This House Believes That A Philosophical Proof of God is Adequate For Rational Belief!

Let me first say that I am not going to counter with theories of philosophy, I am simply going to show that the philosophical constructs of the Pro's argument are a form of intellectual ambiguity. I will then show that the Pro's argument is heavily reliant upon the deductions he/she has made from individual philosophical reasoning that may or may not be reflective of society as a whole. Lastly, I would like to say that philosophy is a difficult study of logic and reasoning and for someone to fully comprehend the implications of philosophical reasoning, one must present it in a way that outside observers can clearly understand. I believe that much of the Pro's philosophical argument would be difficult for the average individual to understand without a solid foundation in Philosophy. It would be equivalent to a physicist attempting to explain the validity of string theory, using mathematical reasoning, to someone who has no formal education in string theory or physics. **I did not provide references because I have only exercised my personal interpretation of Pro's philosophical approach.Counter-Arguments Introduction: Pro has stated that he need not show that a proof is sound but that a proof CAN be sound. The issue with this statement is that yes, of course, a proof CAN be sound on a case by case basis, as it applies to the individual. The validity of philosophical proofs (as they apply to our sought for understanding of the divine) are only as valid as the way in which individuals use them for validation. I will show this further as I address each one of the Pro's points. Epistemology: The argument Pro presents is made as such: certain elements of our understanding do not require empirical evidence to understand their existence. Yes, this is a truth that I believe to be valid under certain circumstances but does not apply when it comes to using proofs for the existence of God. This is due, in part, to a universal truth in which society is constantly striving for a more complete understanding of the divine, solidifying their belief through due processes that subjectively validate God's existence. Pro has stated that God is as a Priori due to a bridging of very loose correlations to the Priori of Time, Space, and Numbers. This is somewhat ridiculous and I will explain why. God could or could not exist : A Priori exists in the sense that human beings understand its existence whether or not it is logic of the senses. A Priori is only real if we are cognizant of it; Time, Space, and Numbers are all understood through an innate comprehension. Explaining our innate knowledge of these concepts are both scientifically and philosophically complicated, therefore, we define our understanding by giving it a new name (Priori) under a definition that basically states, "We know because We know". Now, since God could or could not exist, it would be impossible to define him with, "We know because We know". It would be more appropriate to say that "We might know if We can show", which would fit nicely as an empirical approach for validating God's existence. Pro is implying that, as a Priori, God is only that of an understanding in which we do not need to seek validation due to the innate knowledge of God's existence. This is correct for the examples he has given but incorrect when it comes to an innate understanding of God's existence. I will use myself as an example. I may know that I exist within the "IS-ness" because I JUST KNOW that I exist. It is purely a Priori that I do not need to justify since my innate knowledge of my existence suffices. I can seek to justify it, if I so choose, but the notion is also innately arbitrary since I JUST KNOW. Now, comparatively, when I approach the concept of God, I was conditioned through socialization processes that revealed God's possibility for existence, therefore I could not know that God exists within the "IS-ness", or Priori. My knowledge of God is only understood within the parameters of the information I have gathered through religious ideologies, teachers, friends etc. Now, if I cannot know God without these socialization processes, then how could I possibly understand God in the same way I understand that I "just exist"? Therefore, God not only couldn't be a Priori, God is only known through the information gathered from others (hence the socialization processes). Our understanding of God could not be known without this and our ability to understand God is reliant upon the ability to gather enough evidence to fulfill our subjective need for proof. If that proof is philosophical, then so be it, but this does not mean philosophical proof can collectively satisfy the masses. Logical Positivism: There is an issue with this approach of logical positivism being a self-refuting issue. First, if logical positivism is inherently flawed, then why would it even be mentioned? The theory implodes on itself before even being considered as an alternative, so your second point to refute the self-refuting theory, claiming ambiguity, is actually ambiguous. The theory should not have even been mentioned if that is your reason for trying to shut it down.Pragmatism: You do not connect the context of your statements made on God as a Priori and this theory. You have simply said that this theory fits and the one prior does not. I am not implying that this theory is invalid, only that I am confused as to where you see the correctness in a view of God. If you could please explain further and help me understand your position on this, then I will be happy to discuss the idea. Otherwise, I am not going to be able to formulate a concise opinion on the matter. I hope that you can help me understand your point of view. Thank you.Falsifiability: I would not disagree that philosophy can be falsifiable. However, I do not think that the ability to falsify is a direct correlation to its ability to produce a philosophical proof for God. Reason being, philosophers and great thinkers use logic as a means to speculate possibilities, using this logic as a framework for a practical application. This practical application, more or less, limits a philosopher's ability to incorporate other scientific disciplines in their search for reason. On the other end of the spectrum, science uses a great variety of disciplines (including philosophy) in order to establish proofs that satisfy many fields of study. Philosophy tends to stop at philosophy, leaving physical science as a separate entity. If we use Stephen Hawking as an example, Hawking incorporates philosophical approaches into his theories just as every great theoretical physicist has done. Science is often inseparable from philosophy but philosophy is often not intertwined with physical science. To be fair, philosophy can be intertwined with science, yet the study of philosophy is fairly limited in its ability to understand the physical world due to the complex understanding often required by physical sciences. Mathematics: I believe this might be one of the biggest flaws in your logic. Mathematics could not be a Priori due to the quantification of the material world. The purpose of 1/2 X base X height is not to measure "numbers" , the purpose is to measure "material objects", which would be the empirical data. If it were referring to a measurement of "numbers", then yes, the theory would be empirically invalid due to the fact that "numbers" are merely a quantification of material/spatial objects, which are representations that cannot be measurable. Also, if your argument is simply stating that "numbers" cannot be empirically tested, then this would also be true for "words". "Words" are merely a representation of how we understand the material world and, likewise, numbers are a representation of how we quantify the material world.