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

I thank Fuzz (I took permission to call my opponent that) for his round. I think that at this point I have won this debate, the reason being that Fuzz has essentially dropped the entire argument to my side. I will attempt to show this below. I should also note that I am pressed for time so my round will also be slightly short. Needless to say, this is the last round, and may I thank Fuzzy for the enlightening debate. I should also note that in all of debate.org I think Fuzzy is one of the most consistent, and organized, if not also one of the sweetest individuals. I do want to mention one thing: stable advocacy. My opponent keeps to one, and ONLY one point of contention: that imagination can yield simple ideas. It would be unfair if any new attack, or any other attack was mentioned in the last round as it would take away from the debate. I therefore ask my opponent to have a stable advocacy. He believed this to be the most important point, he must now continue only with this point. 1: Ah, it was just that that might have caused some confusion. We then move on with the sound assumption that logic, and reason are perfect entities. 2: I feel my opponent's arguments are misguided. Allow me to start by explaining why Imagination can only yield complex ideas, and then I shall give a general reasoning against my opponent. I have given this analysis before, but let us explain it once more. What then is Imagination? It is the faculty of creating new ideas from combination. With the exception of a priori ideas (which are by nature a priori therefore transcendent of the mind in any case) all ideas are empirical. That means that these ideas come from the faculty of sensation: the five senses. This means that all ideas that are combined in imagination are sensory ideas. Now since the combination of these ideas are of sensory ideas, the links made are of different sensory ideas being combined. Now these sensory ideas are in themselves simple of course. For any idea of sensation will only have that one sensation. An eye will not give you a sound. So the combination of these ideas in using different links of sensation: therefore to break them apart, to distinguish them, we would also be using sensation. This is why complex ideas are those which can be broken into parts by division by sensation. Now since any idea which is imagined, if the answer be simple it would result in the same thing. The idea of a particular noise will be that particular noise, but if I combine it with airmax yelling at me, it is an imaginative idea. Only then, therefore would it be imaginative, and such an idea is of course complex for all intents and purposes. It is not enough that my opponent give examples. Also Fuzzy kind of assumes that these are simple ideas, and that these ideas are imaginative. These ideas are not imaginative. If Fuzzy wishes to show me that these ideas are simple, and that they are imaginative he must first, like me with God, disprove the other options. The concept of Space-Time is a priori not imaginative. Similarly if we take the physical approach then the concept of Space-Time is one of deduction by reason, and of empirical sciences. We experimentally tested Relativity, then used reason to conclude Space-Time. Also Space-Time is not a false construct, therefore it is not even imagined. Also let us take Space-Time, can you truly picture space-time? You cannot, you may be able to picture a Reimannian graph and that dimensional image but that would have different colors, shapes and would be complex. In any case it won't be space-time it would be your image of space-time. That all besides the point Space-Time is not imagined, for how can it be when it is deduced from reason and science? I won't delve into atoms or abstract numbers (whether they are a priori) because my opponent has the burden, since he brought them up as a counter example, to prove that they were not deduced from reason, or empirical sciences. Also since they are not false constructs, imagination may not be the best faculty to appeal to. I have won this, because the next is a last round, and if my opponent gives new arguments in support for this he would break the debate rules. I personally believed that we gained the idea of an atom after Rutherford did experimental tests, and then deduced that the electrons must revolve around atom. Never knew we randomly made the idea from imagination... 3: Not at all. That is all I want to say here, for even if through evolution would state that we attribute a cause to everything we would be happy to call that cause our parents. There is no good reason why we would come to the conclusion of a God, for we cannot have come to the conclusion of God. If we had the idea of God we could imagine Him in a variety of ways, but we could not in any case come up with the original idea. That is what my argument asserts, we could only do so (if the idea of God is false) through Imagination, and we have ruled that faculty out. The other conclusion is that we used reason, in which case the idea of God would be true, and indeed God is a necessary entity. We do not have a void, we have the Being-in-itself. You see if you remove every such thing from an apple you reach nothingness, you cannot comprehend that nothingness. You can of course comprehend my God, otherwise the word God would be meaningless in itself. Take the example of the word: 'paani'. It is quite meaningless to you, now what if I told you that it is Urdu for 'water'. Now it becomes meaningful because you have an idea of it. Similarly since the idea of God is coherent for us (this is my premise 1) the idea of God exists. 4: My God is transcendent of sensation. He is ex ve termini beyond sensation, even if He can be sensed that is besides the point. For it is not what He is in the First Mode, rather the Second Mode. Of our idea of Him in cognition, He is most definitely simple. I rest my case, proudly asserting that I have indeed shown Ontology necessitates God's existence! Ajab