DDO Tier Tourney (Finals): This House Believes That Ontology Necessitates God's Existence!

2P0: I apologize for that, it was not supposed to be here. 2P1.1: I agree that humans can be biased, as in humans could have prejudices, I do not see how this is relevant to our debate. For unless my opponent is insinuating that humans are always biased and flawed I see no point of this argument. The rule 6 was taken from Fuzzy's own debate format, so I do not see why he would oppose it. Also that is why we have logic, and reason, to lead us to proper conclusions. Since reason possess the concept of necessity it is universal, thus displaying its own soundness. My argument appeals to reason, and so each person, following the arguments will reach the same conclusion, if they do not there is either a flaw in my logic, or their understanding. Hence this debate. I never said that all ideas of the imagination are untrue, I stated that all false ideas are ideas which are imagined. For this I provide a proof in my original argument regarding how there is no other faculty of the mind, and only imagination can yield incorrect ideas. To elucidate this I present this Venn Diagram: I think I should also bring into question Fuzzy's sources, and how he uses them. It is not enough that he states his claims like: 'its impossible to know when one is dreaming' and provide a source. He must give us the reason, and the logic behind it. He cannot expect us to go through his reading assignment. Also his source is one which should not be given much credence anyways. 2P1.3: One should never give arguments from example, they are always weak and their logic has to be inferred. In any case Fuzzy does not dispute the logic I provide, he just provides counter-examples, or argues reducto ad absurdum. Now lets consider the idea of an atom. When we imagine an atom, do we not give it a shape, a color? Those are two properties, therefore making it a complex idea. My logic is sound that what does Imagination do? It takes ideas and shifts them, combines them and transforms them. Since the logic is present, I need not go through every example for my opponent could easily provide one hundred examples, and machine-gun me. No, I have applied it to the atom, reiterated my argument and will now apply it to the color green. You gain the color green from your senses, not from Imagination. Now try and imagine a new color, not a different shade mind you, tell me of a new color. You can't. The same as you cannot imagine Quantum Mechanics. Also Pie tastes amazing. :P On a serious note Pi is not an object, it is a concept of abstraction. Which means it exists a priori, in fact this is the same to all Mathematics. Again though, if my opponent cannot provide any counter reasoning, my point stands. 2P1.5: It is again not enough to say this. If deities were created from human paranoia, then the paranoia would have activated the faculty of imagination. This faculty however has already been debunked in relation to producing the idea of God. If my opponent wishes to make this argument again, please let him explain it further and not just state a premise. You see its simple, where did the idea of Zeus come from? Only if the idea of God existed a priori, could this idea be applies (improperly) a posteriori and a form of God would be created for human ease (Morgan Freeman). 2P1.8 Imagination cannot yield simple ideas. Just as any form of reaction will not yield the same element by the same element. No matter how much Argon you mix with Argon, you will just get more Argon. Similarly if you add Sodium to Chlorine, you will get Sodium Chloride, you will not get Lawrencium or any other element. Similarly Imagination is a faculty which takes pure empirical ideas (elements) and combines them together in a variety of ways to form new ideas, however these ideas, since they are the combination of ideas cannot be simple themselves. My opponent never gives any proper reasoning to the contrary. 2P1.9: I swear to God I have no idea what Fuzzy means here. There are plenty of rounds, so I will wait for some clarification on this point because right now I do not get this contention. It seems rather muddle-headed. 2P1.10: In the first part of his argument Fuzzy appeals to sense experience being the only form of verification. This is called Logical Positivism and is debunked in the philosophical community. Since my opponent brought up this point, it is his responsibility to prove Logical Positivism before he attacks reason. Especially since Rule 6 forbids him to do this, a rule taken from Fuzzy's own rule system in the same debate. In the second part of the argument he once more discusses imagination, please refer to my original argument and contentions above for I feel I have answered this appropriately. Since it is a priori, it is innate. It is found in the human mind before experience, you are born with it. I do not feel it necessary but dialectic idealistic logic can be used to postulate a soul due to a priori knowledge. 2P1.11: Ja Ja. Hai hai hai Mein Gott.