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

sighGod is meant to entertain some people, and he definitely exists to teach a lesson.Give me a religion founded for the sake of entertaining its followersIn dark times, people often huddle together and tell stories, that in the good times, can become fairy tales.You are talking about the Native Americans who huddle together by the bonfire to tell tales of mythology (aka religion)Well done, you made me reply
Debate: What's the difference between God and a common fairy tale?
Side: Nothing

Give me a religion founded for the sake of entertaining its followersJedi.You are talking about the Native Americans who huddle together by the bonfire to tell tales of mythologyThen again I ask. What is the difference between fairy tales, and God? Everything you're saying is just confirmation.
Debate: What's the difference between God and a common fairy tale?
Side: This...

Jedi.very logical Then again I ask. What is the difference between fairy tales, and God? Everything you're saying is just confirmationSeen any fairytales where the people worship the hare and the turtle?sighI do not offer my time towards pathetic arguments. Let me end my words here
Debate: What's the difference between God and a common fairy tale?
Side: Nothing

Jedi.very logicalYou asked. It's a real religion, and it was certainly made out of entertainment for the hardcore fans of Star wars.Seen any fairytales where the people worship the hare and the turtle?I showed you the fairy tales that got taken as religion does you just fail to accept it.sighI do not offer my time towards pathetic arguments. Let me end my words hereYou're so pretentious and now you're leaving because you have nothing to say, because everything you have said has been proven wrong.
Debate: What's the difference between God and a common fairy tale?
Side: Nothing

To use logic to discredit a god puts a halt in the argument. Let us put ourselves in this game so that we may think on sync. To believe that our earthly realms has a clear distinguishing criteria of good and evil via black and white is to put our fate at the chapters of a fairy tail book. What I am saying is if we are governed by an extreme polarity of extreme good and evil we will be in great danger. The opposite of forces of good would be evil. Could you comprehend the kind of damage it would have done to humans just to prove the point of this force of good? No. our choices are ours alone and it is a fallacy to personify them. The unicorn is as much of a fairy tale as a basilisk or chimera. Unless there are gods that are truly benevolent and does not demand worship. Then they deserve respect even if not believed. That is just me.
Debate: What's the difference between God and a common fairy tale?
Side: Nothing

There is a broken society and a hero to save it all .. so no.
Debate: What's the difference between God and a common fairy tale?
Side: Nothing

I thing that Bible is just bronze age edition of Lord of the Rings, just misunderstood for encyclopedia :)
Debate: What's the difference between God and a common fairy tale?
Side: Nothing

Yes, Theism is no more believable than fairy tales, there something nice to believe in but something that obviously has been made up, the bible like many fairy tales have been proven wrong by science.
Debate: What's the difference between God and a common fairy tale?
Side: Nothing

Whoever the mass downvoter is, you should know that it does nothing for the debate. It doesn't affect what people think (meaning religion will still be a fairytale) it doesn't make you win (meaning the debate will still be in favor of religion being a fairytale) and it doesn't make your side anymore correct meaning (I think I've repeated myself enough.)
Debate: What's the difference between God and a common fairy tale?
Side: This...

Usually in fairy tales the "good" guy doesn't kill millions of innocent people... usually.
Debate: What's the difference between God and a common fairy tale?
Side: Nothing

Lol. In Fairy tales' defense. The original (or an altered version) of Little Red Riding Hood, ended with her being killed. Same with the three little pigs, since both of those stories were trying to teach a lesson. Also, if I can trust family guy, there are some German fairy tales that ended poorly for the protagonist.
Debate: What's the difference between God and a common fairy tale?
Side: This...

Well... I did say 'usually'.... twice. ;)
Debate: What's the difference between God and a common fairy tale?
Side: This...

Tales eccentrically based around things are the product of man. It is not just God. Remember that man often exaggerates and the people they pass it onto exaggerate more. How many historical icons have been misrepresented or been the product of exaggeration? A lot. Do those people just 'not exist' because someone wrote a book with some evidence that seems flimsy or fake? No, I don't think so.
Debate: What's the difference between God and a common fairy tale?
Side: Nothing

This sounds like an argument in favor of the other side. The 'nothing' side. Both are tales, eccentrically blown out of proportion by the people who tell them. Both are based off of man and things man wonder about. Both are flimsy tales, with loose details, that either could be real or fake.Whether you believe in God or not, as evidenced by Warlin, you must admit that God's tale is just as believable as a common fairy tale.
Debate: What's the difference between God and a common fairy tale?
Side: Nothing

Well I don't follow the bible, at all. I do believe in God, however. If this was put as, no matter if we believed in god or not, the bible wasn't exactly credible - I'd say no, the bible was written by many and contracts itself constantly. The words contained within are often abridged, no longer relevant, and consider all things of the sea to be evil unholy creatures (no joke). To Believe in god, I don't need a book or a building.
Debate: What's the difference between God and a common fairy tale?
Side: Nothing

I'm not arguing if he's real or fake, I'm just saying with no proof, and with him more or less being a story (and he is a story) he bears no differences from a fairy tale. Do you agree?
Debate: What's the difference between God and a common fairy tale?
Side: Nothing

I'll have to say, with the stigma and perception people seem to have... yes, these days peoples vision of 'God' doesn't sound much more than like a fairy tale.
Debate: What's the difference between God and a common fairy tale?
Side: Nothing

Thank you. I didn't mean it offensively either, it's just something that I have yet to see proven false.
Debate: What's the difference between God and a common fairy tale?
Side: Nothing

Just do note, I believe in god - just not the stories. People are apt to only see the good, ignore the bad. We all know everything has both, everything. God created man, man created God. In that order.
Debate: What's the difference between God and a common fairy tale?
Side: Nothing

Your argument is on wrong side :D
Debate: What's the difference between God and a common fairy tale?
Side: This...

A fairy tale is a story. God is more of a character. I think what you meant to say is 'what's the difference between the Bible and a common fairy tale'.
Debate: What's the difference between God and a common fairy tale?
Side: This...

Not just kids believe in god.
Debate: What's the difference between God and a common fairy tale?
Side: This...

Apparently God doesn't like fairies ;)
Debate: What's the difference between God and a common fairy tale?
Side: This...

God is real.
Debate: What's the difference between God and a common fairy tale?
Side: Nothing

That's hardly sound logic. No one has proven that.
Debate: What's the difference between God and a common fairy tale?
Side: This...

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

Prove God then. Do what no one on Earth has been able to do.
Debate: What's the difference between God and a common fairy tale?
Side: This...

It necessarily follows that if God is possible, then He exists. God is not impossible, therefore, He is possible, hence, He exists.
Debate: What's the difference between God and a common fairy tale?
Side: Nothing

If you go by that train of logic, you open up a veritable pandora's box of possibilities. Everything that's possible exists with that logic, you see. And there are a lot of things that are possible.And unicorns are possible. Therefore, they must exist. But I've yet to see a unicorn. Which is actually kind of sad. I've always wanted to.Unfortunately, you're making a leap in logic by assuming all that is possible exists. Things that are possible also don't exist all the time. Possible choices. Possible thoughts. Possible evolutionary chains. Possible movies. Possible books. Possible videogames. Possible, but they don't exist. They could, but they don't.Now, you're probably going to try to tell me that because god's possible, that god makes himself exist by that logic. Except that's also a leap in logic. Because all other gods are possible, but all omnipotent, all-knowing gods cannot exist at once. Especially the kind that aren't polytheistic. And 'my god is stronger than your god so he exists harder' doesn't exactly make a compelling argument.
Debate: What's the difference between God and a common fairy tale?
Side: Nothing

Everything that's possible exists with that logic, you see. And there are a lot of things that are possible.It's just about this reasoning, that I don't even see how he can continue his argument. With that statement alone it proves God is no different objectively than a fairy tale.
Debate: What's the difference between God and a common fairy tale?
Side: Nothing

There is definitely no objective difference. Things that are possible are possible. But things that exist exist. He tried to throw in some nonsense about modality, but it's completely irrelevant to the discussion.I don't know. It doesn't seem like someone who claims to use logic can really say something like, "He's the biggest and baddest so he exists if he can exist. Other things aren't as big or as bad so they don't exist just because they can. It's different, dude." So I'm simplifying it, but that seems more like a child's argument than a logical man's.
Debate: What's the difference between God and a common fairy tale?
Side: Nothing

I meant objectively so as not to offend anyone. I wouldn't want to flat out say a person's holy figure is the same as Prince Charming or the wicked witch of the west.
Debate: What's the difference between God and a common fairy tale?
Side: This...

If you go by that train of logic, you open up a veritable pandora's box of possibilities. Everything that's possible exists with that logic, you see. And there are a lot of things that are possible.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.Unfortunately, you're making a leap in logic by assuming all that is possible exists. Things that are possible also don't exist all the time. Possible choices. Possible thoughts. Possible evolutionary chains. Possible movies. Possible books. Possible videogames. Possible, but they don't exist. They could, but they don't.Modality is what you have a problem with. Modal logic takes us from an understanding of possibility to necessity.
Debate: What's the difference between God and a common fairy tale?
Side: Nothing

Nope. You can't give him exclusivity to a rule you made up just because you want to or 'believe' it to be true. That's an absolute flaw in logic, and therefore, I can't debate with you on this subject further because you've proven yourself to be absolutely illogical.
Debate: What's the difference between God and a common fairy tale?
Side: This...

Only one being can be maximally great, otherwise it is a logical contradiction. Therefore, if you can imagine a maximally great being, then He exists.
Debate: What's the difference between God and a common fairy tale?
Side: Nothing

How do you know that you can imagine a maximally great being? Maybe you just think you can. What if what anyone can imagine a maximally great being to be actually falls short of what a maximally great being would be? Then, we actually can't imagine a maximally great being, thus he would not exist. Ooh, how do you like that? Pretty cool, right?
Debate: What's the difference between God and a common fairy tale?
Side: This...

That is the logic. However, a maximally great being is possible ;)
Debate: What's the difference between God and a common fairy tale?
Side: Nothing

Said maximally great being is only possible if we can imagine it. How do you know that this being is possible in the imagination?
Debate: What's the difference between God and a common fairy tale?
Side: This...

The only way a maximally great being cannot be imagined is if it is logically impossible: it would have to be like a married bachelor.
Debate: What's the difference between God and a common fairy tale?
Side: Nothing

You can say all you want that you imagine a being that is maximally great, but that doesn't mean that you actually imagined it, only that you have imagined something that you think is maximally great. So far, it is logically impossible. The only logic I have seen shows that if we can imagine God then it exists in reality, but the first premise has not been proven, that a maximally great being can be imagined. The only argument you might have is that a maximally great being can be imagined because that is a property of a maximally great being. Now you are begging the question unless you can actually demonstrate that a maximally great being is imaginable.
Debate: What's the difference between God and a common fairy tale?
Side: This...

Actually that falls into your duty. Things necessarily fall into the capability to be imagined unless logically impossible. You have to prove that it is logically impossible.
Debate: What's the difference between God and a common fairy tale?
Side: Nothing

That's not fair. You haven't shown it is possible at all, why do I have to prove that it is impossible? In what way have you shown the premise to be possible? One way to show it was possible would be to give an example of one that has been imagined. But, clearly there are so many different versions of God, that none of them can be shown as maximally great. You have to give some kind of reasonable way to conclude that it is imaginable other than just saying that it is.
Debate: What's the difference between God and a common fairy tale?
Side: This...

Everything is possible if not impossible. That is definitional. Impossible simply means not possible. Therefore, everything that is not impossible is not not possible. Therefore, everything that "is" is possible unless proven impossible. That which is possible is limitless and is capable of being imagined unless proven impossible. A yellow-horned monkey riding a unicycle on the back of whale in the middle of the sea at 3:00 in the morning on the eve of New Ferry's Day, the holiday the the town of Sherlock made up in the year 2045, is a random example. You are asking me to prove something can be imagined. We have been talking about a maximally great being; if it were impossible, then it would incapable of being logically understood, which would be like a married-bachelor, which cannot be understood nor imagined. Therefore, the task falls onto you to prove the impossibility of something because it necessarily falls into the capability to be imagined unless it is impossible.
Debate: What's the difference between God and a common fairy tale?
Side: Nothing

then it would incapable of being logically understoodI disagree with this because you have not actually demonstrated that a maximally great being is understood, you have only demonstrated that you can say those words.If a maximally great being could be imagined, it would have all good traits. It would even have the good traits that we are not aware exist. Since we are not aware of the existence of all good traits, we can't assign those traits to the maximally great being. Since we can't assign all good traits, every maximally great being we imagine will not have all good traits, and thus will not be maximally great. Therefore we can't imagine a maximally great being.
Debate: What's the difference between God and a common fairy tale?
Side: This...

If you can say "maximally great being" without being logically contradictory, then it is possible to imagine one. It doesn't matter if you understand the intricacies of the being as long as you understand that it must be maximally excellent in all capacities, which is maximal greatness.If a maximally great being could be imagined, it would have all good traits. It would even have the good traits that we are not aware exist. Since we are not aware of the existence of all good traits, we can't assign those traits to the maximally great being. Since we can't assign all good traits, every maximally great being we imagine will not have all good traits, and thus will not be maximally great. Therefore we can't imagine a maximally great being.That is a pointless objection. It doesn't matter if you can know all good traits or not; what matters is if you can understand the concept of a maximally great being having all good qualities. Imagining something isn't to be able to imagine all the ins and outs of it: it is to be able to imagine the concept of being maximally great in some sort of being. Your objection is a red herring.
Debate: What's the difference between God and a common fairy tale?
Side: Nothing

If you can say "maximally great being" without being logically contradictory, then it is possible to imagine one. It doesn't matter if you understand the intricacies of the being as long as you understand that it must be maximally excellent in all capacities, which is maximal greatness.Like I told you before, just because you say it, doesn't mean you actually imagined it.That is a pointless objection. It doesn't matter if you can know all good traits or not; what matters is if you can understand the concept of a maximally great being having all good qualities. Imagining something isn't to be able to imagine all the ins and outs of it: it is to be able to imagine the concept of being maximally great in some sort of being. Your objection is a red herring.In this case, the ontological argument is invalid because I say so. I have shown that it is impossible to imagine a maximally great being. That is a requirement of the ontological argument. We can only imagine a mostly great being. A mostly great being doesn't have to exist in reality, only a maximally great being.
Debate: What's the difference between God and a common fairy tale?
Side: This...

In this case, the ontological argument is invalid because I say so. I have shown that it is impossible to imagine a maximally great being. That is a requirement of the ontological argument. We can only imagine a mostly great being. A mostly great being doesn't have to exist in reality, only a maximally great being.You have not shown that it is impossible to imagine. You are misunderstanding what imagine means and what possibility means. The ontological argument is not to say that God exists. It is to lay out the premises that if God is possible, then by definition, He must be real.
Debate: What's the difference between God and a common fairy tale?
Side: Nothing

I did show it is impossible to imagine, and you agreed.You can't find any flaws with my reasoning, you just say I don't understand.
Debate: What's the difference between God and a common fairy tale?
Side: This...

Like I said, you are not understanding what is meant by it. You are equivocating what it means to be able to imagine a maximally great being. That is the flaw in your reasoning. Your argument is equivalent to saying that because a person is locked in a room and has not experienced anything but herself, then it impossible to imagine a cat. That is not logical. The point of "imagine" is to say that something is theoretically possible. Now, stop equivocating.
Debate: What's the difference between God and a common fairy tale?
Side: Nothing

The ontological argument says that if it exists in the imagination it also exists in reality. It does not exist in the imagination, therefore it does not exist in reality. Either way, you have no reason to assume that God is possible. Therefore the ontological argument doesn't hold and is worthless.
Debate: What's the difference between God and a common fairy tale?
Side: This...

It does exist in the imagination. I can imagine one right now. Therefore, it exists. Everything is possible if it is not logically impossible. The ontological argument still holds and is still strong. Plus the point of the argument is simply to show that if God is possible, then He exists. It has done that.
Debate: What's the difference between God and a common fairy tale?
Side: Nothing

First, no it hasn't done that, it has flawed logic. Second, you clearly haven't imagined a maximally great being because it is missing traits. You have only imagined a somewhat great being. Last, the ontological argument is based on a faulty definition of God. Just think about it for a minute. We have defined God such that if it is possible it exists in reality. That's just weird.
Debate: What's the difference between God and a common fairy tale?
Side: This...

First, no it hasn't done that, it has flawed logic.Such as?Second, you clearly haven't imagined a maximally great being because it is missing traits. You have only imagined a somewhat great being.What missing traits?Last, the ontological argument is based on a faulty definition of God. Just think about it for a minute. We have defined God such that if it is possible it exists in reality. That's just weird.That is what the majority of philosophers will say: it is either impossible or necessary. Take it up with them.
Debate: What's the difference between God and a common fairy tale?
Side: Nothing

Such as?Not so much flawed logic as...flawed everything else..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

Thanks for the back up.
Debate: What's the difference between God and a common fairy tale?
Side: Nothing

Such as?You are apparently dense, nevermind.What missing traits?The ones you can't possibly know about dumbass. Pay attention, I already explained this to you.That is what the majority of philosophers will say: it is either impossible or necessary. Take it up with them.You posted a response in just a tiny bit over a minute. I highly doubt that you actually spent the minute to think it over. Philosophers are forced to agree, because the definition of God is a being that exists, and has God like powers. The exists part is in the definition and the definition is used to prove it.