The Christian God is personal and not merely philosophical

Framework:The opposition's replies to my comments are absurd. As the opposition knows very well, God does not exist in my opinion. Nevertheless, it would be of great value to say that the opposition's absurd replies to them are very much criticisms of the ontological, not to the argumentation that I have presented myself (which I have not done until this round). Secondly, the Burden of Proof lies entirely on the opposition. IN proving that the Bible says God is personal is a mere appeal to authority, and does not affirm the case. Apart from this, the mere assumption that this is "not a philosophical debate" but a "personal one" does not give license for the opposition to present ignoratio elenchi and circular reasoning. This is a debate, not a sermon. Nevertheless, I shall object to the opposition's points now.Objection One: Theological is not PersonalThe framework of theology is based upon the assumption that a God exists, and henceforth, studies religious institutions based on that. However, the personal is what one experiences. Henceforth, to put the Bible in context here, the Bible may provide justifications for several premises that proves that the existence of a God is a personal issue, not an objective issue. However, Biblical justification alone is just pure ignoratio elenchi.Objection Two: Defending the Ontological(Devil's Advocate) The Anselm's Ontological assumes the following things as a definition; that God is the Greatest, and that existence is negation of omnipotence. The opposition's claims that Anselm's God is the subjective God is completely absurd. Every argumentation has previous definition, from Spinoza's to Godel's ontological. The opposition's attempt of debunking this argumentation is a wholly circular thing, based on will power alone. The only valid point is "existence is not dependent on attributes" but it is; for we know that gravity exists only because we do not fly. We know that Obama exists for sure because he "talks on the television" (not enough justification for those Cartesians though, bloody Cartesians). If the cause-effect is known, then if there were an effect, there must be a cause; if there were a known effect that causes something, then of course, a known cause would be attributed to it. Objection Three: Greek MonotheismThe idea of one God was, apart from being a Jewish idea, was a Greek one too. Socrates, for example, was the "Jesus of Greece" He had to drink poision to justify his beliefs in one God, yet he was possibly the most rational man alive at his time. If the opposition is satisfied with "God exists, shut up atheists" then the opposition is clearly has a lot of work to do. i.e he has to justify his beliefs USING philosophical evidences and sciences. Apart from this, the Hebrew people were a very philosophical people, albeit their philosophical convictions may not be as complicated and as essential as the Greeks. Abraham was a philosopher, who used arguments from design to justify his beliefs of the God we are putting now into question. Philosophers, such as Hiwi the Herectic, espoused fields of study that used reasoning instead of faith, and argued that Moses' interaction with the Red Sea was merely a coincidence. Henceforth, it would be wholly an ignorant oversimplification to say that the Hebrews were "unable to think for themselves" [2] Argumentation from Atomic Propositions Definitions of Terms: G-God P-Philosophy The stance of the opposition assumes (u:G) but yet he beliefs (u:G∧~u:pG). Firstly, through the language analysis of the proposition, I shall show that (1) the question of God’s existence is an atomic proposition, and (2) atomic propositions can be proven via philosophy. In doing this, we shall analyze the status quo of each proposition. We shall firstly assume that the theorem p=~G is a true theory. Then it would automatically come to the assumption that (u:Gè~u:pG), for p=~G. However, let us then take the assumption that it is false via nature; then it would automatically come to mind that (∃)(~u:pG), but since G entails P, for P is the universal inclusive of all atomic propositions. [1] This then allows for us to prove the (u:G) is an atomic proposition. Affirming that all propositions are made of atomic structure, for they all have a certain truth-value, we could henceforth analyse any proposition via philosophy! For example, “John is a boy” contains a fundamental truth-value and could be formalized as Bj. This proposition could be denied or affirmed via philosophy, as the study of philosophy is the study of reality and of truth. Henceforth up to now, we have affirmed three conclusions: (1) that since philosophy is the study of reality, and since atomic propositions could be affirmed or denied via reality, all atomic propositions could be negated/affirmed via philosophy, (2) that all atomic propositions could be formalized into logical structures, and (3) that (u:G) entails that (pG) iff (u:G) implies G is an atomic proposition. Then let us provide an argumentation for the atomic basis of 4: 1. (u:(Gv~G))If 2. ((u:~G)èAu)If 3. ((u:G)èTu)4. Via proposition 2 and 3, G is an atomic proposition Argumentation from ConsistencyThe justification of faith alone requires philosophy. This was proven in William James' amazing essay "The Will to Believe" in which he justifies faith, which the opposition has, with reasonable basis. Nevertheless, let us affirm that the motion is in itself inconsistent with the known reality of the world. Argumentation from consistency is based upon the basis that self-contradictory beliefs negate a set proposition. With this said, let us affirm the following:1. (Æ*x)(PxG) 2. (Æx)(~PxG)Then accordingly to the law of non-contradiction, two propositions cannot be totally contradicting and yet be held true. Nevertheless, the translation assumes that some people believe that philosophy justifies God, whilst some people believe that philosophy doesn't justify God. However:3. (Æx)(~PxG) iff (O~PxG)4. (OPxG) according to 1Then if ~(R~Px) is a fact, then deductively:5. (Æx)(~OPxG)What this argumentation proves is that there is no justification for the basis of belief in God outside philosophical reigns, for if proposition holds true to all, then the conditional of proposition three must always satisfy proposition II. Apart from this, accordingly to the law of non-contradiction, two propositions cannot be totally opposite. Henceforth, either proposition 1 or 2 must be true, and if one is true, the other is false. From that basis, we can apply Occam's Razor which affirms that a theory, a proposition, with the least assumptions must be taken as fact. With this said, then the 2nd proposition (which is the debate motion) is false as it automatically assumes that God is not based on philosophy.Argumentation from Causau SiMen are naturally curious animals, but not all men are rational. This God is a psychological phenomena, not a personal one, for if God were a personal illumination, then how is it possible that many people have belief in God? Let us take the logical basis of illogical premises here. Logically, the opposition is an agnostic Christian in a sense; the opposition believes that there is no way to prove that God exists, but henceforth God exists, because of faith. This is a philosophical belief called fideism, which states that pure acceptance of authority should be favored over rational belief. Then it would satisfy the opposition to know that God, or at least the study of God, was self-caused via philosophy. Metaphysics is the study of the effects and causes of God, accordingly to Aristotle. This premise is based upon the fact, a premise, that an unmoved first-mover created the world, and henceforth metaphysics should study "the nature and the science" of this unmoved first-mover. Let us note that it was the human intellect, the intellect that was capable of (1) conceive substances and affects, (2) theorize on the cause of the substance and effects, and (3) build upon the study of the nature of these substances and affects that caused humans to theorize about God. The negation of a philosophical God is based upon a premise that God is caused, not by humans, but by faith. However, accordingly to the doctrines of agent-detection, miracles had to be attributed for, and it was human reasoning alone that came to the final conclusion that divinity was involved in it. [3] Then if some study is caused is self-caused, then God is philosophical in the sene that it was self caused by philosophy. The creator of western philosophy, Thales of Miletus, philosophized that God created "water" which was then the basis of the world. Thales thus opened a field of study that was based on God, and philosophy and God are so intercorrelated that whole philosophies are based upon the premise that God exists. Thomism is based upon such premises; Cartesianism is also based upon such premises. To say that philosophy cannot prove God is like saying that a mother cannot prove that her son belongs to her. Philosophy caused God and the study of it. Closing Statements:I have proven that there is simply no justification for belief in such statements in my argumentation from belief logic and consistencies. I have also proven that since God is self caused by philosophy, then God is a mere philosophical being. The opposition has done nothing but to state that the Jews are irrational people, and left the "heavy work" to the Greeks, which is a highly offensive, blatantly ignorant, and false statement which does not prove the resolution(Unless the opposition is Jewish). The opposition has ignoratio elenchi'ed his argumentation, and has strawman mines in order to make me seem like the ontological rationalist here.The resolution remains negated*Existential Quantifier Citations:[1] http://plato.stanford.edu...[2] http://en.wikipedia.org...[3] http://plato.stanford.edu...