Religion Is Man-Made.

The assertion is "Religion is man-made" and so the burden of proof has fallen upon Pro, who has already provided evidence for the claim. In order to refute the assertion, it is both necessary and sufficient to demonstrate the weakness of the supporting points. However, it is not my goal to demonstrate that religion is divine in origin, only that the assertion in question is likely false.Due to character limitations, ellipsis and brackets have been inserted where appropriate. Now, for the points.Point 1: We have 20 different, major religions,and each religion has different sects built into it, each claiming it holds the absolute truth concerning life and it's meaning. [...]Rebuttal 1: First, there are not necessarily 20 different "major" religions. According to the World Factbook, published by the Central Intelligence Agency, there are not more than 13 "major" religions. However, this is a only minor point, as the number varies depending upon who is counting. (http://www.adherents.com...)Second, it is true that many religions seem to say the same basic things, but that is only in terms of morality. The other aspects of their theologies are wildly different, as any superficial or even deeper foray into religious studies will reveal. Again, this point is minor.Point 2: Now Islam contradicts Christianity on it's most major event which is the Crucifixion of Jesus Christ, and vice versa. [...]Rebuttal 2: Christianity and Islam do contradict concerning the Crucifixion, but this does not make them mutually exclusive. There are interpretations of the Quran, the Muslim holy book, that allow for any monotheist, regardless of particular religious affiliation, to fall into the good graces of Allah, the God of Islam. (http://en.wikipedia.org...) Likewise, though few in number, there are Christians who believe that the Christian religion is not the only path to salvation. (http://en.wikipedia.org...)The final claim, that Buddhism teaches that there is no divine, is irrelevant, as Buddhism does not claim exclusivity with other religions. According to His Holiness, the Dalai Lama: "People from different traditions should keep their own, rather than change. For individual practitioners, having one truth, one religion, is very important. I am Buddhist. Therefore, Buddhism is the only truth for me, the only religion. To my Christian friend, Christianity is the only truth, the only religion. To my Muslim friend, [Islam] is the only truth, the only religion. In the meantime, I respect and admire my Christian friend and my Muslim friend." (http://www.zenit.org...)---The three solutions that Pro has set up are a sort of false trilemma. There is a fourth option. It is possible that all three of the religions are true but that people have have misinterpreted the religions as being exclusive. As Pro himself has said, morality is common ground that many religions share. If the main goal then is simply being a good person, there is no real contradiction between religions.Point 3: [False trilemma point 1]Rebuttal 3: In violation of rule 5, Pro has failed to provide evidence for this claim. There has been no evidence presented that either the Bible or Quran contains a claim such as "God can't be mistaken." (Buddhism is nontheistic, so its sacred works are not from any deity, meaning the nonexistent claim cannot be found. Unless Pro means to intentionally exclude Buddhism from the false trilemma.) Until evidence is presented, nullius in verba.Furthermore, it cannot be concluded, based upon the first point in the false trilemma, that all three religions are false simply because there are alleged contradictions. Ignoring the fact that Buddhism has been excluded for some reason, it is possible that the holy books have been misinterpreted and that Islam and Christianity are not mutually exclusive. Hinduism , for example, teaches that all religions lead to the truth. (http://www.religionfacts.com...) Compare with Bahá'í's similar claim: (http://en.wikipedia.org...(Bah%C3%A1%27%C3%AD)Point 4: [False trilemma point 2]Rebuttal 4: In violation of rule 4, Pro has used personal sentiment in his point. Actually, this is quite convenient for me; subjective repulsion is not an argument. There is no reason why God has to be considered fair by Pro's personal estimation. It is possible that one religion is true and that many people are just unfortunate to have been born outside that religion. (Take into consideration John Calvin's Christian theology of predestination.) Perceived fairness or unfairness is irrelevant. The truth of a claim is not contingent upon whether a person likes it.Point 5: [False trilemma point 3]Rebuttal 5: In violation of rule number 5, Pro has failed to provide evidence for these claims, which sound more like speculation than sound points. Nullius in verba. No evidence has been presented demonstrating that religion was created in order to control people. No evidence has been presented demonstrating that religion was created in order to scare people. No evidence has been presented that religion was founded by persons with ulterior motives. No evidence has been presented that persons of faith suffer from a psychological illness. (I apologize, for my opponent, to all members of the spiritual and religious community.)False trilemma points 1-2 do not constitute convincing evidence for the claim "Religion is man-made." As I have shown, the points do not conclusively demonstrate that religion is man-made. False trilemma point 3 is speculation, as no evidence was presented for its claims.---Point 6: History holds the biggest evidence that religion is man made. [...]Rebuttal 6: First, in repeated violation of rule 4, Pro has again inserted personal sentiment. An autonomous deity could intervene whenever it wanted; it doesn't matter whether a person thinks the timing is inappropriate. On the contrary, it could be argued that the alleged intervention was quite punctual, for humans seem to be the only animals capable of conceptualizing spirituality. Second, Pro has committed a fallacy of assumption. (http://books.google.com...) Using the phrase, "When religion was created..." he assumes the truth of the conclusion. Or maybe the point is in reference to when humans became religious, not when they supposedly created religion. Still, the point is fallacious, for it assumes that humans became religious. Based on available evidence, we do not know when or if humans became religious, only when they began engaging in religious practices. (http://www.archaeologyuk.org...) But engaging in a religious practice is not tantamount to possessing religious belief, and the existence of religious thought would necessarily predate physical evidence of the belief. After all, in order to do something voluntarily, it is necessary to first conceptualize the action and its reasons. How much of a duration was there between religious thought and religious action? If the duration was large, if humans possessed religious ideas shortly after receiving the appropriate neurological wiring, then it is not unreasonable to say that humans have been religious since time immemorial. If there was no definite time at which humans developed religious belief, if religiosity gradually developed as a product of evolution, then there was no definite time when humans became religious. Thus, humans never intentionally created religion, just as humans never intentionally created society itself.Hammurabi did believe that his laws were divinely inspired. [http://en.wikipedia.org... (Click go to page 27)]Our ancestors weren't stupid. Have you seen the Pyramids at Giza???