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

I hope we can enjoy ourselves and also encourage further inquiry into this very intriguing topic. My opponent beings his argument by pointing out that, over the millennia, many societies formulated hypotheses for the sole purpose of filling in the blanks. 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. The most fundamental flaw in this argument, and one that needs to be adequately addressed, is that there is absolutely no reason for cultures to posit a deeply interactive and personal God. If it is, indeed, human nature to merely make things up when no concrete, scientific answer is readily available (which needs to be at least somewhat substantiated by my opponent), then it stands to reason that societies would posit an uninvolved, clockmaker god – the god of Spinoza and Einstein. 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. ============= Contention 1: Belief in a personal God ============= The fact of the matter is that the endemic belief in a personal god is evidence that God exists. It would be epistemic imperialism to deny this fact. We can asses the verity of such a claim by replacing "god" with "cancer," "love" or "Madonna. " Insofar as the widespread belief that Madonna exists is evidence that she does. It is not conclusive evidence – I make no such claim – but it is positive evidence for a personal god, contrary to my opponent's assertion. Societal tendencies to posit a personal God are not rooted in any explicit way to man's observance of natural phenomena. 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. ============= Contention 2: Moral Propositions and Logical Absolutes ============= Though, at first glance, this may not seem like a substantive contention, it is actually strongly supportive of the existence of God. The very fact that all cultures, near and far, indigenous and advanced, can make moral propositions is evidence that God exists. When someone says that such and such is wrong, they are presupposing that "wrong" actually exists, and by virtue of wrong, that such thing as "right" exists. But just like someone cannot call a car "fast" without presupposing the objectionably measurable concept of speed, no one can call something "wrong" or "right" without presupposing an objectionably measurable concept of morality. But this can be taken further. Humanity's use of logical absolutes and their binding nature (in that all societies must accept the verity of logical absolutes) is evidence that God exists. The fact that all cultures, tribes and tongues accept, acknowledge and are bound by logical absolutes is strongly indicative that God exists. Logical absolutes are conceptual by nature and are in no way contingent upon time, space, or matter. The argument is essentially that since logical absolutes are not contingent upon time, space, matter or the human mind, then there must be a transcendent mind behind them. Since moral propositions and logical absolutes are consistent in all societies – it is positive evidence that God exists. ============= Contention 3: Anthropology and Children and My Opponent's Grand Assumption ============= Anthropologists have found that in some cultures where religious teachings are withheld from children, the children still believe there is a God (1). Societies, even when trying to suppress the notion of God, demonstrably fail because God seems to have superimposed himself deep in the consciousness of humanity. Moreover, my opponent's grand assumption is that some how the human tendency to believe in God is evidence that God does NOT exist! Our human tendency towards reason is evidence that reason does not exist? Our human tendency to love and care for one another is evidence that love does not exist and neither does servitude? The maternal tendencies of a mother are illusory because they are a tendency? Indeed, our innate human tendency to believe in reason, love, and god is evidence that those things probably do exist. Admittedly, the mistakes are made in the details – look at what the Greeks (e. g. Plato) said about love when trying to explicate it – they turned into pederasty and hedonism, this hardly proves that love does not exist, just that it does not exist in the way they sought to explain it. The failure of the details does not scathe the verity of the grander hypothesis. It stands to reason that, since society cannot influence belief in God, insofar as people will believe in God even when society seeks to withhold it, that society is of no relevant factor when considering the hypothesis that God exists. ============= Conclusion ============= In anticipation of my opponent's following round, I encourage him to look up the genetic fallacy in order to curb any logical misstep. Since my opponent has yet provided any substantive case for his position, I joyfully await his case and arguments. Sources: 1) . http://www.telegraph.co.uk... Stephen H. Langdon, Semitic Mythology, Mythology of All Races, Vol. V, Archaeol. Instit. Amer. , 1931, p. xviii.