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

My opponent baffles me, after stressing so largely that my arguments are individualistic and therefore incorrect, and that the argument should be collectivistic (here he ignores the fact that I give sources of where the majority of philosophers agree) he goes on to provide refutations by exercising his own personal intepretation. That aside to the other remark I can only point out that it should have been quite clear that this would be a philosophical debate. It was after all in the philosophy section and the resolution itself is philosophical. As much as I tried to make academic philosophy easier, it still remains academic philosophy. Before beginning my counter-refutations I would like to point out that I made it very clear that I would not be giving a proof for God's existence. The resoultion is: "that a philosophical proof of God is adequate for rational belief". I made it very clear that I would argue that a proof nonreliant of empiricality can be valid. This I believe I have done successfully. Also I believe I made it clear in the rules (rule 4) that a counter argument must be given. That means not rebutals but a counter argument, this rule is there so that my opponent gets to do the same amount of work I did. Since he made no counter-argument my argument will be rather shorter. 1.Issues:(1.1) A constant problem my opponent has with me is that the proof that would follow from my logic is individualistic. I really do not get how this is a problem for a perfectly rational person will come up with the same conclusion as a perfectly rational community. Regardeless of that my arguments are not individualistic, my opponent fails to show how they are individualistic, and if they are so, how is that a problem. He leaves me quite confused in this regard. Also he makes a principle concession when he states: "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." Seeing how he did not show how my arguments are based on a certain perspective, and agrees that my argument applies, I should win. (1.2) I mentioned Logical Positivism because that is the theory that in essence says that a theory can only be taken valid if it is empirically proven. And my second objection was based on "even-if". (1.3) My opponent makes a concession when he states that philosophy has falsification, so that if Philosophy has falsification then a rational philosophical theory should be accepted. (1.4) It would have been so much easier if he had criticized certain points, e.g (1.1) has this.... Or had he left his argument in points. 2. Epistemology:(2.1) It took me at the very least 3 tries before my opponents argument started making sense. Firstly he agrees that knowlege can exist a priori, but then he asserts that this is complicated. He also states that my relations of a priori to be Time, Space and Number are vague without criticizing a single proof of these a priori. Now I think my opponent has mistakenly thought that I believe God is a priori, while I believe the idea of God is innate I will not debate on that. I will clarify this, that philosophical proofs are synthetic a priori proofs as explained by Kant. I am not here to give a philosophy lesson, however I need to show that the proof of God would fall into this synthetic a priori category. I do that by showing that since synthetic a priori proofs study those phenomenon that are transcendent of empirical enses, and God by definition transcends space, time and number (for otherwise He would not be God), God can be studies synthetically a priori. Which means that a if there is a philosophically valid proof of God, it would be as valid as the belief in gravity. Remember in my rules I made clear that I will not prove God but show that a non-empirical belief of God can be rational, so that the duty of Con was to show that the belief in God must be empirical. Here is something on synthetic a priori. (I have not explained it because I do not need to, if you enter a debate on Physics you are expected to know what quarks are, synthetic a priori is the single most major event in Philosophy equivalent to Einsteins Relativity theorems)[1]http://homepages.wmich.edu...[2]http://en.wikipedia.org...[3]http://plato.stanford.edu...(2.2) My opponent makes a positive claim where he states that he was introduced to God through socializaion. According to the law: "Onus probandi incumbit ei qui dicit, non ei qui negat", he must prove this. He has provided no psychological evidence for this, nor any journal and asks us to take this at face value. The simplest refutation would be where did the first person learn the belief in God? In any case one will find below sources which support that humans naturally want to believe in God and that when we are born we have an idea of a grand creator already. That is why in fact that so many people believe in God. (2.3)The rest of the argument does not make sense. The entire refutation however focused more on the fact that God is not a priori rather than that God cannot be a priori. I will also list numerous sources which argue that God is a priori simply because my opponent raised this issue. [4]http://religion.blogs.cnn.com... (by CNN)[5]http://www.dailymail.co.uk...[6]http://online.wsj.com...[7]http://www.theblaze.com...[8]http://www.ccel.org...[9]http://www.philosopher.org.uk...[10]http://plato.stanford.edu...[11]http://en.wikipedia.org...'s_ontological_proof[12]http://www.huffingtonpost.com...[13]http://en.wikipedia.org...3. Logical Positivism:(3.1) I really do not know what to critique here, since my opponent did not provide a defence of logical positivism the very theory that states that a philosophical proof of God cannot be valid. Ayer (the father of positivism) argued that even if a perfect philosophical proof was provided it would not rationalise God for God is a phenomenon to be stuidied by science and must be empirically shown (as argued Jon Locke). As I showed that Positivism is self-contradictory I believe no rebutal was provided. Even if the theory was sound why must only a human's empiricalness matter? For a Being the same as God could percieve God (if God existed). Why must science of truth be restricted to human senses? 4. Pragmatism:(4.1) The theory of Pragmatism states that if something can make a difference to someone then it is not meaningless. Which means that even if Gods existence cannot be empirically proven God is not a meaningless phenomenon. If the Idea of God positevely or negatively effects someone then the Idea of God is not meaningless and may be considered. This means that as long as God makes a practical difference to someone (as theough morality) then the question whether God exists is not meaningless and has a conclusion. This conclusion will of course be philosophical and according to my proposition if this conclusion is in the positive then it an equally valid and rational conclusion as say dark matter. 5. Falsifiability:(5.1) I think I gave ten sites which list the possible falsification tests in Philosophy, the primary behind all them is Logic. Logic provides the falsitification in Philosophy as Mathematics does in Physics. Especially after Kant and Hegel philosophy was no longer speculative, rather deductive. For exmple the method that Hegel use is that of dialectic logic: Instead of reaching and speculating about an Idea he takes an idea already ascertained lets us say: There is an Uncle (thesis), It logically follows there is a niece (anti-thesis), which means there must be a sibling of an Uncle (synthesis). Then take the sibling as a thesis, take a husband an anti-thesis and so on and so forth ad infinitum one will reach the Absolute Idea. Another falsification is through Modal Logic such as: s://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com...; alt="" />This ensures (as strictly as Mathematics) that the propositions are correct and that Philosophy is not speculative rather analytics. My earlier sources give more info, I cannot of course give a lesson in Logic now. The very simply proof that there is falsification in philosophy is that some principles can be argued upon. If I were to say An apple is an apple that might not have any falsification but if I say this apple is from a tree then there may be falsification. As in philosophy we could use dialectic logic to reach the conclusion of a tree. 5. Mathematics:(5.1) Mathematics is synthetic a priori, for take the number 4 it exists solely in your mind. If I take a hypothetical equation 3x^2+3x+4 and solve for x this is purely arbitrary. Also that is the entire reason that the Principia failed, that there are some axioms in Mathematics which cannot be tested. Hence Godel's Incompleteness Theorems. s://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com...; alt="" />[14]http://en.wikipedia.org...'s_incompleteness_theorems[15]http://kilby.stanford.edu...[16]http://plato.stanford.edu...[17]http://www.miskatonic.org...[18]http://plato.stanford.edu...Please post a counter-argument, and good luck!Ajab