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

Unfortunately, I'm extremely busy and can't respond to most points. I'll focus on a few key points: 1: Humans are flawed, we agree. However, I accept that logic is *perfect* in this debate. Hence, the sources are just for readers if they want to know more and are irrelevant in the debate. 2: Imagination *can* think of new, simple ideas, as the examples I provided show. If, when we imagine them, we impose extra concepts onto them, that is because we imagine them incorrectly. 2.1: The concept of space-time (space and time are actually one entity, the "fabric" on which everything else exists) cannot be broken down into sensations. It cannot be touched, tasted, touched, seen, heard, or otherwise experienced. Space-time has only one quality: space-time. It is a simple idea. 2.2: The concept(s) of relativity (space-time exists and can be distorted, light travels at a constant maximum speed, relative motion affects observations) cannot be broken down into sensations. It cannot be touched, tasted, touched, seen, heard, or otherwise experienced. Relativity has no physical qualities, other than perhaps time dilation. 2.3: The concept of any specific wavelength of electromagnetism cannot be broken down into sensations. Visible electromagnetism is merely light; infrared electromagnetism is merely heat. Where do multiple sensations come in? 2.4: Atoms probably can be broken down. Let us consider, instead, quarks. Quarks exist at 1 infinitely small point, and cannot be sensed by humans themselves whatsoever. 2.5: Abstract numbers. Pro states that they exist a priori, but provides no evidence that this is true. If abstract numbers existed a priori (they are innate to human knowledge), why didn't humans develop them for many years? Clearly someone came up with the idea and pursued it. 2.6: These are arguments by example. That said, they are justified. Pro states that imagination categorically cannot create new simple ideas. If this is proven incorrect, this proves Pro's proof incorrect. And, pulling a tu quoque, Pro uses examples to illustrate Pro's points, too. (See 2P1.8) 3: "God-couldn't-be-a-product-of-paranoia" holds true only if imagination is the source of the idea of God, imagination cannot create simple ideas, and God is simple. Alternatives: 1: All beings, through evolution, assign an actor to every action, making all sentient beings actually believe that a god exists without ever having imagined it. In other words, people are programmed to be religious and paranoid, rather than actually imagining God. 2: God was never imagined as a simple idea, but a progressively simpler idea. People started with YHWH, a very complex god, and started stripping back layers of comlexity - "now that we know why it rains, I guess we don't need YHWH there anymore" until eventually someone reached 0 layers. This is entirely possible to imagine. Think of an apple. Now remove the color, the taste, the shape, etc. Now, you have a void, identical to Ajabi's God. 4: Ajabi's God has multiple concepts that are related to sensation. If an object is physical, then its gravitation can be felt, its reflections/absorptions of light can be seen, you can lick it if you want, sound bounces off of it, etc. If an object is temporal, then it either affects or is affected by time, and this effects how it is percieved. If an object is numerable, then it possible to count it in some way. All of these concepts and negations thereof affect sensation; therefore, it is possible to divide up Ajabi's God into sensations and lacks thereof, and thus Ajabi's God is not, in fact, simple.