azza1625/createdebate-arguments huggingface dataset:
Debate: There is no room for faith in a reasonable debate.
Side: Evidence Trumps

If maximally great means omnipotent, all knowing... all the rest of it, it stands that this being is not lucid due to the rules of three, so said god may as well just be the universe, or 01k.Maximal greatness is impossible, even trinity deities cannot equalise the three strengths and weaknesses. (Lucidity(awareness of own existence and capabilities), Power(ability to affect events), Awareness(of everything))
Debate: There is no room for faith in a reasonable debate.
Side: I just know you're wrong

God in the Bible is one being but three person. That is not a contradiction.
Debate: There is no room for faith in a reasonable debate.
Side: Evidence Trumps

Then if it is indeed a trinity deity, it would not be maximally great. 2/3 of the trinity deity are ascended beings, and the other is 'lifted' into lucidity by their combined strong lucidities. It is impossible for two ascended beings to harness the power of all things- the only way to omnipotence.K l3 p1 a2.B l2 p3 a1.D l1 p2 a3I'm pretty sure that if this was seriously attempted it would trigger an apocalypse, or simply kill the ascended deities.
Debate: There is no room for faith in a reasonable debate.
Side: Evidence Trumps

That made no sense whatsoever. God is three person, just as humans are two persons, within one being.
Debate: There is no room for faith in a reasonable debate.
Side: Evidence Trumps

so said god may as well just be the universeSpinoza was said to be a Pantheist. God is the universe or the nature of God is known by the nature of the universe. Einstein was said to have a similar belief.
Debate: There is no room for faith in a reasonable debate.
Side: I just know you're wrong

I agree: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 not possible that a maximally great being exists (Assume for conditional proof)......... 6. A maximally great being does not exists in every possible world (Premise 3 and 5)......... 7. A maximally great being does not exists in the actual world (Premise 4 and 6)8. If it is possible that a maximally great being does not exists, then a maximally great being does not 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 impossible unless possible. (Premise 10 and 11)13. Maximal greatness has no contradicting features (Premise 1)14. Maximal greatness is impossible (Premise 13 and Premise 5)15. Maximal greatness is not possible (Premise 12 and 14)16. A maximally great being does not exist in the actual world (Premise 8 and 15)
Debate: There is no room for faith in a reasonable debate.
Side: Evidence Trumps

You are good all the way up until premise 14. You are taking from the conditional proof, which can only work if you apply that premise to the conditional proof as well. 14 also does not follow from your premises that you said proved it.This argument does not work.
Debate: There is no room for faith in a reasonable debate.
Side: I just know you're wrong

Then, neither does yours.
Debate: There is no room for faith in a reasonable debate.
Side: Evidence Trumps

My premise that said that God was possible came from outside of the conditional proof. It is, therefore, logically necessary.My argument works.
Debate: There is no room for faith in a reasonable debate.
Side: I just know you're wrong

Where? Your premise that God was possible only comes from your conditional proof.
Debate: There is no room for faith in a reasonable debate.
Side: Evidence Trumps

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)My premise that God was possible comes from premise 12 and 14. 12 comes from definitions and modal logic necessities when regressed back. 14 comes from Premise 13, which is from Premise 1. 5, 6, and 7 prove 8, which is only brought back up on premise 16, which is the conclusion. My argument is logically necessary.
Debate: There is no room for faith in a reasonable debate.
Side: I just know you're wrong

12. Is equivalent to Everything is impossible unless possible. 14 comes from 13 and 5, which you are missing. A contradictory feature would be that it is both possible and impossible. The only way to avoid impossible is by including premise 5. In what way have you shown that God is possible? Premise 1 does not allow you to include possibility. You have to demonstrate that possible existence is a property of maximal greatness. All you can do is claim it to be true which is begging the question.
Debate: There is no room for faith in a reasonable debate.
Side: Evidence Trumps

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)14 comes from 13 and 5, which you are missing.That is not true. 14 comes from premise 13, which comes from premise 1. I have already shown you that.A contradictory feature would be that it is both possible and impossible. The only way to avoid impossible is by including premise 5.Not at all. Simply by defining a being as maximally great, it is maximally excellent in logic too.In what way have you shown that God is possible?God is not logically impossible, which is derived from premise 1. Therefore, He is possible.Premise 1 does not allow you to include possibility. You have to demonstrate that possible existence is a property of maximal greatness. All you can do is claim it to be true which is begging the question.Premise 1 is simply defining that a being with these qualities would be maximally great. However, if you watched what I have been saying this entire time, then you would have noticed that I said the argument does beg the question. The ontological argument solely is to define God. My argument is to beg the question.
Debate: There is no room for faith in a reasonable debate.
Side: I just know you're wrong

God is not logically impossible, which is derived from premise 1. Therefore, He is possible.Logically, everything is either possible or impossible. Therefore it is impossible unless possible. You have not demonstrated that it is not impossible.Premise 1 is simply defining that a being with these qualities would be maximally great. However, if you watched what I have been saying this entire time, then you would have noticed that I said the argument does beg the question. The ontological argument solely is to define God. My argument is to beg the question.Your definition is a proof. That's kind of dumb. Sorry, it just is.
Debate: There is no room for faith in a reasonable debate.
Side: Evidence Trumps

Logically, everything is either possible or impossible. Therefore it is impossible unless possible. You have not demonstrated that it is not impossible.I have by definition of it being maximally great.Your definition is a proof. That's kind of dumb. Sorry, it just is.That is what the ontological argument is: it defines some being.
Debate: There is no room for faith in a reasonable debate.
Side: I just know you're wrong

That is what the ontological argument is: it defines some being.The concept of God is so ridiculous you need massive amounts of proof to simply define it. Way to go.
Debate: There is no room for faith in a reasonable debate.
Side: Evidence Trumps

Premise 1 does not allow you to include possibility. You have to demonstrate that possible existence is a property of maximal greatness. All you can do is claim it to be true which is begging the question.I demonstrated in the first part of the argument that maximal greatness necessarily means that it is real.
Debate: There is no room for faith in a reasonable debate.
Side: Evidence Trumps

Whatever awesome thing you can imagine, but that isn't real, would be trumped by the awesomeness of the most awesome thing that is real. The definition of "Best" requires existence.It's clever.
Debate: There is no room for faith in a reasonable debate.
Side: Evidence Trumps

It doesn't require existence. We as humans believe that existence is such an awesome trait, but maybe it isn't. Everything that exists that we have observed has a flaw, how do we know that it is not because the thing exists. Maybe existence is a flaw and maximally great would have to not exist. BOOM, that's clever.
Debate: There is no room for faith in a reasonable debate.
Side: I just know you're wrong

No, it does not. So far, everything real is not maximally great. Everything we have ever experienced has some flaw in it. How do you know this is not a by product of existence?
Debate: There is no room for faith in a reasonable debate.
Side: Evidence Trumps

The problem is subjective terminology. "Great", "Flawed" etc. By whose standard? There is nothing flawed about Mars or the Moon.
Debate: There is no room for faith in a reasonable debate.
Side: I just know you're wrong

Neither has an atmosphere. Neither can create a universe. It is flawed in the sense of maximal greatness.
Debate: There is no room for faith in a reasonable debate.
Side: Evidence Trumps

Do you realize that it's a fallacy? Especially from 5 .
Debate: There is no room for faith in a reasonable debate.
Side: Evidence Trumps

Obviously, I have called the exact same thing with possible instead of impossible a fallacy. I was demonstrating that showing God is impossible is just as logically sound.
Debate: There is no room for faith in a reasonable debate.
Side: Evidence Trumps

To believe in something that you have evidence for believing, is not faith. When the evidence falls apart and you still believe, that may be called faith...or insanity depending on the topic.
Debate: There is no room for faith in a reasonable debate.
Side: Evidence Trumps

In reference to our other debate. I am not an Atheist. Neither am I a Christian. I do not believe the Bible was written by God. It is impossible to LOGICALLY convince someone that God wrote the Bible. The consistency of the Bible is a matter of perspective. One can logically argue only about things that there is solid evidence for.
Debate: There is no room for faith in a reasonable debate.
Side: Evidence Trumps

That's why I was saying that is reverts into beliefs-properly-so-called.
Debate: There is no room for faith in a reasonable debate.
Side: Evidence Trumps

I don't understand beliefs-properly-so-called. Isn't anything "properly so called" if everyone knows what you mean when you say it?
Debate: There is no room for faith in a reasonable debate.
Side: Evidence Trumps

Beliefs properly so called are beliefs that cannot be proven or disproven and all they can do is beg the question. If you revert an argument back far enough it reached one of these beliefs.
Debate: There is no room for faith in a reasonable debate.
Side: Evidence Trumps

Proper arguments do not reduce back to things that can neither be proven nor disproven. Proper arguments reduce back to axioms.Axioms are things so self-evident that they can't be disputed or their use is required within their refutation. "Words exist" for example is an axiom. It's impossible to tell me how they don't.
Debate: There is no room for faith in a reasonable debate.
Side: Evidence Trumps

lolzors, Don't you have some friends of faith that can try to back you up? It's seems like you're being ganged up on.
Debate: There is no room for faith in a reasonable debate.
Side: Evidence Trumps

His form of faith, is radically different than the other faithful members on here.
Debate: There is no room for faith in a reasonable debate.
Side: Evidence Trumps

I actually agree with what you just said.
Debate: There is no room for faith in a reasonable debate.
Side: Evidence Trumps

Well it was true. it wasn't meant to be taken as a stab at you, it's just something I've noticed about how you carry your God. If I can offer you anything that resembles a compliment though, it's that you're respectful.You and I have never bickered, or at least never blatantly used ad hominem to one another.
Debate: There is no room for faith in a reasonable debate.
Side: Evidence Trumps

Nope hahahaha .
Debate: There is no room for faith in a reasonable debate.
Side: Evidence Trumps

Most of the people on this site don't even understand the argument, let alone Christians.... :/
Debate: There is no room for faith in a reasonable debate.
Side: Evidence Trumps

(Dictionary.com)-:Faith-1.confidence or trust in a person or thing: faith in another's ability.2.belief that is not based on proof: He had faith that the hypothesis would be substantiated by fact.3.belief in God or in the doctrines or teachings of religion: the firm faith of the Pilgrims.4.belief in anything, as a code of ethics, standards of merit, etc.: to be of the same faith with someone concerning honesty.5.a system of religious belief: the Christian faith; the Jewish faith.Nowhere does it say faith is sometimes, or ever belief with evidence. The fact that there isnt evidence makes it faith. if there was evidence we wouldnt be using this word.Webster-Miriam Dictionary.com-Faith-a : allegiance to duty or a person : loyaltyb (1) : fidelity to one's promises (2) : sincerity of intentions2a (1) : belief and trust in and loyalty to God (2) : belief in the traditional doctrines of a religionb (1) : firm belief in something for which there is no proof (2) : complete trust3: something that is believed especially with strong conviction; especially : a system of religious beliefs This definition is even more solid.
Debate: There is no room for faith in a reasonable debate.
Side: Evidence Trumps

The ontological argument says that IF God is possible, then it exists. Nothing more. You are insane for trying to use the ontological argument at all.
Debate: There is no room for faith in a reasonable debate.
Side: I just know you're wrong

Spinoza wrote a whole book explaining the ontological argument and it says a lot more then that.
Debate: There is no room for faith in a reasonable debate.
Side: Evidence Trumps

Then, Spinoza was wrong somewhere. The ontological argument is worthless.
Debate: There is no room for faith in a reasonable debate.
Side: Evidence Trumps

Did someone tell you that or did you read Spinozas Ethics?
Debate: There is no room for faith in a reasonable debate.
Side: Evidence Trumps

The ontological argument is wrong and worthless, therefore Spinoza is wrong.
Debate: There is no room for faith in a reasonable debate.
Side: I just know you're wrong

If someone claims they live without faith, then they have a gross misunderstanding of the idea of truth, validity of opinions and the scientific process by which we accumulate knowledge.Karl Popper's Theory of Scientific Falsifiability states that something to be supported by evidence, it must also be possible for it to be falsified with evidence - all that which it is reasonable to believe, because we have evidence for it, may be potentially unreasonable if evidence arises which goes against it. From this, we can deduce that humans can never know any absolute truths about the universe, as anything which we can believe can also be disproven.For example, we accept it as a fact that gravity is true - we experience it every single second of every single day, everywhere in the universe. But if tomorrow, we woke up and flew away from the earth, and we could no longer experience gravity, then we would begin to question whether gravity is a valid belief.Essentially, every opinion/belief you have, which you believe is a fact, can be disproven, so requires faith. Science is dependent upon faith. But that's not to equate a religious faith & a scientific faith, rather to point out that the degree of proof is important in all instances. Only when I see as much proof in a God as I do in gravity, then I will allow someone to use the reasoning of that God in a debate.
Debate: There is no room for faith in a reasonable debate.
Side: Evidence Trumps

To recognize a potential falsifiability is not the same as faith. One can know truth about the universe when it is unreasonable to believe that what is required to falsify a condition is possible. It is not unlikely that gravity will give out, it is impossible. To be surprised that once again the sun rose and you are still stuck to the planet is similar to being born yesterday.Incidentally, can anyone conceive of a condition where Poppers theory does not apply? Could evidence ever be presented against Poppers theory?
Debate: There is no room for faith in a reasonable debate.
Side: I just know you're wrong

To recognize a potential falsifiability is not the same as faith.How so? If I accept that I can be wrong, I accept that my thoughts can never be shown to be absolute truth (that is my opinion can never be absolute truth, not that there cannot be absolute truths), so I must have faith that they are truths.One can know truth about the universe when it is unreasonable to believe that what is required to falsify a condition is possible.I'm not saying that 'knowing' a truth is unreasonable. Having a belief backed up by faith is not necessarily unreasonable.It is not unlikely that gravity will give out, it is impossible.How so? As I have said, all evidence suggests that it will not. Around this evidence, we have modeled equations and laws and constants, through the relationship between various masses. But the only proof we have for gravity is evidence. Therefore new evidence is just as valid as the evidence we currently have. Therefore new evidence could 'disprove' gravity (in our current understanding).To be surprised that once again the sun rose and you are still stuck to the planet is similar to being born yesterday.Again, you are misunderstanding what I mean by 'faith'. To me, 'faith' means the difference between what evidence suggests, and the strength of your belief. Quite frankly, I do not see any chance of gravity giving out. But as I have said, there is a chance. Hence there is a difference between my belief, and the rational position. Hence I have faith. You can say the same for all other scientific beliefs - and all beliefs.Incidentally, can anyone conceive of a condition where Poppers theory does not apply? Could evidence ever be presented against Poppers theory?I don't thinks so. Philosophical/logical proofs are fundamentally different from scientific proofs, because they rely upon logic & reason & language & impossibilities, rather than evidence. Just as you could not disprove '1+1=2', you cannot disprove a philosophical proof (unless it is not a proof). However, science relies on inductive reasoning, which can show an absolute truth.
Debate: There is no room for faith in a reasonable debate.
Side: Evidence Trumps

that is my opinion can never be absolute truth, not that there cannot be absolute truths.When your opinion matches that which is actually absolute truth, your opinion is absolute truth, whether you are sure of it or not.Having a belief backed up by faith is not necessarily unreasonable. It's not that having faith is unreasonable, but attempting to convince others of something where faith is the premise is unreasonable. This is the discussion at hand.But the only proof we have for gravity is evidence. Therefore new evidence is just as valid as the evidence we currently have.New evidence WOULD BE valid. Potential evidence (non-existent) is not the same as actual evidence. To say that we don't really know about gravity requires faith in the possibility of new evidence randomly popping up. Recognizing that gravity would be disproved IF new evidence occurred is not the same as recognizing new evidence that disproves gravity as possible. It takes no faith at all to recognize existential constants, i.e. gravity. Black swans and Gravity are not in the same category. 1+1=2 is a mathematical principal. Poppers falsifiability is a principal as well. It's funny to refer to it as a theory since, by it's own definition it does not qualify.
Debate: The bible is... illogical
Side: Illogical!

The most glaring conflict I see is the assumed existence of both an all-forgiving God and Hell.And free choice with God's omniscience. You can't have both. And if there's no free choice, how can you blame non-Christians for a lack of belief? God would know that they'd never believe, doesn't do anything that will effectively convert them before death, letting that person go to Hell. And we're back to the issue of all-forgiving again.
Debate: The bible is... illogical
Side: No! Completely Logical!

The most glaring conflict I see is the assumed existence of both an all-forgiving God and Hell.Since when is God all-forgiving according to the Bible?And free choice with God's omniscience. You can't have both. And if there's no free choice, how can you blame non-Christians for a lack of belief? God would know that they'd never believe, doesn't do anything that will effectively convert them before death, letting that person go to Hell. And we're back to the issue of all-forgiving again.And again I will tell you that God is not 'all-forgiving.' I have no idea who or what you are getting this idea from.