Human social patterns point to the idea that there is no God

**Well, I got my computer to work (for now), so I will go against all the laws of happy weather and finish this argument instead** Thank you for responding! "The argument that he is trying to make – and he can correct me where I err – is that the notion of God sprung out of a human desire to have an answer to all life's mysteries." That is part of my argument, yes, but you seem to have missed the more important part, which is that, as science is explaining more and more things, people are believing less and less in a God. Yes, I do attribute that confusion mostly to my own underemphasis of that point, as it should have been the gist of my argument, and it failed to be. To avoid further confusion, the so-called "social patterns" are that people use God to fill in the blanks, but now that science and well-supported theories are filling in those blanks, people no longer need to believe in a God to fill in those blanks. The fact that we are letting go of the belief in a God is the same as how you slowly let go of the belief in Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy. As you thought of a more viable explanation for certain things, you decide that what is still left blank probably has a better explanation than the easter bunny. If you still believe in Santa, the tooth fairy, and the Easter bunny, I apologize for ruining your life. "Instead, what we find deeply rooted in virtually all cultures, near and far, is an understanding of god(s) interacting with human experience, god(s) who are deeply involved in even the most intimate parts of humanity." The best way to envision my point is by thinking about the restoration of great paintings. A good example of that is the last supper (no pun intended). It has been restored at least five times (wiki). Before it is restored, it has holes and it's hard to see, so you have to imagine what should be there. Even now, it still has many cracks and wear, where you would have to imagine what is there. I will include the picture for your reference (http://upload.wikimedia.org...). But each time it is restored, paint fills those cracks and you won't have to imagine anymore. What we see now is a collaboration of every restoration from the original Leo to the newest restoration, and everything in between. Life is the last supper. What we knew at first is what's still left of the original: not much. You would have to imagine quite a bit and many parts would probably not be exactly what Da Vinci intended. So, it is open to interpretation. So, that was around the time that there were Pagans and Mayans and Jews (maybe not Christians or Muslims yet), but my point is, the different views were about evenly spread into many different cultures and civilizations. Add in the next few restorations, and what is left of them. Still not much, but more than the original. This is when people were starting to recognize some scientific fact not upheld by religion (Sorry, but the sun is bigger than 14 inches in diameter).Then there was the massive 20-year restoration which ended in '99. before it, there were many holes, and a few errors. So they fixed it. This includes fixing scientific errors, such as the sun revolving around the earth, as well as filling in more blanks. This can be thought of as a scientific revolution of sorts. There are not many places that are terribly hard to make out, and the painting looks new. Science has steeled in, and most phenomena have been proven (The earth is round), strongly supported by evidence, so much so that it is practically proven (think evolution), and well thought out, well evidenced theories (think Wegener's theory). Some people still choose to believe against those, but the options are opening up, and many people are seeming to think that scientific evidence is more viable than a book of so-called divine fact. Your argument about a personal God, if I got it right (alas, it was a bit hard to follow--I'm pretty sure Madonna exists...), you are saying that god exists only in ones own mind. If I got that right, that is a bit far fetched. I was referring to a monotheistic God, Adonai, Allah, or whatever you wish to call it, but I'm basically trying to prove that God is a figment of one's own imagination. Therefore, your argument that God is inside all of us and to each his own (if that is your argument, that is) is not a valid point. "Yet, for some reason, among all the copious cultures and interdependent, unrelated tribes and societies, there is a strained consistency to have a belief in a personal god or god(s). This consistency stands with friction against the resolution." Actually, it supports it. You look at all the different religions, and many believe in a god, but all different. They are seeing the painting just a little differently, but the are still seeing it. "Contention 2: Moral Propositions and Logical Absolutes" There is world of difference between God and morals. I don't believe in God, and you don't see me going out and shooting people, yet Al Quaeda is a very religious group. "Anthropologists have found that in some cultures where religious teachings are withheld from children, the children still believe there is a God (1)." I read the article, and it goes to prove my point that people can fill in the blanks. Young children wouldn't understand evolution because you'd have to understand genetics and genetic variation, as well as reproduction, so obviously it would be easier for a four year old to understand that some magical person in the sky waved his finger and stuff appeared. I remember when I was a little kid and was on airplanes I would always look out the window and look for God, thinking he was some really big dude that was sitting on the clouds. Obviously now I know that that's wrong. Why is that? My frontal lobe is more developed now. I have a better sense of logic and reason than I did then. There is a reason that most 4 year olds believe in a higher power, and that is one of the patterns (though not necessarily social) that is evidence that there is not a God. "Moreover, my opponent's grand assumption is that some how the human tendency to believe in God is evidence that God does NOT exist!" Yes and no. I'm saying that that is a major part, and the more science that is readily available to society, the fewer people believe in God. To go back to the last supper, because I like that analogy, humans have a tendency to fill in the blanks, even though there is nothing there, but once someone physically fills in the blanks, there is no need to imagine anymore, because you know the truth of exactly what it looks like. Hopefully my power jack will hold out long enough to post a round 3, but if not, I'd just like to thank you for a great debate which has been very interesting and thought provoking, and may the best man win! Also, there is no rush to post the next round... Enjoy the weather, I don't need your argument urgently or anything...