The major premise can be shown to be true.

"Bold" atheists do more than simply assert their lack of belief that there be any God. "Bold" atheists have been know to affirm that: - Man did originate the idea/concept - of God through the power of imagination. Words have meanings and implications. One very simple, uncontroversial implication from the above affirmative claim, preliminary to being able to reach that conclusion, is that man had the ability to make such use of any powers of imagination that he might have had. That implied premise would look like this: - Man was able to originate the - idea/concept of God through the power - of imagination. The "Bold" atheist has also been known to deny that the origin/idea of God is the result of man's use of his powers of reason (i.e., that there is a logically valid argument based on real world evidence that would lead someone devoid of the idea/concept of God to conclude that there was a God) and to also deny that the idea/concept of God resulted from a God revealing himself to man. From the "Bold" atheist affirmed conclusion and implied premise, the following very simple, logically valid argument (i.e., so constructed that if its premises are true its conclusion will follow as true therefrom) may be properly constructed (i.e., inferred): Major Premise: - IF (A) man was able to originate the - idea/concept of God through the power - of imagination, - THEN (B) man did originate the - idea/concept of God through the power - of imagination. Minor Premise: - (A) Man was able to originate the - idea/concept of God through the power - of imagination. Conclusion: - (B) Man did originate the idea/concept - of God through the power of imagination. I recognize that there are many "not-so-bold" atheists who may, when pressed, simply admit they do not believe that there is any God, further admitting or implying that the origin of the idea/concept of God may have resulted from man's powers of imagination, man's power of reason, or even from God having revealed himself to man. The argument in this exercise is not designed to address the "not-so-bold" atheist position. It is designed to address the "bold" atheist position and illustrate the point that there are implications leading to premises which "bold" atheists believe to be true, implicitly or explicitly, but which premises cannot be shown to be true. The exercise has a number of utilitarian purposes and other points may be made depending upon how those daring to engage the exercise might deal with the various steps that make up the exercise. This discussion is only about one of the steps of the exercise. This discussion is the direct result of recent comments from an anonymous poster using the ID of "bladerunner060" who, along with others, demonstrated various unresolved problems with the exercise; establishing one or more of the points to be made in the presentation of the exercise. The development and presentation of the exercise has been very successful in very simply dealing with an important public issues which is quite commonly discussed in the public square. Personally, I don't think there is any legitimate rebuttal to my position that the following statement is believed, implicitly or explicitly, to be true by the "bold" atheist and that it has not been shown to be true: - IF (A) man was able to originate the - idea/concept of God through the power - of imagination, - - THEN (B) man did originate the - idea/concept of God through the power - of imagination. This discussion is not about whether anyone agrees with me regarding my inferences from the "bold" atheist affirmation. Such issues are for another time and place. This discussion is only about whether anyone will admit to implicitly or explicitly affirming the truth of the major premise as set forth above. If there be any legitimate contender who wants to set forth their basis as to why we should accept that premise as true, or why they believe it to be true, one round should be enough to simply set forth their position; just the simple, straightforward basis explaining why the premise should be accepted as true or why you believe it to be true. As for me, I think the major premise is false because there are other alternatives which the "bold" atheist, in making the affirmative claim that "man created God", does not allow for.