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

R2 was for arguments. When he posted in R2, it was mixed with arguments and rebuttals. No big deal, though. I just thought I'de mention it. One of Con's arguments against mine is this:1. ) Con:'By the process of his thought, Athos can tell himself any story of the world he sees fit. The genesis of this story is found in his thought. The justification of this story is found in his thought. This thought is formed in a mind that holds a biased against the idea of a divine intelligence. This mind of course finds itself exceptionally conducive to the thought. 'Is this an attack against my thoughts, or is this an attack against my argument ? Five out of five sentences contain the word 'thought', so what do you think, voters? All arguments come from 'thoughts', so the same could be said about Con as well. 2. ) Con: 'In Response to Athos thoughts on : Sexism (albeit taken grossly out of context, . .. . ')Con claims the Bible verses I listed that suggest sexism was taken 'grossly out of context'. He has not provided any contextual clarity and failed to rectify them. 3. ) Con: '. .. the humanistic characteristics of God, Similarities to the male ego, and the Angry God. 'Here Con attempts to give reasons as to why it should be more 'probable that God created humans', despite of the fact that God has been attributed with'humanistic characteristics', 'Similarities to the male ego' and 'anger'. Con: 'Athos and I are finite beings, with that comes the obligation of humbleness. This obligation is apparent when we seek to come to a resolution of the infinite and immaterial essence of God. To speak as an authoritarian in such a debate is to not know your ant to Jupiter. There must be some form of humbleness. As grasping the immaterial, while, in material form is arduous to say the least. ' Here Con states that He and I are 'finite beings', indeed we are. Con says that 'humbleness' is an obligation, I would say that humbleness is a virtue, but not in all situations. He also says: 'To speak as an authoritarian in such a debate is to not know your ant to Jupiter', making an implication that I am prideful. Then goes on to say: 'There must be some form of humbleness. As grasping the immaterial, while, in material form is arduous to say the least. ' The resolution of this debate is clearly stated: 'It is more probable that humans created God, as opossed to God created humans. ' My pride or the quality of my 'humbleness' is competely irrelevant to the debate as stated. 4. ) Con: 'When humans have encounters with the immaterial, it is incomprehensible. Thus finite beings must interpret encounters with the infinite in their respective language. Thus the interpretation will fall victim, first, to that culture's language. Second, that finite being's interpretation will fall victim to the context of their culture, as it shapes their paradigm of life. So in order for finite beings to conceive of the infinite, God must be brought down to fit into human concepts and definitions and relative worldviews. 'With this argument Con is trying to explain why or how an 'immaterial' God resembles humans. He states it is because of discrepancies in'language' and 'culture'. 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. .. '5. ) Con: 'Thus what we know of God and the infinite falls in the hands of human myths. The myths of New Testament, Old Testament, The Bhagavad Gita, The Dhamapada, The Tao Te Ching, and many more. They all demonstrate culture's reflections of the infinite and their attempt to conceive of their interaction with it. The mechanism for said attempt is the myths told. Therein the myths will heavily be shown in the light of humanly concepts, as that is all humans can possibly conceive, but they all attempt one thing to explain their culture's interaction with the infinite. ' In this paragraph Con clearly states:'Thus what we know of God and the infinite falls in the hands of human myths. ' He provided no definition for "myth", so I'll provide one here. Myth noun 1. a traditional or legendary story, usually concerning some being or hero or event, with or without a determinable basis of fact or a natural explanation, especially one that is concerned with deities or demigods and explains some practice, rite, or phenomenon of nature. 2. stories or matter of this kind: realm of myth. 3. any invented story, idea, or concept: His account of the event is pure myth. 4. an imaginary or fictitious thing or person. 5. an unproved or false collective belief that is used to justify a social institution. . http://dictionary.reference.com... What I have listed as Con's 5th argument provides absolutely nothing to his position in this debate. 6. ) Con: 'JESUS, A MYTH OF HISTORICAL FOUNDATION' This part of my opponent's argument is also completetely irrelevant to this debate, but I will adress it. I made only one reference to Jesus in my opening argument: 'Jesus Christ, as the bible said, the perfect human. What would Jesus do? The bible pushes us to act like Christ. '. I did not mean to imply that Jesus is a myth. All I meant was that Jesus was just a human, yet many Christians give him the title of God. 7. ) Con: 'COGNITIVE DISSONANCE''This contention is very easy to turn. To quote Athos's own source on the matter,'"Dissonance is aroused when people are confronted with information that is inconsistent with their beliefs. If the dissonance is not reduced by changing one's belief, the dissonance can result in misperception or rejection or refutation of the information, seeking support from others who share the beliefs, and attempting to persuade others to restore consonance. "[3]'Your belief is No-naturalism, I'm supposing. Your confronted with a Christian giving you information on God. That is inconsistent with your paradigm. Thus your dissonance results in your "misperception" or "rejection" or "refutation" of the information. ' 'Such arguments are relative to your worldview. 'Yes, everyone experiences the effects of 'cognitive dissonance'. Once again, the same could be said about my opponent as well: 'Your confronted with an "atheist" giving you information on God. That is inconsistent with your paradigm. Thus your dissonance results in your "misperception" or "rejection" or "refutation" of the information. ' 8. ) Con: 'T. A. G. ' -Transcendental Argument for the existence of God- I will not address T. A. G. directly, but I will address my opponent's reference to it. Con: 'We both interact with the same world, just with different subjective lenses. We will look at the same facts and claim differing implications. ' True, we both look at the same facts. The fact that "God" undeniably has the physical, psychological, emotional and ego driven attributes of humans, and God is exactly what humans need God to be, and my conclusion is: 'It is more probable that humans created God''. While my opponent's conclusion is just the opposite. What does this mean? Absolutely nothing. All that matters is which conclusion is more warranted based on the factual information provided. Con's reference to T. A. G. , while relevant, does nothing to help his argument, because the argument it self is inconclusive. . http://www.infidels.org...