and pertinent arguments.
Debate: What's the difference between God and a common fairy tale?
Side: This...

There are no reasons to question it. That was the second part of the argument: a maximally great being must be maximally excellent in logic too, which means it cannot be logically impossible, which means that it is possible, which means that it is real.
Debate: What's the difference between God and a common fairy tale?
Side: Nothing

In deductive logic there is ALWAYS reason to question premises. On the one hand, either of us could run into circular reasoning here. On the other, I sincerely debate the logic of "if something is possible, it is therefore real". My DNA example contests that, and I imagine it would not be too hard to find other examples of non-active possibility. I have also contested that abeing that is maximally excellent in all areas is a premise with no precedent, and virtually infinite precedents standing against it. Would not a maximally honest being be fully incapable of lying? Would it therefore be impossible for a being to be the honest ever AND the most capable of deception? Would not a being most skillful in all areas be a being who cannot be most capable of learning? Advancing the premise from conceptuality to reality is reliant on the logic only, but as I've repeated many times, in deductive logic, the logic can be perfect but the conclusions still false. Premises need outside support for verification and to ensure that it is not a tautology.
Debate: What's the difference between God and a common fairy tale?
Side: Nothing

Actually not at all. God is the only one that falls into it because He is defined as maximally great; everything else is contingent. It is a logical fallacy to say that unicorns exist because it is possible; it is a logical fallacy to say that it is possible that God exists but He doesn't.The human mind cannot perceive God. Therefore it is a logical fallacy to say that god is 'maximally great' e.g. the greatest thing that can be conceived of.
Debate: What's the difference between God and a common fairy tale?
Side: Nothing

It necessarily follows that if God is possible, then He exists.Then if fairy tales are possible they exist, yet fairy tales are not possible. In what physical way can God exist, other than saying if he can exist he exists? God is not impossible, therefore, He is possible, hence, He exists.On the contrary God is actually quite impossible. Matter can not be created or destroyed, someone can not know all, someone can not make a person from dirt or another person from a rib. On your logic alone, God can not exist because God is actually not possible.
Debate: What's the difference between God and a common fairy tale?
Side: This...

Then if fairy tales are possible they exist, yet fairy tales are not possible. In what physical way can God exist, other than saying if he can exist he exists?That is a logical fallacy. It does not follow that if fairy tales are possible, then they exist. By definition of God being maximally great, then it necessarily follows, by definition, that God must be real if possible.On the contrary God is actually quite impossible. Matter can not be created or destroyed, someone can not know all, someone can not make a person from dirt or another person from a rib. On your logic alone, God can not exist because God is actually not possible.You are applying the physical to the abstract. God can know all.
Debate: What's the difference between God and a common fairy tale?
Side: Nothing

That is a logical fallacy.Ironically, that is the same logical fallacy you used, to defend something that you also have no proof in. Then I guess we're both guilty of a failure in logic.It does not follow that if fairy tales are possible, then they exist.Then why does it for God? They both are stories with no physical proof. Where anything could happen. By definition of God being maximally great, then it necessarily follows, by definition, that God must be real if possible.You do realize, stories are limitless too right? I can make a fairy tale right now let's see: "A flying wizard with all the powers of the universe is going to kill everyone in the world someday" Totally real now, because based on the powers I gave him, he definitely can be real right?You are applying the physical to the abstractYou've done the same with story books. They are not physical, they are ideas, thus abstract, making their potential limitless, meaning by your logic they must be real. If they are real, and God is real on that same premise their is no difference between God and fairy tale. Admit it, I used your logic, backed you into a loop, and God is as real as a fairy tale.
Debate: What's the difference between God and a common fairy tale?
Side: This...

Ironically, that is the same logical fallacy you used, to defend something that you also have no proof in. Then I guess we're both guilty of a failure in logic.Actually its not the same.Then why does it for God? They both are stories with no physical proof. Where anything could happen.Physical proof is irrelevant. Because by definition of God being maximally great, then He necessarily has to exist if possible. It is a contradiction to say that one can imagine a maximally great being but that He is not real; for it is greater to be real than to be solely imaginary. Therefore, if one can imagine a maximally great being (ie through stories of other such things, meaning that it is possible for Him to exist), then it necessarily follows deductively that He exists.You do realize, stories are limitless too right? I can make a fairy tale right now let's see: "A flying wizard with all the powers of the universe is going to kill everyone in the world someday" Totally real now, because based on the powers I gave him, he definitely can be real right?That is irrelevant. If one can imagine or come up with some story of a maximally great being, then it deductively follows that He is real.You've done the same with story books. They are not physical, they are ideas, thus abstract, making their potential limitless, meaning by your logic they must be real. If they are real, and God is real on that same premise their is no difference between God and fairy tale. Admit it, I used your logic, backed you into a loop, and God is as real as a fairy tale.This is a strawman fallacy. It does not follow that fairy tales are real because they are possible.
Debate: What's the difference between God and a common fairy tale?
Side: Nothing

Actually its not the same.I literally applied the exact same words you said about God's potential existence, to a fairy tale's. Same.Physical proof is irrelevant.Physical proof the only thing that matters. Yet I may be ahead of myself. If it's irrelevant, what is relevant?Because by definition of God being maximally great, then He necessarily has to exist if possible.What makes him 'maximally great'? It is a contradiction to say that one can imagine a maximally great being but that He is not real;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. for it is greater to be real than to be solely imaginary.Okay, what does that prove? That humans' imaginations are greater than reality, that's obvious. Therefore, if one can imagine a maximally great being (ie through stories of other such things, meaning that it is possible for Him to exist), then it necessarily follows deductively that He exists.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 is irrelevant. If one can imagine or come up with some story of a maximally great being, then it deductively follows that He is real.Very much relevant. What makes my wizard different your God? I imagined him all powerful didn't I?This is a strawman fallacy. It does not follow that fairy tales are real because they are possible.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.