This House Believes Ontology Necessitates God!

With that let us begin, I should note that I use some technical language, while I will define everything, I will link sources only for extra knowledge or better understanding. They are in no way necessary, and are allowed by round five. Now to start off I would like to explain that there are three modes of existence. We will use the process of elimination in this debate to reach the logical conclusion that God exists. The first mode is of existence in reality, that is the existence of an Object in itself, so real. The second is the one most important for us, it is the mode of existence in cognition. This mode has two divisions an a priori existence, and an a posteriori existence. Since the first warrants naught but truth let us discuss only the second. For atheists it is the second that holds all the keys. Of the a posteriori second mode there are two divisions: a pure empirical idea which we define as such an idea that is gained due to sensations, or sense experience, or an impure empirical idea which is a false idea which is born from the faculty of Imagination, and is therefore an untrue idea. For any atheist all our ideas regarding God are related to the a posteriori impure cognitive idea. The third mode is in communication, and therefore that of proposition but we need not discuss it. We should specify what we mean by an idea. Immanuel Kant defines an idea as: 'the species of representation which gives rise to metaphysical beliefs. Ideas are special concepts which arise out of our knowledge. '[1] If this is yet unclear then let us mention Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy's definition: 'In philosophy, ideas are usually construed as mental representational images of some object. ' It is then clear that ideas are representations of Objects. When we say an idea is true then we mean that the object that is represented exists as a real object, when we say an idea be false it means that the representation is illusory and the object is not real. We break these ideas into simple and complex ideas. Simple ideas are those ideas which are irreducible and are therefore not distinguishable into parts using sensations. Complex ideas are those which may be distinguished into parts, through the method of sensations. So the idea of an apple is complex for an apple has a color, a taste, a scent and is therefore made of many distinguishable parts. [2] Any idea of Imagination is a complex idea for what else is imagination but a machine which takes in many ideas, changes its form and presents a new idea. [3] As Hume tells us Imagination cannot yield a simple idea for no matter how you twist and turn a simple idea you will get the same result. My proof then will rely on the process of elimination keeping in our modality of existence. I will attempt to show that the idea of God could not have come as an impure a posteriori idea, nor is it an idea of sense experience, and so, seeing no other form of existence, or any other faculty of the mind, I conclude that the idea of God is not false. I will use the law of the extended middle (third law of thought) that I will show the negation to be absurd and therefore prove God's existence. By showing that the idea of God could not have existed any other way. I should have liked to write out the argument in formal logic, but debate. org is not kind to such things and replaces everything with commas. .. so I will only post it in a valid premise-conclusion format: 1. The idea of God exists in cognition, independent of experience. 2. If an idea of cognition which exists independent of experience exists, it is either false or necessarily true. 3. If an idea of cognition which exists independent of experience is false then it is imaginative. 4, The idea of God cannot be imagined. 5. Ergo: the idea of God is necessarily true. I shall now go on to defend each individual premise. Defense of Premise 1: > I believe this is fairly obvious, we know we have an idea of God, for how else would the word God have any meaning for us? As for this belief not to be purely empirical that we can say simply because we cannot feel God. Ex ve termini God is transcendent of time, space, and number, and since the sensation depends on these three, it follows we cannot feel God. This premise means there has been no impression of 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 an atheist can give is that the idea of God was imagined, on this we shall give our thoughts soon. Defense of Premise 2: > This needs no proof other than that I quote the Third Law of Thought. The Law of the Extended Middle states that if I can disprove the negation, then the above my conclusion is correct. I should note while I express this in propositions, the argument itself is Ontological, insofar as it deals with the nature of ideas. > In any case what third option could there be? Either an idea is true and the object it refers to is real, or the idea is false, and the object it refers to does not exist. Please do not mistake ideas for being propositions. Defense of Premise 3: > I say this confident that the mind has no other faculty which would yield false ideas. The ideas of sensations are true, and in any case we have currently ruled out. The faculty of reason provides but correct ideas, so the only faculty that can yield false ideas is the faculty of imagination. If my opponent knows of any other faculty, then let him so mention it. Defense of Premise 4: > We must remember that Imagination can only yield complex ideas, we know this for the imagination takes simple ideas from sensations and combines them. Since it is sensation that allows combination, the reversal, or distinction is also through sensation. > My first argument is that the idea of God is a simple idea. Remember we are talking about the being of God. Can you divide the idea of God into any sensation? Can you tell me the tast of God? Or (remember we are talking only about the idea of the Being of God) the color? One cannot because the idea of God is a simple idea. And we can see ex vi termini that imagination cannot come up with simple ideas, and thereofore just as two elements however mixed together cannot create but a compound, imagination cannot create the idea of the Being of God. We have therefore proved our premise. The idea of God could not be an imagined idea. > The other proof regarding our premise is this that the idea of God is an a priori construct. Which mean that God is above space, time and number. We attribute to God atemporality, aspaciality and hence 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 state, and the idea of perfection can be combined to form the idea of a perfect state. We cannot however do that with a priori ideas such as God. There is another proof of this statement. We can imagine a perfect state, but even now if we consider or try to look at the finer points in the idea of God we cannot. The idea of God is hidden and no amount of thinking upon it reveals anything such as color or taste as an idea of the perfect state would. While we can imagine the idea of a perfect state, we cannot pretend to imagine the idea of God or God in our minds, other than attributing to him an a poteriori form (Morgan Freeman). We then need to realize that we cannot think of God as an a priori substance. The simple reason is because God transcends the human faculty of reason, and can therefore not be thought off. It is here that I now boldly claim that I have indeed shown that Ontology necessitates God's existence. Remember it is not that Ontology is unconcerned with physicality, so Physics has been called the Ontology of the Universe. So long as I do not appeal to any experience to prove God i. e. I have felt God and so God exists this proof is Ontological. I once more note that all the terms are sufficiently defined in this passage. If however one wants advanced reading, a better knowledge then I suggest reading through the first 6 pages of the Treatise, and the Introduction of the Critique. I have also linked a longer essay that I sent to Prof. Peter J. King if anyone wants extra knowledge, and a deeper explanation of the argument. The terms are there explained in a lengthier way and the modalities of existence are explained better. (. https://docs.google.com...) [1]Critique of Pure Reason, Transcendental Logic . http://www2.hn.psu.edu... [2]A Treatise of Human Nature, Of Ideas, Their Composition, Connexion, and Abstraction . https://ia600306.us.archive.org... [3]Ibidium, Section 3, Of the Ideas of the Memory and Imagination I wrote this in a bit of a hurry, having just gotten home from school. Faithfully Yours, Ajab