Debate: Does God exist?
Side: No

Is that one more of your bare assertion fallacies? Faith and evidence are not dichotomies. Taking something on faith means you are not looking for evidence, not that they do not exist.You changed the topic of argument to the words themselves.Note that I said "something of faith." If you have evidence of something, you need no faith to accept that something. If you believe in something by faith, then you have no evidence of it.Actually, it isn't. Young children do not discriminate, and only start to do so by mimicking the behavior of adults around them.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robbers_Cave_Experiment Interesting. Presentism found so early in the discussion, and couple with straightfoward offenses. Bold internet guy is bold. I didn't expect the discussion to drop down to the level of name calling so quickly, except maybe by the atheist militia.Looks like you didn't address what I said.I didn't downvote your other arguments, but I will downvote this one solely due to the name calling so maybe you still stop this in the foreseeable future. I don't think so, due to the fact that you seem to become less and less civil as you are becoming bolder in your arguments, but one can hope. One can always hope.It's hard to avoid name calling when people say really dumb things.I disagree with you calling it a mythology. A good deal of the Bible has been proven by archeology and is firmly based in facts. Surely, there is little to no evidence of the miraculous claims (like the Flood, the Ten Plagues, etc), but there certainly happened an Exodus from Egypt, and most names of kings and civilizations listed on the Bible have been confirmed by archeological findings, and there certainly existed a Jewish Priest called Jesus around the 1st century. It is true, however, that the Bible alone cannot be used to prove God's existence since it would be circular reasoning.The Odyssey happened in Turkey, and we know that Troy existed, so I object to calling it a mythology.Your revision of the ontological argument is laughable. Your Logic teacher, if you ever had one, would be shamed by it. You are attempting to apply the rules of a categorical syllogism in a sequence of premises that are not a categorical syllogism, but inductive reasoning. Learn the difference and review the argument. Just because premises exist do not make the argument a syllogism.Incorrect, it is deductive reasoning (a priori cannot be inductive). Also, I'm still correct in my assessment, the minor premise is subjective, an assertion.And the argument is also not a non sequitur. A non sequitur is something that does not follow from the premises. It does not matter if the premises are sound or correct or not. It only matters if the conclusion follows from them, and it does. It relies on an axiom called "S5" to reach such conclusion.Object defined to exist does not follow into it existing.Your 'illustration' of the argument is laughable as well. Please study the argument before attempting to address it. People smarter than you and me coined it, and people smarter than you and me attempted to counter it. You shame them and yourself by making an strawman of the argument with your reasoning. A little modesty on your side to understand that you're just not as good as they are wouldn't hurt.Seeing as that was the first time I encountered that argument written that way, and I countered it successfully, looks like I'm smarter than you and the maker of that argument. Or not, because it doesn't depend on smartness anyway, but reasoning skills and personal biases (which the makers of the ontological arguments had in abundance).You stated such, but did not state which ones were they. As far as I know, it seems to be that you are throwing around random terms, hoping to sound smart and convincing.Complex things don't require design, necessarily. And a tautology from a loaded word like design/designer.As far as philosophy and rationality is concerned, this is how critical thinking should work, so he is correct, and you are shaming yourself again.You misread it. When the premise and conclusion are the same, it is a tautology.You're assuming evolution to be true. And evolution doesn't design anything. If evolution "designed" something as you say it does, it would be the designer. Although I can see your point (evolution is a process through which something that appears designed could have arised would being designed), you are still assuming evolution to be true.You assume gravity is true.Morality cannot be subjective if certain aspects of it are shown to be universal. And you didn't really address his points, did you know it?We're still waiting on those objective things. Remember that a standard isn't an objective thing, but an arbitrary collection of subjective things that people agree upon.Besides that, I thought it was obvious that he was using a god of the gaps after inventing a need.He wasn't making an argument. Quoting a book, "mythology" or not, is perfectly fine if it shows an opinion you want to share. You are becoming increasingly aggressive and derisive, and that only serves to show the quality of reasoning that you can do. The remaining of your arguments are also merely derisions and bare assertions. I won't bother addressing them.He wasn't sharing an opinion, he was using the bible to support his argument that we are wrong.