It is more probable that humans created God, as opossed to God created humans.

By the process of his thought, Athos can tell himself any story of the world he sees fit. The genesis of this story is found in his thought. The justification of this story is found in his thought. This thought is formed in a mind that holds a biased against the idea of a divine intelligence. This mind of course finds itself exceptionally conducive to the thought."At times when man is overcome by the horror of the alienation between I and world, it occurs to him that something might be done. Imagine that at some dreadful midnight you lie there, tormented by a waking dream, the bulwarks have crumbled and the abysses scream, and you realize in the midst of this agony that life is still there and I must merely get through to it - but how? how? Thus feels man in the hours when he collects himself; overcome by horror, pondering, without direction. And yet he may know the right direction, deep down in the unloved knowledge of the depths - the direction of return that leads through sacrifice. BUT he reject this knowledge, what is 'mystical' cannot endure the artificial midnight sun. He summons thought in which he places, quite rightly, much confidence: thought is supposed to fix everything. After all, it is the lofty art of thought that it can paint a reliable and practically credible picture of the world." Martin Buber.In Response to Athos thoughts on : Sexism (albeit taken grossly out of context), the humanistic characteristics of God, Similarities to the male ego, and the Angry God.Athos and I are finite beings, with that comes the obligation of humbleness. This obligation is apparent when we seek to come to a resolution of the infinite and immaterial essence of God. To speak as an authoritarian in such a debate is to not know your ant to Jupiter. There must be some form of humbleness. As grasping the immaterial, while, in material form is arduous to say the least. When humans have encounters with the immaterial, it is incomprehensible. Thus finite beings must interpret encounters with the infinite in their respective language. Thus the interpretation will fall victim, first, to that culture's language. Second, that finite being's interpretation will fall victim to the context of their culture, as it shapes their paradigm of life. So in order for finite beings to conceive of the infinite, God must be brought down to fit into human concepts and definitions and relative worldviews. Thus what we know of God and the infinite falls in the hands of human myths. The myths of New Testament, Old Testament, The Bhagavad Gita, The Dhamapada, The Tao Te Ching, and many more. They all demonstrate culture's reflections of the infinite and their attempt to conceive of their interaction with it. The mechanism for said attempt is the myths told. Therein the myths will heavily be shown in the light of humanly concepts, as that is all humans can possibly conceive, but they all attempt one thing to explain their culture's interaction with the infinite. Therein, for example, Athos's example of the Greeks making warrior gods. Well of course, for them to conceive of God they had to bring the infinite, unknowable into knowable, finite terms that reflected their culture: fighting, struggling (as Greek gods did much), and poetry.) This reality links to almost all of Athos's arguments and answers for them.JESUS, A MYTH OF HISTORICAL FOUNDATIONSo humans have countless accounts of us trying to explain the infinite, divine intelligence.One myth that is unique in it's historical and representative basis is that of Jesus. First, as Athos eagerly points out, Jesus represents perfection.Second, Jesus is unique because he is representative of God reaching out to humans, not humans reaching out to God. Third, Jesus was not a god clearly reflected of culture, as the Jews at the time wanted war, rebellion, and revenge against the Romans. So even, though, Athos tries to demonstrate that Jesus was the product "of the new perfect human being" his statement is vastly outside of any historical basis. Jesus was a disappointment to his religion.Fourth, the greater portion of the historical community agrees that Jesus is an actual historical figure. If Athos wants to engage me on this, I gladly welcome it. [1][2]Fifth, Jesus was not about humanly pleasures, politics, wars, ego, pride, and humanly concerns and qualities. Instead he taught people to empty themselves of their humanistic qualities and just connect to their souls. A vastly different teaching than given in most culture's attempts to conceive of God. Philippians 2 says : "Let the same mind be in you that was in Christ Jesus, who, thought he was in the form of God, did not regard equality with God as something to be explored but emptied himself, taking the form of a slave being born in human likeness, and being found in human form, he humbled himself and became obedient to the point of death - even death on a cross." Sixth, Jesus came back to life from death at the cross, which fulfilled the prophecies of the old testament. They're were five hundred witnesses and after this Christianity became a rapidly growing religion. Thus the story of Jesus, reasonably so, is a true myth.COGNITIVE DISSONANCE This contention is very easy to turn. To quote Athos's own source on the matter,"Dissonance is aroused when people are confronted with information that is inconsistent with their beliefs. If the dissonance is not reduced by changing one's belief, the dissonance can result in misperception or rejection or refutation of the information, seeking support from others who share the beliefs, and attempting to persuade others to restore consonance."[3]Your belief is No-naturalism, I'm supposing. Your confronted with a Christian giving you information on God. That is inconsistent with your paradigm. Thus your dissonance results in your "misperception" or "rejection" or "refutation" of the information. Such arguments are relative to your worldview. Now I have quite a bit of space left, so I'll start a new point. It's slightly distracted from the topic but in the broader sense is still entirely relevant.T.A.G.Athos and I can dance around this topic for infinity. The fact of the matter is is that we both clearly show biases toward our worldview. We both interact with the same world, just with different subjective lenses. We will look at the same facts and claim differing implications. The question over the validness of God ultimately reaches back to the presuppositions of each of our worldviews. Thus the ultimate test of our opposing worldviews must come in the form of TAG. What TAG helps us do is discount the worldview, theism or atheism, that does not meet the following obligations:FIRST: The accounting of the worldview is applied to everyday life.SECOND: The accounting does not contradict the presupposition of the worldview.ACCOUNTING OF LOGICWe know the laws of logic are abstract, as in they are not a object in nature. There is also no variance to the laws of logic. Thirdly, we also know that it is a universal truth. It does not need to be tested in different times and places.To say they are material, variant, or conventional is to say that the Law of Non-Contradiction (LNC) could be false in some time or place. But the laws of logic, which are our mechanism for observation and subsequently thought, must be treated absolute and invariant to be reliable in their form at all therefore the FIRST obligation has not been met. Now the presupposition of atheism is nature and the cosmos is all there is and all there ever was. The cosmos, however, is not absolute and it is not abstract. Therein the SECOND obligation has not been met, as the account for logic contradicts the worldview's.God is invariant, immutable, and universal so he account for these conditions of human reasoning. [1]http://en.wikipedia.org...[2]http://www.xenos.org...[3]http://en.wikipedia.org...