God Is Nothing More Than An Emotional Construct

This debate does not deal with any sort of thing other than belief(and then on morality). My opponent is quick to implement his own idea of what my argument was to be; this both amuses me as it leaves me in a state of confusion. Do refrain from any such diversion of topic in the future, thank you. Now, the basis of the entire argument is discussion whereupon the prospect of either significant or tautological origins are to be revealed. Thus, the entirety of the argument exists prior to being identical to the aforesaid fallacy because we are discussing here whether the appeal to origin is in fact irrelevant or not. I'm sorry to say, but if there is an explanation of the believe in God(as in a psycho-emotional one) it does necessarily follow that the belief in God is false. This is Occam's Razor being utilized in a very simple fashion. If we can explain it in more bare of a terminology, then any outstanding belief is superfluous and thusly it is false. To put this analogously, the belief in a given Sun God would entail that a group of people(hereinafter 'ï¿½ˆ‚') would at night and before sunrise do some specific type of dance to please the Sun God in order to ensure that the sun will rise(for the practical sake of ï¿½ˆ‚). Now, if it was understood that these collections of rituals were composed solely on the grounds of first assigning the role of authority to what is unknown and mysterious and second pressing into service the anthropomorphic mode of pleasing this authority(which is an intrinsically anthropomorphic typicality per se) [which would strictly be defined around ï¿½ˆ‚'s behavior], we then would deem the Sun God in its totality an inefficient description of reality(to make an important distinction, this does not mandate that the Sun God is in any case worthless, but as its existence is only relevant wherein it approaches 0, he is therefore infinitesimal and only by a sliver of theory 'possible'. Do not misconstrue this notion, though. Just because something is possible does not by any circumstance legislate that it does in fact exist. A unicorn could possibly exist, but this possibility is not sufficient to say that it actually does). I'm afraid there is no parity of emotionality as in what you've pointed out. This is actually the reason why (to use your notation) person B is more correct than person A. To explain why it is incorrect to appeal to parity, let me explore the difference between significant and tautological propositions. Tautological propositions, broadly speaking, are reflexive statements of identity. Significant statements, again to put it broadly, are synthetic a priori judgements, as in they are reflexive, yet they yield to some new (or 'significant') information about the object. Con is herein essentially trying to say that the relation between emotionality and the subject with respect to belief in God is tautological. He presents his case by presupposing that there is an underlying symmetry between the two descriptions. This is the fallacious part. The fact of the matter is, you can call person B's belief the doing away of a father figure, but this does not describe person B's belief as well as the inverse describes person A's. Again my opponent chooses to delve into the realm of possibility in order to support the subconsciousness of his argument without actually looking at the historical development of religion/spirituality. God, to paraphrase Freud, is a belief via the unknown. Science(connoted to be the antithesis of the Judaeo-Christian faith) is a belief via the known. Your example is homologous to this distinction, and opting for the tautological nature of both, like I said, presupposes a parity which in actuality does not exist. Illogic and logic are founded upon the aforementioned respectively, and therefore it is illogical to prescribe a 'need' and a 'doing away with' as one in the same, by being inversive, through semantics. In very simple terms, the desire to do away with something is not necessarily an emotional pursuit like how the desire to have something(or the 'longing' for something) necessarily IS an emotional pursuit. It does not cut both ways. (i) Is ambiguous enough so to the point where it breaches into the domain of falsity(through definition). The cause can be nothing. (Read; Sartre - 'Being and Nothingness') Things spontaneously happen at literally ever interval of time that can possibly be conceived of(See; Particle Physics). Therefore (iii) does not syllogistically follow. By the way, anything did pop into existence, the universe is precisely that. That was a possibilistic proof to combat your own possibilistic 'proof'. Now, for an objective one: The universe is the result of hyper dimensional brane interaction(as per M-theory and modern day Cosmology). There is no reason that this should have been a conscious interaction. A tree is struck by lightning to create fire, there is no conscious impetus involved, only an inert one. So, yes, we do get an infinite regression of cause, but none of them need to be conscious. Your conception of the Big Bang is outdated. It is now understood that space travels at a velocity faster than the speed of light, and thusly space in itself did not have its origins in the Big Bang(which does leave the latter 3 to being indigenous to our universe, so yes on that much). Your espoused philosophical argument is a priori illogical seeing as how an infinity cannot be contained inside of two definite finitudes. That isn't a veritable infinity, just a vast finitism, so in theory you would eventually get the burger. The bit about the Second Law of Thermodynamics I do concede with, however this is not detrimental to my argument seeing as how I am not denying the second premise. The last part, where you enthrone God, is through [again] possibilistic definition, and it does not necessarily need to be that, "The transcendent cause of the origin of the universe must be an un-embodied mind". The fact of the matter is, this, even as a representation of a more subtle concept, is still nothing more than a human identifying a non-human entity through the means of familiarity(see;anthropomorphism/personification). No sources were necessary, I do look forward to what Con has to say in response.