This House Believes Ontology Necessitates God!

I want to start of by apologizing to Double_R, I was very tired when I wrote this and my tone was less than appropriate. I understand that this is a conduct violation, and once more my deepest apologies. I also thank my opponent for his round. I have decided to write this round using Rich Text to enable easier reading, and comprehension. I too shall devote some time to the clarification of some main issues before I begin answering individual rebuttals. 1. General Clarifications:(1.1) In general a syllogism is one which uses the following connectives: all, some, not, and no. If what I gave was an attempt at a syllogism it would have been logically invalid. What I presented before the House was a wff or a well-formulated formula. (1.2) If one would be so kind as to go and re-read my earlier argument one will note that I do give counter analysis. I think my opponent has a misconception of this entire matter. To help resolve it I feel that it is best to display what I will with a Venn Diagram, and I can go on to explain it more in depth later. I do not dispute that there are ideas of the imagination which may be true, or may become true. Nor do I say that false and imaginative are synonymous. What I do say is this: there are some ideas which are false, all these false constructs are of the faculty of imagination. For this I have provided a proof which was never tackled. Simple though it is, seeing how the utmost left category only features (other than the Ideas of Imagination) an idea one may have gained from another (so an idea of another's imagination) it all falls back to Imagination. All of our false ideas then have their roots in Imagination, showing that God cannot be imagined then ensures that the idea of God is necessarily true. (1.3) As for the necessary tie our experiences have with our understanding, it is a point that Double_R brought to the House, it then falls on him to prove it, and to show how this ties in with his analysis of Ontology. (1.4) We can discuss the Third Law of Thought as it comes as my opponent does not talk about it right now. 2. Ontology:(2.1) This is perhaps the first time that I have heard that to assume that all a priori/purely theoretical knowledge is meaningless/pointless is a law of Philosophy. I did not even hear it from Hume, and he was the one who initiated modern scepticism. If anything then after Kant it is generally known that a priori/purely theoretical reason can yield correct conclusions.(2.2) What Con seems to be arguing is some sort of Logical Positivism, that is in itself a self-refuting theory. Also regarding Mathematics, it is quite clear that Mathematics is a priori. If not then I ask Double_R what the demonstratable proof is for x^2+3x-4=0 yielding x=1 or x=-4. Or what pray tell is the demonstratable proof of derivation. (2.3) My opponent is inherently stating that anything which cannot be physically demonstrated is meaningless; this is the essence of Logical Positivism. Ayer the father of Logical Positivism states: "Only that which is empirically verifiable can be logically necessary"[4] The theory that for something to be proven it needs to be empirically verifiable is in itself not empirically verifiable. This contenion was enough for Ayer himself to admit: "the problem is, nearly all of it is wrong" about his theory.[5] So unless my opponent can prove Logical Positivism his contention that reason alone cannot yield proper conclusions is unsound. 3. The Definition of Imagination:(3.1) The Venn Diagram provided above should make this part easier to understand. In essence when we take about impure empirical/imaginative ideas what we said was that all the false constructs of the brain are impure empirical ideas. If I imagine I am winning the lottery it is not real until I have won the lottery, for all intents and purposes, untill I win it is a false construct. If I have already won it, the idea is of memory. Our premise simply states this: if an idea is false, it is imaginative. The only form of contention that can be raised is that there is another faculty of the mind which provides us with false ideas, since the name of such a faculty has not been provided, my opponent's contention fail. (3.2) Seeing how the premise states what it does, its soundness depends on two points: a. there exist false concepts, b. only imagination can create these false concepts. The first seems self-evident, for otherwise everything would be true. For the second I have provided analysis which was never attacked: mainly there exists no other such faculty of the mind. 4. The idea of God is a non-idea:(4.1) This is the point where I feel Double_R's contentions are most muddle-headed. Firstly I should point out that Double_R dropped a major point of mine when he gives his contention. I gave an excellent analysis on how if you do not possess the idea of something, that something is meaningless. I do not see any reply from Double_R on this tier. Instead he goes off on a rant about negative traits. This should be taken into consideration: we cannot comprehend anything if we do not have a mental construct to align this word with. Please refer to my original discussion.(4.2) After the above analysis I really do not see any room for debate here. In essence though I fail to see how transcendent is a negative property; not to mention that I already stated that the idea of God we are debating is the idea of the Being of God. This idea, as I postulate, is not an imaginative idea, and so it is an innate idea. (4.3) Now Double_R uses Circular Logic. He states that since a priori ideas (ideas which cannot be conceptualized but exist) do not exist, and so a priori ideas do not exist. He gives absolutely no argument, but empty claims. After all one has the idea of Space and one cannot conceptualize space one can but imagine an object which posses space. Since Double_R brought this to the Floor it is his burden to prove this claim. (4.4) So it is in fact ridicolous to say that the idea of God could be imagined if the idea of God exists. This is particularly true because imagination can only yield complex ideas (something I proved in the original round), and was never attacked by Double_R. (4.5) My opponent also presents a False Dichtomy, as he says that any idea which is not empirical is necessarily imaginative. Well this is another thing he never substantiated on: this also presents a problem to ideas which are: of reason, of reflection and/or of connexion as Hume says. 5. The Third Law of Thought:(5.1) If you study my premise it will reveal nothing in relation to belief. My argument states: an idea is either false or necessarily true. It does not state an idea can be believed so, or a statement is so, or anything else. It is as simple as this: either an idea represents an object which is real or an idea represents an object which is illusory. (5.2) It then follows that this premise stands because there is no other concluion: it cannot be that the object is both real and false, either the object is real or false; let my opponent show the third conclusion if he can find one. Conclusion: My opponent's argument relies heavily on Logical Positivism. All the way from making empirical science as the only form of verification, to creating false dichtomies in relation to imagination and empirical ideas. He constantly appeals to outdated and silly theories, and while he offers a plethora of statements I am hard pressed to see any proof provided. The idea of God as a non idea is absolutely ridicolous and cannot be entertained, for without the word God would be a meaningless word. Using circular logic does not help Double_R's case either. He states in his summary that my argument seems to self-contradictory. This is perhaps the funniest part of his argument because if this were so my argument would not be Logically Valid, however I have shown that it can be phrased perfectly. His analysis of "positive qualities" is also flawed, as transcendence is a quality, while Being is not a property, Dasein is Being in itself. The Seinstuktur would reveal that the idea of God would be an innate idea, and that is what I try to show. I do so however using a system of elimination which, I believe has succeeded. I therefore feel that Double_R could not, and did not provide any sufficient contention. I should remind the readers that when Double_R brings up a positive point to contend my argument, the onus falls on him to prove his point. With that I urge the voter to support the resolution. The resolution holds, the contentions collapse![4]http://en.wikipedia.org...[5]Ibidium Ajab