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

Thanks for the debate, Ajabi! Thanks for reading, readers! -- One thing before the real arguments: "My opponent keeps to one ... contention: that imagination can yield simple ideas. .... [M]y opponent ... stable advocacy. ... [H]e must now continue only with this point." I've held to three contentions throughout the entire debate. 1st, that imagination can yield simple ideas (arguments 2P1.3, then 2). 2nd, that the idea of god need not have come from pure imagination alone (2P1.5, then 3). 3rd, that Ajabi's God is not simple, and, if simple, there's no explanation for how we got the idea (2P1.9, then 4). Hence, it's not "new" to use these arguments again. --- 2: "[A]ll ideas are empirical. .... [A]ny idea of sensation will only have ... one sensation. .... Now since any idea which is imagined, if the answer be simple it would result in the same thing. .... Fuzzy ... assumes ... these are simple ideas, and ... imaginative. These ideas are not imaginative. .... 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 .... 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. .... 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." 1: Scientists have concluded that these concepts are true because they lined up with the data. However, in order to ever have a concept to line up with the data, they needed to imagine the idea first. For example, Rutherford probably didn't say "Huh. A gold plate sent alpha radiation everywhere. I deduce that the atom must be composed of a proton core and an electron cloud!" To think that science makes results this clear is ridiculous. Rutherford probably said, "Huh. A gold plate sent alpha radiation everywhere. I wonder why? Let me think of some potential ways to explain this. [imagination commences] Ah, the atom must be composed of a proton core and an electron cloud!" At some point, Rutherford had to imagine the idea of what the atom was shaped like. 2: Even if the atom isn't simple, this process stays true for other concepts. Spacetime has only one quality, spacetime. It's basically impossible to know what spactime *feels* like. Thus, even though the imagination of what it would act like might be based on empirics, its actual qualities can only be imagined. While it was ultimately proven through science, it had to have been imagined in order to have been tested. The same holds true for effectively all discoveries, many of which fit the definition of having no qualities that can be differentiated between via sensation. On numbers: 3: Real numbers can, perhaps, up to a point, be seen as a result of empirical observations. The ideas of 1, 2, 3, 10, 100, can all be seen in the world around us. (If you need proof, just gather up 100 rocks. This is what math is based on.) Now think of the number 10^1000. There aren't nearly 10^1000 atoms in the universe. This number can ONLY be imagined. And yet it is simple. It has one quality: number. And yet we have imagined 10^1000. Clearly, new, simple, ideas can be imagined. 4: Unreal numbers cannot realistically be seen as the result of empirical observations. I dare you to gather up `0; rocks. It's not possible -- `0; has enough (endless, actually) digits that we cannot realistically gather enough atoms to represent it. It's unreasonable to believe that `0; is a result of purely empirical concepts. Or consider i. First, gather up a negative rock. Then, take its square root. Neither of these is possible. Yet, through the powers of imagination (for math itself is just conceptualization) we have come up with these numbers. --- 3: [E]ven 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. .... 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. .... 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." 1: Ajabi has still not told us from where we got the idea of a non physical, non temporal, non numerable God from. Even if it exists, how would we know about its existence? It cannot interact with the universe whatsoever. So what started this idea? While it's possible that someone sat down and thought through a proof like Ajabi, I consider this rather unlikely. Who tries to prove the existence of a completely irrelevant entity, starting with prior bias? I consider it much more likely that people who already believed in a physical god realized that their beliefs were somewhat untenable and abandoned those untenable parts. Strip away an Abrahamic God's physical interactions, his temporeality, his numerability, and what are you left with? Ajabi's God. And yet this process is entirely imaginable. Imagine a box. Remove the physical matter from the box. Now you have a metaphysical box. Remove the temporeality from the box. Now you have a metaphysical box, that has always existed and is unaffected by the passage of time. Remove the numerability from the box. Now you have "a" metaphysical box, that cannot be precisely pinned down to having a number and that has always existed and is unaffected by the passage of time. This box is identical to Ajabi's God, and is yet imagineable. Huh -- imagine that. 2: As an alternative to the above, Ajabi claims that my box is unimagineable while his God is imagineable. This is ultimately contradictory. If you can't imagine something with no physical qualities, then neither is possible to imagine. If you can, then both are. Ajabi attempts to justify this contradiction by stating that, clearly, the word of God has meaning to us, while an absolute void would not. This does not logically follow. Living in modern society, it is impossible to not get an idea of what (other people, anyways) believe God to be. The word God gets connotations, meanings, that we apply whenever we hear or see it. Ajabi must prove that his God is imagineable, while a void is not, which has not been achieved. 3: Consider also the use that an unsensable God would have for an authority figure. You don't need proof for this God -- it's beyond our comprehension, moves in mysterious ways, and yet still controls your entire lives. Praise Sithrak or die! 4: Ajabi does not sufficiently respond to my God-thru-evolution point. Ajabi states that, if you think "Huh. I wonder what started everything," you would conclude, "Clearly, my parents." This is irrelevant to evolution. A mind can believe blatantly false ideas (see my points on schizophrenia above), and evolution can make that happen. If it is evolutionarily advantageous to believe that something caused the universe, evolution will find a way to make you believe that, regardless of the truth. --- 4: "My God is ... ex ve [sic] termini beyond sensation, even if He can be sensed that is besides the point. .... Of our idea of Him in cognition, He is most definitely simple." 1: Ajabi's God is not a simple idea. A simple idea has only one quality that can be differentiated using the senses. A complex idea has multiple qualities that can be differentiated using the senses. Ajabi's God is not physical, it is not temporal, and it is not numerable. If it was any of these, it would be possible to sense that. Each of these is a separate, differentiatable quality. Imagine a non physical entity. No matter, perhaps, but you can still say "that is a singular being affected by time". Your ability to feel time's passage and your ability to number objects can differentiate this quality. If Ajabi's God was merely "not physical", then it would be simple. However, Ajabi's God has multiple qualities that can be distinguished uses the senses. Because that is the given definition for complex in this debate, we --- Summary: Ajabi has the burden to prove beyond doubt that his God exists. Ajabi's sole reason to believe that this is true is that we have an idea of a non-physical, non-temporal, and non-numerable God, that this makes Ajabi's God simple, and that imagination cannot imagine simple concepts. I have attempted to prove that imagination can imagine simple concepts, that imagination is unnecessary to have developed this concept, and that Ajabi's God is not simple. If any of my objections stand, or even have the possibility of validity, then Ajabi has not fulfilled his burden. Because Ajabi has not sufficiently answered all of my objections, the burden is not fulfilled. Vote Neg.