This House Believes That A Philosophical Proof of God is Adequate For Rational Belief!

Introduction:"Philosophy misses an advantage enjoyed by the other sciences. It cannot like them rest the existence of its objects on the natural admissions of consioussness, nor can it assume that its method of cognition, either for starting or for contiuing, is one already accepted". [1] I believe this summarizes adequately what Philosophy is, it is a subject which does not rest its success on empirical bases, rather uses theoretical tools, such as logic to reach its conclusion. As we speak about God in this motion let us understand that this motion suggests that a proof of God which is not empirical can, and should work if it is shown to be logically sound. To reiterate I need not show that this or that proof is sound, but rather that a philosophical proof can be sound. I need not show that the subject of Philosophy can reach such a conclusion but that if it did, this conclusion would be rational. My opponent must show that a proof of God must be empirical insofar as this proof of God should have the ability to be empirically testifiable. He must show that a theoretical proof, unless it can be testified from a purely materialistic view, is incorrect. [1]The Lesser Logic by Hegel, §1; . http://www.marxists.org...Definitions:1. Philosophy is the study of the theoretical basis of a particular branch of knowledge or experience. [2]2. God is often conceived as the Supreme Being and principal object of faith. [3]2. Rational here, as agreed in the comments, is that which would be agreed to by a perfectly rational community. [2]. https://www.google.com...[3]http://en.wikipedia.org... (this definition is taken from the Oxford Dicitionary of Philosophy)1. Argument from Epistemology:(1.1) Let us start by understanding that not all knowledge is empirical. For certainly some knowledge is a priori and innate. We understand this by understanding our mind the subject and studying its relation with the object. Most certainly causality through time was not learn by us a posteriori however we do understand Time, as we do Space and Number. Space we understand is not a conception which has been derived from outward experiences. For, in order that certain sensations may relate to something without me (that is to something which occupies a different part of space from that in which I am); in like manner, in order that I may represent not merely as without, of, and near to each other, but also in seperate places, the representation of space must already exist as a foundation. Consequently, the representation of space cannot be aquired from from the relations of external phenomena through experience; rather this said experience is only possible due to this antecedent representation. The understanding of space, that is the very experience of space is only aquired by the foundation of space as a priori. Similarly we come now to Time. Time must be a priori for neither precession nor succession may be understood without the foundation of Time. We could not then represent to ourselves this thing or that thing as we would not understand the relation of causality betwen them. The very concept of existence is bound by Is-ness in Time. And so since one does not learn to acknowlege his own being, but does so, Time must be a priori. Number is surely a prirori for no method can systematically prove this number. If I were to take a number such a 2 then no physical or empirical proof could be provided, therefore it must be that Number is a priori. (1.2) Now that we have successfully ascertained that there is indeed knowledge that is a priori and is not empirical we will go on to show that there is innate knowledge. We will do so only to follow up to show that God is a viable category in this above category and so the phenomenon of God may be realized solely a priori. It is my aim to show that God can be an object of Philosophy. Firstly we understand that some ideas are indeed innate. While these include the idea of God I will not use that as an example for that will turn this debate into arguing that argument. Rather let us talk about Being (the best word is Dasein) which is explanined by Is-ness. If I am, then I be. This Idea must surely be innate for we know not how to learn to Be. Rather when we percieve our own exitence it is innate, this is informed to us by the fact that when we percieve someone else to be then we do not learn how they are, but that they are. There is no empirical ramification. (1.3) I must now show that God fits into this category and the proof of God has the ability to be philosophical and not empirical. This is shown by the fact that our cognition is bound by Time, Space and Number and God by definition transcends existence insofar as existence is viewed by Is-ness, for neither life not death apply to God for these phenomenon only origiante due to mans binds to a priori. It is so that a Being similar to God (one that transcends Time and Space) may empirically understand God but not humans. Therefore as there is knowledge free from the senses the proof of God could be philosophical, that is transcend the senses. [4]The Critique of Pure Reason, Introduction and Transcendental Aesthetic;. http://www2.hn.psu.edu...[5]http://plato.stanford.edu...[6]http://en.wikipedia.org...[7]http://www.britannica.com...[8] . http://en.wikipedia.org...[9]http://plato.stanford.edu...2. The Absudity of Logical Positivism:(2.1) The theory of Logical Positivism (the only alternative) is that only that knowledge that is empirically testable may be established as sound. It states that: "If there's no way to empirically test a statement, then it has no meaning (it makes no assertion that is true nor false". [10] Firstly the absurdity is determined by the fact that this theory is self-refuting. Surely you cannot empirically test the philosophy that only that which is empirically testable is true. Logical Positivism may not be empirically tested and therefore is invalid and unsound. Secondly Logical Positivism hides an ambiguity. When it says testable, testable by whom? For God would be empirically testable by a being such as God. (2.2) Instead a much more valid theory is that of Pragmatism, which states that: "if the truth or falsity of a statement could make no practical difference to anyone or anybeing, then it has no meaning. If practical differences are given, they specify the meaning". This theory which is perfectly valid, and not self-refuting allows for the idea of God. There we have now shown that there may be a correct belief of God. [10]Introduction to Logic by Harry J. Gensler, pagination 44-47; . http://f3.tiera.ru...(2ed.,%20Routledge,%202010)(ISBN%200415996511)(O)(431s)_MAml_.pdf[11]http://en.wikipedia.org...[12]http://plato.stanford.edu... (especially section 4: Issues)[13]. http://www.britannica.com...[14]http://www.phy.duke.edu... (A writer at Duke University uses formal logic to disprove LP)[15]. http://real-philosophy.livejournal.com...[16]http://www.basicincome.com...3. Philosophy Has Falsifiability:(3.1) A Major critique of Philosophy is that it does not have falsifiability. This is wrong and Philosophy does indeed have falsifiability. Firstly Philosophy follows the rules of Logic to ensure that it does not go astray. This means that using complex quanitificational and modal logic the arguments can actually be seen to work. They follow a reasonable order where if the premise is true then the conclusion follows. [17][18][19][20] (3.2) Other than following the rules of logic it follows many conditions. Largely before Kant philosophy was speculative but after Kant analytic philosophy (while narrowing philosophy) made it reach a point where it has many falsifiabilities. This is very simply proven by the fact that philosophical theories are often credited and discredited. If one can argue against the Ontological Proof or there being a priori knowlege then there is falsifiability. [17] . http://en.wikipedia.org...[18]http://plato.stanford.edu...[19]https://mally.stanford.edu...[20] . http://rkirsling.github.io...[21]http://en.wikipedia.org...[22] . http://plato.stanford.edu...[23]http://www.iep.utm.edu...[24] . http://en.wikipedia.org...[25]http://en.wikipedia.org...[26] . http://en.wikipedia.org...[27]http://en.wikipedia.org...While I agree Philosophy is fairly more theoretical than your average naturawissenschaft it is not more than Cosmology or Stephen Hawkings theories. Philosophy follows a set of rules and therefore can and should be accepted as a science so that if God is proved philosophically, the belief in God is made rational. 4. Mathematics:(4.1) Mathematics is a purely synthetic a priori subject where a theorem is built on purely theoretically. While the results may be seen the fact is that the simply rule: 1/2 X base X height cannot be empirically proven. I wish my opponent the best of luck! Ajab