CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
You can share this debate in three different ways:
#1
#2
#3
Paste this URL into an email or IM:
Click here to send this debate via your default email application.
Click here to login and CreateDebate will send an email for you.
What's the difference between God and a common fairy tale?
More so than just popularity, because even in recent times a fairy tale fantasy story known as Star Wars has acquired a religion and is getting it's fair share of popularity. When you ask a religion person, albeit sarcastically, "do unicorns exist?" Then ask them why they say "No, because their is no evidence" yet how is that any different than God, if it is?
What are your thoughts? The main question is the Title.
What category? Of being tangible? The thing about logic is, it doesn't have to be tangible it leads to tangible conclusions. For instance, logical people know fire is hot. Any test will confirm this. What test, logic, or proof confirms God?
You try to twist words to work to your favor but you're not actually saying anything, and I see that now. This is usually the moment when people give up.
You're literally saying nothing at all. I mean you make paradoxes when you have nothing left to say. I can't even give an example because I would never think of that as an arguing tactic.
Are you a child? Honestly. What you just did, in disputing my last comment (stay focused)was make a typically childish "I know you are but what am I" argument. Do you see that? Do you want me to quote our exact arguments?
I want you to rebut my argument with logic instead of saying that I am twisting your words. Words follow deductively so you can accept logic or not. However, do not say this: "You try to twist words to work to your favor but you're not actually saying anything, and I see that now. This is usually the moment when people give up."
There is no logic to refute you with, when you're making paradoxical arguments. Saying things like, "The clouds are the clouds because they can be and can not be the clouds" It's, for lack of a better word, Gobbledy gook. The very statement I'd like some clarifications on if it's not total nonsense is this: "That is begging the question then. If the tangible backs logic, then if the tangible is gone, then logic is no more."
Logic is not physical. If it is backed in the physical, then when the physical is no more, then so too is logic. If logic is gone, while the physical is gone, then that means the physical is real and not real at the same time. Therefore, logic necessarily must follow in the abstract. Therefore, to say that logic leads to tangible conclusions is a logical fallacy.
Logic is an idea, obviously it's not physical it has ties to people by physical means. Things can only be logical if they have physical ties.
If it is backed in the physical, then when the physical is no more, then so too is logic.
I agree.
If logic is gone, while the physical is gone, then that means the physical is real and not real at the same time.
No, that means the physical is real. If logic is gone and the physical is gone, that means there is no physical so there is no logical.
Therefore, logic necessarily must follow in the abstract.
That is false, you are saying that to justify God being logical.
Therefore, to say that logic leads to tangible conclusions is a logical fallacy.
Indeed, yet I said tangible solutions lead to logical conclusions. There is a difference. Logic does not exist without physical proof. There is no getting around it.
Logic is an idea, obviously it's not physical it has ties to people by physical means. Things can only be logical if they have physical ties.
That makes no sense. Thins can only be logical if they have physical ties?
No, that means the physical is real. If logic is gone and the physical is gone, that means there is no physical so there is no logical.
You don't understand.... if logic is no more, then that means there is nothing to say that A=~A. That means that the logical is illogical. You are using circular reasoning.
That is false, you are saying that to justify God being logical.
God is logical. However, that is still a red herring.
Indeed, yet I said tangible solutions lead to logical conclusions. There is a difference. Logic does not exist without physical proof. There is no getting around it.
If logic only exists with physical proof, then what is every atom in the world doubled? Assume that every atom in the world is X. Under that premise, you could not tell me the answer to my simple question.
That makes no sense. Thins can only be logical if they have physical ties?
Yes! Because Logic can be explained, yet nothing we never experienced can be explained. You can't explain a miracle, you know why? Because it's illogical.
You don't understand.... if logic is no more, then that means there is nothing to say that A=~A. That means that the logical is illogical. You are using circular reasoning.
Circular reasoning is to say "Because God can exists, he must exist". Though whether that is circular or not, that same Logic applied to a creature no one has met, can be applied to the fairy tales no one has met. Meaning God is the same as a fairy tale.
If logic only exists with physical proof, then what is every atom in the world doubled? Assume that every atom in the world is X. Under that premise, you could not tell me the answer to my simple question.
Logic does require physical proof. We don't know logically that atoms exist, we know we are made up of something. The answer they got to logically was atoms because they have used microscopes to see just how small our parts are made of. Starting with whole objects, down to tissue, down to cells, down to atoms. The possibility of doubling all of them would only be logical if their was a set number already.
The possibility of doubling all of them would only be logical if their was a set number already.
That is a red herring because it is irrelevant if you know the number. Let us say that everything that "is" that is physical can be counted up into variable X. Double it. That is my challenge to you. Until you can admit to me that it is simply 2X, then you're illogical or stubborn.
The argument I responded to, which started this debate, was about putting God and fairy tales into the same category because they are intangible. I said that logic would then be put into the same category, which I have now proven to be so, using logic of course.
I do respect your beliefs, so I won't say much against them. Instead, I'm going to level with you: I do believe in a number of things, but I can't prove any of them, so instead of insisting that I'm right, I silently hope that despite all of the evidence weighed against it, that I might just be right anyways. It's a different, much less arrogant kind of faith. Probably a bit more dreary, too, but it's a little more logical.
You should try a dose of doubt with your belief. Really helps you separate truth from faith.
19/20 of the people, including Christians (which means that I will not get much, if any, support), who I have presented this argument to haven't understood it, even though the majority of philosophers agree with the logic, though not necessarily that God is possible. The only thing I'm going to get from it is mockery from people here. I wanted to argue it, which is why I presented the Dawkins one first. I presented the most illogical form of the ontological argument that anyone has ever come up with, which the majority of atheists on here agreed with it; then when I present the actually logical argument of it, people think it is illogical. Thus, the rant about how illogical people on this website are. If you want an ontological argument debate, then be my guest! haha
However, what you are commenting, because it is about logic, seems to me that you want the transcendental argument for God?
Fairytales are folk tales meant merely to entertain or to provide moral lessons for growing children. God on the other hand is a character made to assist people in their time of need and to maintain order among the society during dark times.
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.
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.
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.)
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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'.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
then it would incapable of being logically understood
I 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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).
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.
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?"
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 question
No, 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 site
You 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.
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.
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.
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.
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)
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 abstract
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.
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.
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.
I literally applied the exact same words you said about God's potential existence, to a fairy tale's. Same.
God is maximally great; fairy tales are not.
Physical proof the only thing that matters. Yet I may be ahead of myself. If it's irrelevant, what is relevant?
Logic is what matters. The physical changes all the time; the empirical can only prove that which is not necessary. Logic is necessary.
What makes him 'maximally great'?
The definition makes Him so.
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.
Well, then if the wizard is imagined as maximally great, then you are simply changing the name of God for "wizard" and are merely speaking of the same being.
Okay, what does that prove? That humans' imaginations are greater than reality, that's obvious.
No, its saying that it is illogical to say that one is maximally great but at the same time not real.
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 does not follow. Stories do not take on the definition of being maximally great.
Very much relevant. What makes my wizard different your God? I imagined him all powerful didn't I?
The wizard, if maximally great, is the same being that I am referring to; they simply have different names.
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.
It follows deductively that if God is possible, then He exists. Fairy tales do not follow deductively.
Logic is what matters. The physical changes all the time; the empirical can only prove that which is not necessary. Logic is necessary.
The physical changes? What, pray tell, are you talking about? Do you mean alchemy? Because yea, I totally see that every day.
The definition makes Him so.
What definition?What are you even talking about?
Well, then if the wizard is imagined as maximally great, then you are simply changing the name of God for "wizard" and are merely speaking of the same being.
Acceptable. My Wizard, just wiped your God out of existence with his maximally powerful power and he made it where he can never come back because no one can even imagine him truly again. Now your God doesn't exist anymore right?
No, its saying that it is illogical to say that one is maximally great but at the same time not real.
If we know of nothing maximally great, with our own two hands, or own two eyes, our own human senses, then how can we claim that because we imagined it maximally great that it must* exist?
That does not follow. Stories do not take on the definition of being maximally great.
How so?
The wizard, if maximally great, is the same being that I am referring to; they simply have different names.
Not at all, I just imagined him.
It follows deductively that if God is possible, then He exists. Fairy tales do not follow deductively.
The physical changes? What, pray tell, are you talking about? Do you mean alchemy? Because yea, I totally see that every day.
The capital of a nation changes. That cannot be proven rationally; it must be proven empirically.
What definition? What are you even talking about?
If you can imagine a being that is maximally great, whatever that being may be, then it follows that it exists.
Acceptable. My Wizard, just wiped your God out of existence with his maximally powerful power and he made it where he can never come back because no one can even imagine him truly again. Now your God doesn't exist anymore right?
You are now separating the wizard from God. God is defined the same as the maximally great being. The wizard and God are one in the same.
If we know of nothing maximally great, with our own two hands, or own two eyes, our own human senses, then how can we claim that because we imagined it maximally great that it must exist?
It deductively follows that if a maximally great being exists, then it does. It doesn't matter if it has been seen or not.
How so?
The definition of story is not being maximally great.
Not at all, I just imagined him.
You are making a logical impossibility. There cannot be two maximally great beings.
In what world is that a physical element? That is nominal, meaning only existing in name, much like God.
That cannot be proven rationally; it must be proven empirically.
A nation's name changing can be proven rationally. When a nation is taken over, rebuilt, or destroyed, who ever gave it that name, is no longer there to keep that name, so it is changed to whoever is there now. Much like God. His name for you may be Yahweh, while my Wizard is named Keith, and the Hindus have Birhma, Vishnu, and all of their other names. Does that automatically mean that all of their Gods are real? Since they too believe them to be maximally powerful.
If you can imagine a being that is maximally great, whatever that being may be, then it follows that it exists.
Okay, you said that before. Now what is that a definition of? It sounds like something you just made up.
You are now separating the wizard from God.
They were never the same person remember?
God is defined the same as the maximally great being. The wizard and God are one in the same.
Sorry, Keith the wizard is more maximally great than God. So Keith wins, god doesn't exist.
It deductively follows that if a maximally great being exists, then it does. It doesn't matter if it has been seen or not.
Then the maximally great stories that we have never made physical contact with, are also true, meaning they are the same as God, meaning their is no difference between God and a fairy tale.
The definition of story is not being maximally great.
How isn't it? People imagined the stories as real.
You are making a logical impossibility. There cannot be two maximally great beings
Are you saying that a maximally great being, with the power to do anything can't exist in a world with another? Because from the logic you lied down earlier: "If you can imagine a being that is maximally great, whatever that being may be, then it follows that it exists." That means that only the first maximally great being imagined can exist, and the rest can not. And I already know that your God was not the first one imagined, his tale is only some 2-7000 years old.
If you can define a being as being maximally great without a logical contradiction, then some being could be maximally great.
In what world is that a physical element? That is nominal, meaning only existing in name, much like God.
The capital of a country is empirical.
A nation's name changing can be proven rationally. When a nation is taken over, rebuilt, or destroyed, who ever gave it that name, is no longer there to keep that name, so it is changed to whoever is there now. Much like God. His name for you may be Yahweh, while my Wizard is named Keith, and the Hindus have Birhma, Vishnu, and all of their other names. Does that automatically mean that all of their Gods are real? Since they too believe them to be maximally powerful.
A nation's name is empirical. It applies logic, yes, but it is not necessary, as in a deductive argument, which is what I have been referring to as necessary. You are referring to inductive logic.
Okay, you said that before. Now what is that a definition of? It sounds like something you just made up.
A being that is maximally great is one that is maximally excellent in all capacities that do not make a logical contradiction.
They were never the same person remember?
The were the same person because God is the one who is defined that way in the Bible, the God we were implicitly referring to. If you want to say that it is Zeus, then your logic would work because he is not maximally great. However, referring to a wizard that is maximally great is referring to the same being as the one in the Bible. Though the Bible is not necessarily true; it says that a God like the one in the Bible is true.
Sorry, Keith the wizard is more maximally great than God. So Keith wins, god doesn't exist.
That is a logical contradiction. Either the God of the Bible is true or some other maximally great being is true. If you want to say it is Keith, then so be it.
Then the maximally great stories that we have never made physical contact with, are also true, meaning they are the same as God, meaning their is no difference between God and a fairy tale.
Stories cannot "do" anything.
How isn't it? People imagined the stories as real.
Stories are not living.
Are you saying that a maximally great being, with the power to do anything can't exist in a world with another? Because from the logic you lied down earlier: "If you can imagine a being that is maximally great, whatever that being may be, then it follows that it exists." That means that only the first maximally great being imagined can exist, and the rest can not. And I already know that your God was not the first one imagined, his tale is only some 2-7000 years old.
This is a red herring. The point of the argument is that a maximally great being must exist if it is not logically impossible for one to exist; if it can exist, then it is logically contradictory to say that one does not exist.
If you can define a being as being maximally great without a logical contradiction, then some being could be maximally great.
And any being can be maximally great, meaning your God, and my Keith and the Buddhas, and the Vishnus, and the Brahmas, the Abrahams, flying spaghetti monsters and the whole lot of them, including the fairy tales. Meaning, God has no difference from a fairy tale.
The capital of a country is empirical.
No logic can be used to verify a name, because it only exists in name. Things that don't require logic only exist in name. God, Vishnu, Brahma, Abraham, Flying Spaghetti Monsters, and fairy tales. Their is no difference between God and a fairy tale.
A being that is maximally great is one that is maximally excellent in all capacities that do not make a logical contradiction.
That is what you said to this.
Okay, you said that before. Now what is that a definition of? It sounds like something you just made up.
Now how is that an answer? I need answers if I'm going to dispute you logically.
The were the same person because God is the one who is defined that way in the Bible
The bible is a book of fairy tales. There is no difference.
Though the Bible is not necessarily true; it says that a God like the one in the Bible is true.
The bible is not true, but it says something that is true? Do you realize the contradiction you made there? What can you trust in the bible? and how do you know?
Stories cannot "do" anything.
Hate to burst your bubble but neither can God. They are the same.
Stories are not living.
They are just about as alive as God. Making them the same.
The point of the argument is that a maximally great being must exist if it is not logically impossible for one to exist
That's the thing though. It is logically impossible for one to exist. The 'logic' you're spouting makes no sense because it offers a paradox potential. Logically speaking, for a being to do something scientifically impossible, he would not be able to exist. Therefore he is just as logical, and potential as a fairy tale, making him the same.
All of my arguments have ended with how God in fact is the same as a fairy tale, can you dispute that?
There can only be one maximally great being. What you are defining as Keith is actually God. Now, i have demonstrated to you that if a maximally great can exist, then it does exist, which is not the same in regards to fairy tales. Tell me how it is impossible for one to exist.
There can only be one maximally great being. What you are defining as Keith is actually God.
As your omnipotent God says in the bible you follow religiously, he can do anything, even make another maximally great being. yet you said that's not possible, so does that mean that the idea that a maximally great being must exist because you believe it can, false?
Now, I have demonstrated to you that if a maximally great can exist, then it does exist,
Then the maximally great fairy tales exist. God is the same as a fairy tale.
Tell me how it is impossible for one to exist.
Truthfully the question isn't to whether or not one can exist, because as an agnostic I don't wholly deny God's existence, what with no proof. The question is, is God's tale as likely as a fairy tale, and the answer is a resounding yes. Like you said, if God can exist, then he must exist. If a fairy tale can exist it must exist. They are the same.
As your omnipotent God says in the bible you follow religiously, he can do anything, even make another maximally great being. yet you said that's not possible, so does that mean that the idea that a maximally great being must exist because you believe it can, false?
We have already had this discussion. Your response is not an argument. Omnipotence is not defined as being able to do the logically impossible; if it is, then that means He can do the logically impossible, which means that your objection is pointless. Also, my argument is based in logic, which assumes that a maximally great being is contained within logic.
Then the maximally great fairy tales exist. God is the same as a fairy tale.
Fairy tales cannot "do" anything. They are, therefore, not maximally great.
Truthfully the question isn't to whether or not one can exist, because as an agnostic I don't wholly deny God's existence, what with no proof. The question is, is God's tale as likely as a fairy tale, and the answer is a resounding yes. Like you said, if God can exist, then he must exist. If a fairy tale can exist it must exist. They are the same.
It is logically contradictory to say that a maximally great being could exist but that it is unlikely. You are still not understanding the logic of ontology.
"God can exist because I believe he can" Is not an argument, I'm using your same arguments. What's limiting fairy tales? Nothing. Therefore we can imagine them maximally great and make them the same as God. Are you saying all fairy tales are God, since their is only one God? If you are, then that means God is the same as fairy tales. I can't simplify it anymore.
Omnipotence is not defined as being able to do the logically impossible;
When we had this discussion I offered you an official definition that said "Anything" in it. You offered a classical definition that also didn't say it couldn't do the logically impossible.
Also, my argument is based in logic, which assumes that a maximally great being is contained within logic.
Why is an all powerful being able to do anything contained within any finite area of possibility?
Fairy tales cannot "do" anything. They are, therefore, not maximally great.
Fairy tales, can and have done anything. All fairy tales do impossible things. Comics, are a form of fairy tales, movies, and all sorts of stories are basically fairy tales. They can and do do anything. Just like God.
But we've been getting off topic. Ignore all of that above if you like and answer this, so we can restart.
If it is not logically contradictory for a maximally great being to exist, then one can imagine that one exists. Therefore, because it is possible for God to exist, He exists. The logic still stands.
But existence is neither limited to, nor determined by what we can imagine. Using human thought processes without establishing objective certainty is a only having an imaginary leg to stand on.
But existence is neither limited to, nor determined by what we can imagine. Using human thought processes without establishing objective certainty is a only having an imaginary leg to stand on.
By definition of being maximally great, if one can imagine a maximally great being, then it exists.
That is something you repeat over and over again as dogma, but do not support outside of the ontological argument.
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.
Just to help you out, the definition of God allows for this weird logical twist. Since God is defined as the maximally great being, then the logic is sound only for God because fairy tales are not defined as maximally great. It is a loop hole.
I found a wrong inference in the ontological argument...
1) By definition, God is a being than which none greater can be imagined.
2) A being that necessarily exists in reality is greater than a being that does not necessarily exist.
3) Thus, by definition, if God exists as an idea in the mind but does not necessarily exist in reality, then we can imagine something that is greater than a God that does not exist necessarily in reality.
4) But we cannot imagine something that is greater than God that exists necesarilly.
5) Thus, if God exists in the mind as an idea and only necesarilly in reality, then God necessarily exists in reality. WRONG It should be, then God that exists in the mind isn't God.
The remaining two points are irrelevant from that point onwards. Your logic is not valid. It's fallacious.
God is not necessary in combination with it's origins in myths based on ignorance ... makes him really unrealistic, but to be fair he is still possible as Harry Potter is.
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)
Deus exists in the mind- Yukiteru's mind to be exact, who in turn exists in Sakae Esuno's mind. Sadly, many Mirai Nikki fanatics neglect to consider that the logical conclusion of this is that Deus and Murmur exist.
By now you may need to look up certain things to fully understand the concept of my argument as I have not explained them. Cough cough.
Although I get the joke you're making. In all seriousness, the story behind God is no more unbelievable than a story of an Ogre falling for a princess...and getting her! Besides that depends on subjectivity, on what one considers 'ridiculous' or not.
I assume you are talking about Shrek, which is a story about a princess who also turns into an ogre herself. Her falling in love with another ogre then becomes far less ridiculous than the stories about God.
God is actually used to explain things. A unicorn really serves no purpose, while God is seen by many as the explanation to the origin of the universe.
Flying spaghetti monster is actually used to explain things. A unicorn really serves no purpose, while God is seen by many as the explanation to the origin of the universe.
A unicorn really serves no purpose, while God is seen by many as the explanation to the origin of the universe.
A unicorn is one example of a fairy tale. I think you're letting the picture shape your thoughts on this. God in general has no differences from a fairy tale.
What is important? Little red riding hood taught you not to talk to strangers. In this time, that's pretty important. What does God teach people? Love your neighbor?
Your example was a unicorn. Provide me with another example and I will change my argument accordingly.
My example was fairy tales, you looked at the picture, did you read?
How so? I feel like the only characteristic you're taking into account is the degree of believability.
I couldn't point out any differences, that why I say none. You pointed out one and i proved that false.
What is important? Little red riding hood taught you not to talk to strangers. In this time, that's pretty important. What does God teach people? Love your neighbor?
Well I was thinking more about the origin of the universe, the meaning of life, and things of that nature. You're right though, fables can teach important ideas. However, the difference is that Red Riding hood is not explicitly an explanation by herself. I think that's the point.
My example was fairy tales, you looked at the picture, did you read?
Of course. My argument stands for fairy tales in general.
You pointed out one and i proved that false.
I don't think you proved anything. To yourself, perhaps.
Well I was thinking more about the origin of the universe, the meaning of life, and things of that nature.
What I'm getting at is, important is subjective.
However, the difference is that Red Riding hood is not explicitly an explanation by herself. I think that's the point.
Not to offend, but neither is God. If he was there wouldn't still be so many questions.
Of course. My argument stands for fairy tales in general.
Your argument, explicitly said "A unicorn really serves no purpose, while God is seen by many as the explanation to the origin of the universe."
African tales, love to tell origin stories, and I find a lot of them to be amusing. Like why ever greens are 'ever'green or why snakes have no limbs, and other creatures have many this that and more.
I don't think you proved anything. To yourself, perhaps.
You said, God acts as an answer to life's mysteries (more or less) you didn't say how. Fairy tales do the same thing, I didn't say how. They are the same.
True. How about: God and fairy tales explain different things.
Not to offend, but neither is God. If he was there wouldn't still be so many questions.
I see. I mean, God really can only be different from a fairy tale if you believe God exists.
You said, God acts as an answer to life's mysteries (more or less) you didn't say how. Fairy tales do the same thing, I didn't say how. They are the same.
How about: God and fairy tales explain different things.
But they don't. A fairy tale can explain anything.
I see. I mean, God really can only be different from a fairy tale if you believe God exists.
What's to stop people from believing fairy tales exist? Fiction is fairy tales, and people have created a religion based entirely off of fiction. It explained about that in the description.
How do fairy tales do this exactly?
How the world was created, from a drop of milk It's an African tale, explaining...how the world...was created....from a drop of milk. Check out some more of their fables and stories on that page. It's really interesting, whether you believe it or not.
Seriously people! This is not a place to spew some unoriginal rants about religion. This is a debate forum meant for civilized folks. Please take your insults somewhere else (e.g YouTube comments)
Freedom of speech is a right. People have the right to debate any subject that they want. Who are you to impose your ideas on other people. If you do not like it, too bad. You do not own the universe.
well, there are different types of god though. the mortal and the immortal. anything you worship is your god. The GOD i know is REAL. that is HIS word is there to keep us strong, not to lose our faith and believe. He also left us the Holy Spirit. it takes those who know the worth of the Bible and how powerful it is it that would understand what am saying. fairy tales are just not real, they are just for entertainment. some of the fairy tales are in a way that it is real but it is not. well what i know is that you can compare all other small gods with fairytale but the real GOD, the one i truly know is incomparable.
Its one thing not believing in God but to see the concept as merely a fairy tale is absurd. Whether God exists in reality or only in the mind of man, it is a huge part of our society and our history.
I understand that, and this isn't meant to belittle religion or God. I even stated in the description a religion that stared as little more than a fairy tale. As you said God is a major part in most people's lives, well to a kid who only has fairy tales and no parents maybe because he lives in a foster home, or even a fairy tale author, these fairy tales are very important to them.
