This House Asserts That Ontology Necessitates God!

I thank Roy for accepting, let's get started. I believe that it is pertinent to start with a few definitions, now these definitions are only summarized by me. I have quoted the parts of the books I have taken them from and I would be infinitely grateful should the readers look at those respective paginations. Let us start at the most basic of all definitions and specify what an idea is. An idea can be classified into two forms, an empirical idea, and an innate idea. An empirical idea is the weaker reflection of an impression. It refers to all the sensations, passions and emotions that we experience as impressions through the senses, albeit in a lesser form. An innate idea is one not garnered from experience, it is an idea which one possess a priori. It refers to the a general construct, or the idea of an idea.[1]The next distinction which is necessary is that between simple and compex ideas. A simple idea is an idea which cannot be distinguished into parts, a complex idea is one which can be divided into parts. So as Hume says: 'Simple perceptions or impressions and ideas are such as admit of no distinction nor seperation. The complex are contrary to these and may be distinghuished into parts. Tho' a particular colour, taste, smell are qualities all united togerher in an apple, 'tis easy to percieve they are not the same, but distinguishable from each other.The next important definition that we need to consider is that of Imagination. What then is imagination? It is commonly believes that imagination comes up with original ideas, that is untrue. Imagination in a word takes ideas from memory, if they be complex ideas it changes the arrangement of the ideas, and if they be simple ideas, imagination combines them together. Imagination does the work of chaning these ideas. Imagination as Hume tells us cannot come up with a simple idea, for a simple idea is only one part and no matter how you twist it, it remains the same.[3]Now lets move onto the argument, I wanted to write it out in Quantificational Logic but debate.org does not allow that. Here is the argument is a valid premise-conclusion format though. 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. 1. Defense of Premise 1:(1.1)When I talk about the idea of God existing independently of experience what I mean to say is that the idea of God is not an empirical idea. This I state this way, the God we are talking about is tri-omni, and ex vi termini we can claim that since he is above human cognition, he cannot be felt by human senses and therefore the idea of God is independent of sense experience. This shows sufficiently that the idea of God exists in cognition as an idea which is not empirical. (1.2)If my opponent argues that the idea of God has been told to you through your ears, or by your parents then a simple question for my case ab absurdo would be that where did the first man originate the concept of God. Either s/he made it up, or it is an innate idea. 2. Defense of Premise 2:(2.1) This is I believe quite simple and can be deduced from common sense. It is simple that either an idea is true or it is false. There is no grey areas here because this is not an opinion, or a normative issue. The idea is either accurate when it proves the Impression from whence it claim (here God) or it is necessarily false and the idea does not lead to an Impression for it was made up by the mind. 3. Defense of Premise 3: (3.1) This is an interesting premise. I show this by telling you that the mind has no other faculty. The mind is a limited subject and either it gets its knowledge from empirical knowledge something we have ruled out. Now the other faculty is Imagination, other than reason. Now reason leads to accurate conclusions therefore we cannot say a rational idea is false. I ask my opponent to quote another faculty of the mind if he can. Only Imagination is the faculty which takes ideas and produces them in new ways, often creating false constructs. 4. Defense of Premise 4:(4.1) This is the most important premise, and I plan to defend it vehemently. 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. (4.2) 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. With this I beg to propose. [1]Treatise of Human Nature; Of Ideas, Their Composition, Connexion, and Abstraction. https://ia600306.us.archive.org...[2]Ibidium[3]Ibidium, Section 3, Of the Ideas of the Memory and Imagination Faithfully Yours, Ajab