Debate: Does God exist?
Side: yes

If something is taken on faith then by definition there is no evidence.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.It is also deep within us to discriminate against each other based on skin colour, sexual preferences, gender, nationality, the way we look, our friends, ectActually, it isn't. Young children do not discriminate, and only start to do so by mimicking the behavior of adults around them.What causes this belief is eons of poor reasoning skills, primitive minds, hucksters who parade lies around expecting gullible people like yourself to buy into it.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. They always seem to believe that name calling is a good way to argue. 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.The interesting aspect is that you don't mind citing those people of primitive minds and poor reasoning skills when they agree with you, like when you cited Hume in another thread.Biblical arguments have no basis in fact. It is a mythology, and cannot be evidence.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.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.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.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.This has a wrong premise and tautology.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.You use a premise to justify a conclusion,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.Evolution for example designs things without being a designer.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.then who or what caused god? Who caused the thing that caused god? I think I already address this argument of yours twice, so I will refrain from doing it again here. You are incorrect.Morality is subjective with no basis in reality, so how can it be used to justify an objective thing?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?Quoting mythology doesn't make an authoritative or convincing argument, it makes you look like a fool.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.