DDO Tier Tournament 2 (Round 2): On Balance Ontology Makes God A Necessary Phenomenon!

I once more remind the most honest Mikal that he needs to pass judgement here. I wish he was not so lazy. More importantly until then we can continue, however I have asked Mikal for a second time, it would do well if Fanath did so as well. I am writing this as 1 am because I promised Fanath I would write my arguments with haste. I propose a solution, I will leave out Round 5, which will give Fanath an extra round, and 10,000 extra characters; he will also then have the last word, I think this is an honest enough penalty. I must say I am partly saddened by this rebuttal. Oh well, I shall answer it none the less. The first thing however I want to note is that philosophers are allowed to define terms according to themselves. I could have made up a word, but I used the meaning of complex as Hume uses it, and I referenced the Treatise of Human Nature. In philosophy a complex idea is any idea that can be distinguished into parts. Is it then clear? My opponent seems to accept Premise 1, 3 and the conclusion. As for if the voters asked: 'he just proved God is innate?' then I ask them to consider first of all Fanath never engaged me in this, and secondly philosophers unanimously accept innate as true. To give my argument a better look however consider it then from this point of view: 1. The idea of God exists in cognition independent of experience. 2. If an idea of cognition which exists independent of experience exists it is either false or necessarily true. 3. If an idea of cognition which exists independent of experience is false then it is imaginative. 4, The idea of God cannot be imagined. 5. Ergo the idea of God is necessarily true. In all of this Fanath agrees that we only need to debate that the idea of God could not have been imagined up. Onto the counter refutations then. Now let us take the complex idea concept. I argued ab absurdo that all the constructs of the imagination are complex ideas. You see I analysed what the imagination does, it takes certain ideas one already has and twists and turns it around. Since a simple idea cannot be broken down to distinguishable parts twisting and turning it will result in the same conclusion. Only when one either combines two simple ideas can one make a complex idea. That is what imagination does. In any case can you distinguish God into a smell, shape, color, feeling? The idea of the Being of God one does not understand, and one cannot distinguish into parts, therefore the idea of God could not have been imagined. My opponent analyses Ditto, and Ditto is indeed a complex idea. I can distinguish Ditto into a color, and into a shape. Ditto had to exist in space so he was given a shape, and color, both are distinguishable ideas. My opponent says we could be inspired to make the belief in God without proving it, pray tell, where would we get our inspiration from? How would he have made up a simple idea? You can combine elements together to form a multitude of different mixtures? (Incoming Envisage to teach me the name of whatever you make when you combine elements). You cannot however create a new element. You never really tackled about how the ideas mind gets from experience are a posteriori and God is a priori. I raised the point about how God is an a priori construct and could not have originated from the combination of a posteriori constructs. To conclude the resolution stands as affirmed.