This House Believes Ontology Necessitates God!

I thank Double_R for his reply. it does sadden me because it seems that my opponent could not get the crux of my argument. I shall first of all answer the general criticisms and then move on to address the individual claims put out. To start of with the minor things: I agree that it is not necessary to provide sources, I only provide them for further clarification of my arguments. Also I never provided a syllogism, to say that my premise-conclusion is a syllogism is a straw-man. A syllogism uses all, no, not, some, and other connectives like these. What I have is a wff (pronounced woof), that is all. My phrasing, however, directly follows. On to the most important point. I feel that people on debate.org have no idea what Ontology is. Ontology is the study of Being (henceforth Sein), and of the Being Structure (hence forth Seinstruktur). An Ontological Proof, or to say that Ontology necessitates something means that the study of the Seinstruktur of a certain Sein will reveal that Sein to be Real. This confusion was in my previous debate with RoyLatham as well, and this is precisely why I clarify the modes of existence this time. I find that my opponent gives me a false dilemma because he assumes reality to be physical. It seems he is attacking Reason in itself. He states: "To use thought alone is to not use known reality as a basis. " without giving any proof of this statement. So long as I can prove God's existence without appealing to empirical knowledge I have proved God ontologically. It is the same with Physics (that is why Physics is often called the Ontology of the Universe) where phenomenon are proven using though alone, or using Mathematics (which being the Ontic of the Universe) is in itself a theoretical discipline. It is barbaric for Double_R to give such claims, and then to leave us without any proof of these claims. I repeat, unless my opponent can show that I appealed to empiricism my proof is Ontological. If my opponent argues that this theoretical proof is meaningless without physical verification-ism then let his say so also about Physics, and Mathematics. If he says this, it would be Logical Verification-ism and let him prove it before he uses it. Once more my opponent is committing the fallacy of straw-maning my arguments. I know not whether he does this purposely or not, but he commits many a fault here. I do not use Imagination synonymous with falsity. Not all that is false is imaginative. However if any idea in cognition is false, then it must be imaginative. For what does imagination do? It takes ideas and randomly joins them together to form false constructs. As I said, there is no other faculty of the mind. Will my opponent argue that those ideas which are imagined are true? Then he concedes the entire debate. For then he implies that the idea of God is true for there is no other faculty of the mind which could make the idea of God. In any case the reason why I state that all false constructs are imaginative is because Imagination is the faculty which combines and forms new ideas. These new ideas are obviously false: such as the young boys imagining themselves with Emma Watson. This point of my opponent, to be honest, seems rather muddled. I urge the readers to go back and give a read to my analysis on the faculties of the mind. I already informed all of how there is no other faculty of the mind which can provide false concepts. If we can show that the idea of God exists, and it has not been imagined, then we win this debate. This all seems redundant however, because my opponent concedes premise four, he himself states that he agrees that the idea of God cannot be imagined. Pro starts off in this part of his argument with another misintepretation. It is clear that he is misunderstanding my case. He says: "The problem however is that every possible understanding we have of God comes directly from our experiences. We would not be able to understand what it is to transcend time, space, or numbers, if we did not already experience time, space, and numbers. Each of these concepts along with any other possible explanation of what God is cannot be understood without our experiences and it is only our experiences that we use in our attempts to understand it."The problem here is two fold. Firstly it assumes that time, space and number are a posteriori, that we learn these qualities empirically. For this Double_R provides no proof. Instead as Kant argues: I say these properties are a priori, or pre-existenct of any experience. Secondly Double_R's statement is against Physics. You see for us to be able to empirically realize Time, Space and/or Number they would have to be absolute entities which could be sensed, turns out that all three of these are in fact abstractual either to the mind, or the gravity and mass. Again for Double_R's contention to hold he needs to provde a proof which might make us consider that we learn these three a posteriori. Until such a proof is provided, I have no need to provide a counter proof. On a second level while God's Sein may possess the characteristics, that its Seinstruktur is in such a way that it is atemporal, aspatial, and anumerical, the Being is is not atemporality, nor is it aspaciality, nor anumericality. It holds these characteristics, but it is more than these characteristics. Also these characteristics of God are given from a pure subject-object relationship, where the subject here is considered the human mind. Therefore Double_R's contentions fail. Now my opponent states that all we know about God is that which we know God is not. I see no problem with this, however again my opponent talks about the qualities of God, not the Being in itself. Existence is not a quality. It is not a property. If we did not have the idea of God the word God for us would be meaningless. It turns out however that this word means something to us, if it means something to us that means that the word when uttered arouses in our senses, through memory therein, a particular sensation, or image, no matter how distant, foreign or vague. Similarly the word "paani" means nothing to the readers. Now let me inform you that the word "paani" is Urdu for water. Bring me paani. This sentence made sense, it could only do so for the idea of water was aroused in you. Therefore because the word God means something rather than nothing, the idea of God must exist in cognition. What Double_R did can be done with anything: take the example of an apple. An apple may be called: a fruit, sweet, and red (not granny smiths). A fruit is just something which is not a vegetable, dairy product, or a herb. Sweet is just something which is not sour, salty, or bitter. Red is something which is not pink, blue, or magenda. This is literally what Double_R did with the meaning of God. In any case he fails to show that the idea of God does not exist, for as I said, then God would be a meaningless word, as meaningless as "roti". (Which is a form of bread). I should clarify what the name of the Law of the Extended Middle is. It is called "The Third Law of Thought". Imagine my surprise when I am told by my opponent that a law of thought cannot apply to thought. The premise which this law is quoted to support is this: something is either false, or its negation is true. How does this premise use belief? It does not, all my opponent's contentions are strawmans and nothing more. It does not say one either believes one thing to be false or true. It says something is either true, or its negation is true. As simple as that. The entirety of my opponent's case is made out of strawmans or misrepresenting my arguments. I have honestly lost the will to argue this, and I put of writing this to the last minute because of this. I am now eager to end this debate, even if the voters felt I lost. How can an idea be a non-idea and yet comprehensible? How does imaginative equal false, if imaginative yields ideas which are false? I mean these are basic distinctions which are failed to be made. In any case I wish my opponent the best of luck for future rounds. Ajab