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

Thank you for Con, for allowing me to still do this debate. I had an unexpectedly busy weekend. Very Sorry, but Thanks once again.CLARIFICATIONSI do not like when I have to spend an entire round clarifying my previous round, due to mal-interpretation. Whats important to understand is that as I did FF my last round, what I'm going to demonstrate now is nothing new. As discussing anything new would be highly abusive on my part. So what I plan on showing to my readers in this final round is how literally every argument I had was either dropped or completely mishandled due to lack of comprehension. Therefore can be stilled deemed absolutely valid. When I use "1)", "2)", etc.., they are my responses to the same exact numbered arguments Athos gave in Round 31) My analysis on thought was contextualized in the rather large quote I gave by Martin Buber. I was not saying thought is flawed, as this is nonsensical. Refer to the last four sentences of the quote for this context.2) I simply did not want to waste time on rectifying the sexist passages in the Bible, as it was irrelevant to my main argument which explained why there is sexism. 3) I believe Athos thinks I was offending him when I gave my "humbleness" shpheal. My remarks were regarding debates on God, in general. I never meant those remarks to come across as exclusive to Athos, it includes everyone, me also.4) The statement by Athos, " He also says: 'God must be brought down to fit into human concepts and definitions' This doesn't make for a strong argument. Brought down by who? Humans? Which humans? Moses, Prophets, Pharaohs. His argument is circular, and would go something like this: 'God is more probable, because humans said God is more probable'. The fact that the Judeo-Christian God and the Gods of different cultures display human characteristics (a fact that Con conceded to, which is why he's trying to give explanation) shows that 'It is more probable that humans created God...' "I'm not claiming God must literally be brought down. I'm stating that the second humans conceptualize God in finited terms such as words, definitions, and finite concepts is the same instant God has been misinterpreted. Because God in her essence is immaterial, non-observable, and infinite. So it is the conceptualizing of every single human that brings down God. And it is due to this conceptualization that God is reflective of human, finite conditions.This goes flat-out conceded, as he completely mis-interpreted it. Thus his only response is the one in bold. Which is actually half right, humans created the finite reflection of God but not God.Therein THE KILLER In a world where Athos concedes that God is reflective of man due to the finite interpretation of God, he absolutely refutes all of his argument given in Round 2, except for cognitive dissonance. Athos cannot prove that God was created by man if all of his arguments are answered by this one argument on the finite interpreting the infinite. And Athos himself did not try to argue when I said my argument was attempting to answer all of his. This one argument litterally solves for all of his contentions in Round 2, expect for cognitive dissonance, and it goes conceded due to the mal-interpretation. 5) Here Athos defines myth, and states due to the common sense definitions, I lose by default. Very debate-worldish of him, but I'll respond anyhow. Those definitions don't hurt my case in any manner, which is why I used the word. My myth analysis is nothing new, it's the same philosophy that J.R.R. Tolkien used to convert C.S. Lewis. Lewis said all myths are lies and deceit, and Tolkien, I guess blew his mind when he said myths, although told through fables and such, are capable of carrying truth through them. So the fact that the myth is not factual says nothing about the truth that it's attempting to explain or conceptualize. He then went on to explain to Lewis how Jesus was a myth that happened to be historical too.[2]6) Here Athos claims Jesus is not an important matter. That's really his only response. Had this blip been warranted, maybe Athos, would've been correct, but he dropped alot of claims by me. These drops subsequently make Jesus very important to demonstrating the resolution is not correct.ONE: He concedes all of my analysis on how Jesus is a uniquely expressed God and that he existed.SECOND: Jesus reflected NO human qualities, thus does not link to any of his arguments whatsoever. THIRD: Very, very oddly, Athos concedes, what I thought was going to receive the most clash, which is there were 500 hundred witnesses to Jesus defying death. ThereinTHE KILLERIn a world where Athos concedes that Jesus reflected neither human nor cultural qualities, none of his contentions link. Further more when Athos concedes that Jesus was witnessed rising from the dead by 500 people, he also concedes an immaterial entity at work. These two admission are damning to the proponent case, as it is now incomprehensible how the resolution can possibly be affirmed.7) Cognitive dissonance.I said in Round 2, "Such arguments are relative to your worldview," then I demonstrated why that was.My opponent responded by saying "the same could be said about my opponent as well."So his rebuttal was repeating me. Therein Athos and I agree that cognitive dissonance applies to both side, thus is pointless in bringing it up. 8) TAGAthos blips on the topic, "Con's reference to T.A.G., while relevant, does nothing to help his argument, because the argument it self is inconclusive."I really wish I knew why, but Athos once again gives claim with no warrant. My analysis given round 2, explains why exactly T.A.G. is very conclusive, in it's nature. It demonstrates that God is needed to even reason. So if Athos claims his reasoning demonstrates that God does not exist, then God exists. Such an argument is clearly conclusive, unless demonstrated otherwise. I'm asking Athos to account for his reasoning, which is the genesis of his arguments anyways. T.A.G. makes debaters justify their claim to truth in their arguments. ThereinTHE KILLER When Athos concedes that the reasoning in his arguments is not warranted by the presupposition of the neo-naturalist worldview then he undermines his own platform. If Athos wanted to avoid this argument he should have justified the evasiveness with more than just a blip, as I have given a substantial amount of reasons to the importance of T.A.G. Because Athos did not defend the rationality in his worldview, he is left with none, subsequently this is an admission that there is no rationality in his arguments. Given this conceded reality the resolution, once again, become incomprehensible to affirm. The New Argument of Sigmund FreudI'm fine with a new argument, as it is only fair since I missed the last round. Albeit, I have limited space now, so I may not have a conclusion.With Freud, though, lies the same problem that cognitive dissonance has. The reason for this is because psychology applies to every thinking mind. Psychological theories and principals are the genesis and motivation for us being proponents of either atheism or theism. No side is the exception to this.We have different stories here offered by Freud. Stories that are hard to refute because of their nature--a theory of no factual basis. If your atheist then it's easy to subscribe to them. If your theist then you'd subscribes Carl Jung's psychology's take of God. And how the collective consciousness, demonstrated through the researched unconsciousness, proves an immaterial existence in the universe [1]. Psychology, and how you interpret it, is relative to your worldview, and I have already demonstrated that Athos has undermined his.With the miracle of Jesus, finite interpretations of the inconceivable infinite, and T.A.G. all being conceded the affirmation of today's resolution fails, and the Con case becomes the inevitable. *sources in comment box*