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

2P0: "I forgive him for accepting ... before time." Before the existence of time? That's fast. --- 2P1: Ajabi's ontological argument 2P1.1: "[T]here are three modes of existence. .... [F]irst is ... existence in reality[.] ... [S]econd is ... existence in cognition. This ... has two divisions ... a priori ... and ... a posteriori[.] ... [L]et us discuss only .... a posteriori [of which] ... there are two divisions: a pure empirical idea ... gained due to ... sense experience, or an impure empirical idea ... from ... Imagination, and ... therefore ... untrue. [T]hird ... is in communication ... need not discuss[.]" 1: While via Rule 6 we are assuming the "soundness of ... sense experience, and reason" in this debate, I'd like to note in reality that humans are biased [1] and can be tricked [2][3][4], making the assumed "truth" of human reason rather questionable. Further, ideas gained from imagination are not necessarily untrue, because a bad process of obtaining ideas does not mean that obtained ideas are bad [5]. Further, it's effectively impossible to know when one is imagining [2][3][4], making differentiation of imagination and reality impossible. But let's imagine that humans aren't paranoid, biased, and treeless primates and continue the debate. 2P1.2: "[I]deas are representations of Objects. When ... an idea is true ... the object ... represented exists ... when ... false ... the object is not real. .... Simple ideas ... are ... not distinguishable into parts using sensations. Complex ideas ... may be[.]" 1: I accept these definitions. 2P1.3: "Any idea of Imagination is ... complex ... for ... imagination ... takes in many ideas, changes its form and presents a new idea. ... Imagination cannot yield a simple idea for no matter how you twist and turn a simple idea you will get the same result." 1: This doesn't make sense. Can imagination yield simple ideas? Imagine the color "green", and nothing else. Can imagination yield new ideas? Ponder the computer you're reading this on. Can imagination yield simple and new ideas? Consider the ideas of space-time, relativity, electromagnetic radiation, electricity, and atoms. Can you touch, taste, smell, hear, or see an atom? Consider the ideas of zero, of negative numbers, and of imaginary numbers. What does Pi taste like? Is zero hot or cold? Is i sharp or dull? According to my opponent's definition of a simple idea, these are simple ideas, because these ideas cannot be broken down by sensation. 2P1.4: "I ... use the law of the extended [sic] middle ... show the negation to be absurd and therefore prove God's existence." 1: In the context of the truth or falsity of Ajabi's God's existence, the Law of the Excluded Middle [6] seems reasonably justified. 2P1.5: "Defense of Premise 1: [The idea of God exists in cognition, independent of experience.] ... [W]e ... have an idea of God, for how else would the word God have any meaning[?] .... Ex ve [sic] termini God is transcendent of time, space, and number, and ... it follows we cannot feel God. .... If it is said that the idea of God has been given to one by parents, family members, or books then an easy rebuttal could ask the question of where the first person came up with the idea of God. The only answer ... is that ... God was imagined[.]" 1: It's very plausible that the various human "deities" arose from human paranoia [7] and desire to have an explanation for everything [8]. Why do clouds send down lightning? Because Zeus is angry. Better sacrifice a goat, before he sends down more! Ajabi's a-temporal, a-physical, a-numerable God is what happens when you start with Zeus, realize that parts of the "Zeus explanation" aren't necessary, cut them out, keep cutting as science progresses, and soon realize that nothing is left, but still want to believe in a God. 2: Consider also that people have always wanted to have power over others. What better way to solidify the hierarchy than to claim that you have a supernatural sponsor, who will put down any opposition? The Aztecs did it, the Incas did it, Romans did it, the Egyptians did it, the Indians did it, the Chinese did it. Why couldn't the leaders of early nomadic societies? 2P1.6: "Defense of Premise 2: [If an idea of cognition which exists independent of experience exists, it is either false or necessarily true.]" 1: Because of Rule 6, I accept Premise 2. Absent Rule 6, Premise 2 is incorrect. 2P1.7: "Defense of Premise 3: [If an idea of cognition which exists independent of experience is false then it is imaginative.]" 1: Because of Rule 6, I accept Premise 3. Absent Rule 6, Premise 2 is incorrect. 2P1.8: "Defense of Premise 4: [The idea of God cannot be imagined.] ... Imagination can only yield complex ideas[.]" 1: See 2P1.3.1. Imagination can yield simple ideas. 2P1.9: "[T]he idea of God is a simple idea. .... Can you divide the idea of God into any sensation? Can you tell me the tast [sic] of God? Or ... the color? ... [T]he idea of God is a simple idea ... and thereofore [sic] ... imagination cannot create the idea of ... God." 1: See 2P1.3.1. Imagination can yield simple ideas. 2: Since Ajabi's God is a lack of sensation, it is impossible to divide Ajabi's God based on sensation. However, it is possible to divide Ajabi's God on its multiple lacks of sensation. Ajabi's God is a-temporal, a-physical, and a-numerable. It is possible to imagine an temporal, a-physical, a-numerable God, or a physical one, or a numerable one, or some combination thereof. And this certainly would have some impact on sensation -- a physical God feels very different from a a-physical God. Hence, Ajabi's God doesn't fit the definition of a "simple" idea. 2P1.10: "[T]he idea of God is an a priori construct. ... God is above space, time and number ... and ... call Him omnipotent and omniscient. All our sense ideas are a posteriori ideas. No a posteriori idea can be combined in any form to create an a priori idea. For an a posteriori idea can be combined only to form similar ideas. .... The idea of God is hidden and no amount of thinking ... reveals anything[.] .... God transcends the human faculty of reason, and can therefore not be thought off [sic]." 1: An a priori construct is something that is proven to be true without sense experience being involved [9]. It is dubious to me that anything can be proven a priori, because everything humans do is fundamentally based on sense experience. For example, a case can be made that "logic" is based in human experience, rather than objective truths, and so all of logic is fundamentally experiential. Because of Rule 6, I won't make that case, and will accept God as a priori IF Ajabi can prove this proof. 2: That said, the proof doesn't hold up. Imagination can explain where humans got the idea of God. 3: And, if imagination didn't come up with God, where did we get the idea from, Ajabi? Clearly God must have interacted with the universe in some way, which would make some part of that God physical, temporal, and numerable. 2P1.11: "I now boldly claim that I have indeed shown that Ontology necessitates God's existence. 1: Nah. --- References: [1] http://en.wikipedia.org... [2] http://www.newscientist.com... [3] http://www.nimh.nih.gov... [4] http://www.nature.com... [5] http://en.wikipedia.org... [6] http://en.wikipedia.org... [7] http://www.psychologytoday.com... [8] http://en.wikipedia.org... [9] http://en.wikipedia.org...