Agnostic Atheism is more rational than an Agnostic Monotheist

Ontological Argument Syllogism: p1. It is possible that a maximally great being (MGB) exists p2. If p1 is true, a MGB exist in some possible world p3. If p2 is true, a MGB exists in all possible worlds p4. If p3 is true, a MGB exists in the actual world. C1. Therefore, God/MGB exists P1 has no justification to show why a maximally great being is possible Reverse: 1.It is possible that God does not exist, i.e.. there is some possible world where God does not exist. 2.God is defined as a necessary being, i.e.. exists in all possible worlds. 3.If there is one possible world where God does not exist, then there is no possible world in which God exists in all possible worlds. 4.If there is no possible world in which God exists in all possible worlds, then it is impossible that God exists. 5.It is impossible that God exists. Ajabi argues on epistemology for innate ideas/anamnesis vs tabula rasa, as well as, for rationalism vs empiricism. Unfortunately we must argue semantics as his argument is constructed around it. Con defines an idea as that which is usually construed as mental representational images of some object. Object meaning a thing, being or concept. However, according to this definition "usually construed" means it is often interpreted as such, but not always. This is an elaborate attempt in the beginning of the debate to refute a case against innate ideas, by excluding internal experience/reflection as a category of simple ideas. See link: http://www.merriam-webster.com.... [1] David Hume, as well as John Locke, argues very passionately against rationalism. [2] While rationalists believe certain ideas exist independently of experience, empiricism claims that all knowledge is derived from experience. Empiricism (in favour of empiricism, against rationalism): 1. Empiricism is more simplistic, syntactically and parsimoniously: Using Ockham"s razor. Even Kant"in the Critique of Pure Reason"supports the maxim that "rudiments or principles must not be unnecessarily multiplied". Compared to Empiricism, Rationalism has one more entity: Innate knowledge. Iinnate knowledge is unobservable and inefficacious; that is, it does not do anything. The knowledge may sit there, never being used. 2. Colours: How would you know what the colour blue looks like if you were born blind? The only way to come to have the idea of blue is to experience it with your senses. 3. Imagination and Experience: How can we get the idea of perfect triangularity? We can extrapolate from our experience with crooked, sensible triangles and use our imagination to straighten out what is crooked and see what perfect triangularity is. 4. Rationalists have been wrong about Their "Innate Knowledge": Some medieval rationalists claimed that the notion of a vacuum was rationally absurd and hence it was impossible for one to exist. However, we have shown that it is possible. Thus, reason is not the only way to discover the truth about a matter. 5. The Advance of Science: Much of science is founded on empiricist principles, and would not have advanced without it. If we base our conclusions about the world on empiricism, we can change our theories and improve upon them and see our mistakes. A rationalist seems to have to say that we"ve discovered innate knowledge and then be embarrassed if they are wrong 6. Innate knowledge has not been proven to be universal, nor existent in children, nor the mentally challenged. [3] Using Ockham"s razor, all ideas are formed from experience without necessary reference to innate principles in the mind. Complex ideas are the product of combining simple ideas together in various ways, whereas, experience (sensation and reflection) issues us with simple ideas. In sensation, the mind turns outward to the world and receives ideas through the faculties of the senses. In reflection the mind turns introspectively, receiving ideas as thinking, willing, believing. [4] Even abstruse ideas like space, infinity, God, and causation could be constructed using only the simple ideas received in experience, and thus complex ideas. Due to this reasoning, premise 1 is false as it is not proven that ideas can exist independent of experience. According to John Locke, simple ideas are only to be got by impressions"" For example, the problem of trying to define the meaning of the word light to a blind man. Without the sense of sight it is not possible to understand any definition put forward in the way a sighted person can. Complex ideas, on the other hand, can be defined in terms of simple ideas, provided we are equipped with all the appropriate senses (e.g. sight) for understanding the simple ideas used. For example a rainbow can be defined in terms of its shape, the colours it consists of and the order they appear in. If it is true that there is no impression of God then God is a complex idea. Hence, premise 4 is wrong. It is also intelligible to suppose that the idea of God is only known to children, idiots, etc. when they attain the age of reason. This violates laws of contradiction to say that the idea of God is known and unknown simultaneously. Any dispositional account of innate ideas, that is they are perceived once reason is employed, does not prove innateness of the ideas and does not allow for us to satisfactorily distinguish between them and those which the mind comes to discover later. So experience is required for assent to the most basic of truths. Therefore, the postulation of innate ideas is of little use as opposed to considering evident human faculties, such as the senses and reason, to explain the ideas present in us. Con says that for the belief to not be purely empirical, we can say we cannot feel God. However we can empirically realize abstractions "A posteriori", through internal experience/reflection. Con"s idea of God is the absence of ideas we already hold. The concept of God only has meaning because we ascribe positive traits to it. Transcendence, atemporality, aspaciality are not positive traits, once Con uses them to transcend all we know in reality i.e. Time, space, etc. Hence, premise 4, is again false. A priori/ purely theoretical knowledge alone is insufficient for determining God"s consistency with reality. Even objective truths require demonstration to conclude its objectivity. Assuming reality exists, to achieve the correspondence theory of truth i.e. truth consistent with reality, we must refer to sensations and reason. Even assent to the most abstract "a priori" truths is the result of our internal and external experience combined. For example, it may be argued, that 1+1=2, is a truth discovered a priori, without the need for experience. However, I would argue that without some form of sense experience of the external world, one would not be able to conceptualize one substance from another and the fact that there is now two. We can only imagine God as an a posteriori proposition, and thus the idea of God cannot simultaneously exist in cognition and be unimaginable for eg. In children. Consider the proposition, "If I lived for at least four days, then I lived for more than three days." This is something that one knows a priori, because it expresses a statement that one can derive by reason alone. One doesn't actually "know" what is derived by reason alone. Therefore although a posteriori knowledge may lead to an induction fallacy, the proposition shows "A priori" knowledge is a tautology. [5] However, while I agree that "A posteriori" synthetic statements and "A priori" analytic statements do exist, "A priori" synthetic statements have not been proven to exist, as a priori knowledge is only limited to analytic statements. Con takes the stance of Immauel Kant that knowledge of abstruse concepts such as mathematical, geometrical or arithmetical truths are known as a priori synthetic statements, rather than a posteriori synthetic statements. There has been no analogy or basis to conclude that a priori synthetic statements truly exist. Though, Kant tries to prove this in his book Critique of Pure Reason, he has been unable to effectively do so. Mathematics is derived by induction from particular instances for two reasons: first, that the validity of the inductive principle itself cannot be proved by induction; secondly, that the general propositions of mathematics, such as 'two and two always make four', can obviously be known with certainty by consideration of a single instance, and gain nothing by enumeration of other cases in which they have been found to be true. [6] Book I of the Essay, Of Innate Notions by John Locke refutes the hypothesis that we are born with imprinted or innate ideas and knowledge. [7] Book II of the Essay, Of Ideas, John Locke explains the assertion that God is a complex idea and makes empiricism plausible. Conclusion: We have no good reason/example to suppose a priori synthetic propositions exist. Metaphysics defined as a set of synthetic statements obtained by reason alone is sophistry. Supposing that experience does not include reflection is a classical mistake. [1] Hume's Representation Argument against Rationalism http://www.unc.edu... [2] Definitions http://www.theology.edu... [3] John Locke On Ideas http://www.anselm.edu... [4] Complex Ideas of Substance http://www.rbjones.com... [5] Hume vs Kant on Knowledge http://homepages.wmich.edu... [6] An Essay Concerning Human Understanding. Book I: Innate Notions http://www.earlymoderntexts.com... [7] An Essay Concerning Human Understanding. Book II: Ideas http://www.earlymoderntexts.com...