The Instigator
ATHOS
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
jwesbruce
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

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

Do you like this debate?NoYes+3
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/6/2012 Category: Religion
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,206 times Debate No: 24608
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (6)
Votes (0)

 

ATHOS

Pro

Definitions:

God =The Judeo-Christian God. The supernatural being that is believed to have created the universe and humans.

Create = To make something, to bring something into existence whether it be a physical object or just an idea.

Rounds:

1) Acceptance
2) Arguments
3) Arguments / rebuttals
4) Conclusion / final comments

Rules:

1) 1st round is for acceptance only.
2) No circular reasoning.
3) I trust this debate will be respectful.

*Note: In this debate I do not intend disprove the existence of God. I merely intend to show that it is more probable that God is just an idea.


I will be arguing for Pro.

Thanks in advance to anyone who accepts, and goodluck!
jwesbruce

Con

Your move
Debate Round No. 1
ATHOS

Pro

Definitions:

God =The Judeo-Christian God. The supernatural being that is believed to have created the universe and humans.

Create = To make something, to bring something into existence whether it be a physical object or just an idea.

Rounds:

1) Acceptance
2) Arguments
3) Arguments / rebuttals
4) Conclusion / final comments

Rules:

1) 1st round is for acceptance only.
2) No circular reasoning.
3) I trust this debate will be respectful.

*Note: In this debate I do not intend disprove the existence of God. I merely intend to show that it is more probable that God is just an idea.


I will be arguing for Pro.

Thanks in advance to anyone who accepts, and goodluck!


Before I post my argument I would like to add one more definition. I'm sure Con will agree.


Added definition:


Human = A member of the genus Homo and especially of the species H. sapiens




In my argument I will also quote a few Bible verses. Since this debate is about the Judeo-Christian God, I feel the Bible is a good source to demonstrate the similarities between God and humans.


I will also make reference to other god(s) that humans have been known to worship, to further strengthen my resolution.
(specifically *Greek and *Norse mythology)

Is it more probable that humans created god?
Yes. Why?


A psychological necessity to reduce 'cognitive dissonance'[A]
During the time of early humans the world was a frightening place to survive in. Early humans needed a way to help them understand the natural world, when natural phenomenon could not be understood-God was the answer.They also needed a way to deal with their own imperfections. A God with attributes like perfection, wisdom and strength may have helped them on a psychological level.

Humans have created God to not only give meaning to life, but they make God perfect, because it gives them something to strive towards. The *Greeks believed in honor and war and a God who is fierce, because that was their idea of the perfect human. Of course the idea of a perfect human has changed. The perfect human is forgiving, loving, and will bring happiness and peace. Jesus Christ, as the bible said, the perfect human. What would Jesus do? The bible pushes us to act like Christ.



God displays humanistic characteristics that suggests he is neither all powerful or all knowing, therefore, suggesting human origins

Physical, psychological and emotional similarities
Why does God need us to worship him/her/it? If God was a superior being, he would not express anger to problems caused by humanism. Therefore, we can postulate that he is a man made construct because God is a *victim of humanism. The need for us to worship him and God's need for: recoginition, acceptance, love. Further more, why does God get angry? [1] If God truly exists, he would be all powerful and knowing. This in of its self would prevent God from acting or thinking like a human being, with emotions. But because God displays characteristics of man, we can most likely categorize God as a man made construct.
(*What I mean by "victim": To be affected in a negative way.)


What does God look like, and what is his position on humanistic issues? Look to *religion, and you will see man made constructs that are victims to the criteria of man's racism, *sexism and culture.
(*religion: based on the Judeo-Christian model)



"God"displays characteristics that are comparable to that of the male ego [B]
In *Greek mythology or *Norse mythology, why are the all powerful dieities men? Why is God often described as a man, or why are all of the most important and powerful Gods placed in the bodies of men? In almost every culture, women play a secondary role in society, and even in western culture and religion this remains true. God, if he existed, would have told his first followers that he was an 'IT' not man, not women. Yet, looking at all the hymns, paintings and writings, what do they refer to God as? He. Not she, because Judeo-Christian based religions is suggestive of *sexism.

*sexism in the Bible:


'And to the woman [God] said, ‘I will make most severe your pains in childbearing; in pain shall you bear children. Yet your urge shall be for your husband, and he shall rule over you."
-Genesis 3:16


"Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience as also saith the law. And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church'
-1 Corinthians 14:34-35


'
A womanshould learn in quietness and full submission. I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man, she must be quiet.'

-1 Timothy 2:11-12

One may be inclined to say it was misinterpreted. But, would it be logical to think that an omnipotent God would allow his message to be misinterpreted?


Did God create man to his own image or is it just the reverse?

Let’s have a look at the characteristics of God, it’s very strangely to what we would want him to be. Man’s greatest fears are: Loneliness, sickness, death and all that is taken care of by God.

*God Characteristics:

We don’t like being alone: *God is omnipresent (even when no one is with us) and is with us at all times; he never let’s us down.

We want some comfort especially through difficult times: *God is always with us and will help us when we are in trouble

We want to be forgiven for what wrong we have done and be able to start again with a clean slate: *God forgives.

We don’t want things to end when we die – humans fear Death: *God never gives up on us even when we die; instead we are brought closer to God, in paradise.

We don’t like unfairness: *God sees all and punishes unfairness.


If God truly existed, he would not express anger to any type of humanism. Being all powerful and knowing would prevent this. But because he displays Human characteristics like angry, pride, need for acceptance, and apperance. This proves that he is not all powerful and knowing. He is more like a glorified man. Which then leaves the final conculsion, that he probably was created as an idea, and based on the facts I presented, it is highly probable that God is a man made construct.


[1] Angery God:

The LORD is a jealous God, filled with vengeance and wrath. He takes revenge on all who oppose him and furiously destroys his enemies! The LORD is slow to get angry, but his power is great, and he never lets the guilty go unpunished. He displays his power in the whirlwind and the storm. The billowing clouds are the dust beneath his feet. At his command the oceans and rivers dry up, the lush pastures of Bashan and Carmel fade, and the green forests of Lebanon wilt. In his presence the mountains quake, and the hills melt away; the earth trembles, and its people are destroyed. Who can stand before his fierce anger? Who can survive his burning fury? His rage blazes forth like fire, and the mountains crumble to dust in his presence. The LORD is good. When trouble comes, he is a strong refuge. And he knows everyone who trusts in him. But he sweeps away his enemies in an overwhelming flood. He pursues his foes into the darkness of night.
-Nahum 1:2-8 NLT


A] (1) http://en.wikipedia.org...
(2)http://wsuprof.com...

'The theory of cognitive dissonance states that contradicting information serves as a driving force that compels the mind to acquire or invent new thoughts or beliefs, or to modify existing beliefs, so as to reduce the amount of dissonance (conflict) between cognitions. An alternative, increasingly applied in today's society is to avoid, selectively list, or reinterpret information we receive that is at odds with our currently held views.'
-Leo Festinger [C]

[C] http://en.wikipedia.org...










jwesbruce

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.

"At times when man is overcome by the horror of the alienation between I and world, it occurs to him that something might be done. Imagine that at some dreadful midnight you lie there, tormented by a waking dream, the bulwarks have crumbled and the abysses scream, and you realize in the midst of this agony that life is still there and I must merely get through to it - but how? how? Thus feels man in the hours when he collects himself; overcome by horror, pondering, without direction. And yet he may know the right direction, deep down in the unloved knowledge of the depths - the direction of return that leads through sacrifice. BUT he reject this knowledge, what is 'mystical' cannot endure the artificial midnight sun. He summons thought in which he places, quite rightly, much confidence: thought is supposed to fix everything. After all, it is the lofty art of thought that it can paint a reliable and practically credible picture of the world." Martin Buber.

In Response to Athos thoughts on : Sexism (albeit taken grossly out of context), the humanistic characteristics of God, Similarities to the male ego, and the Angry God.

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.

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.

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.

Therein, for example, Athos's example of the Greeks making warrior gods. Well of course, for them to conceive of God they had to bring the infinite, unknowable into knowable, finite terms that reflected their culture: fighting, struggling (as Greek gods did much), and poetry.)

This reality links to almost all of Athos's arguments and answers for them.


JESUS, A MYTH OF HISTORICAL FOUNDATION



So humans have countless accounts of us trying to explain the infinite, divine intelligence.

One myth that is unique in it's historical and representative basis is that of Jesus.

First, as Athos eagerly points out, Jesus represents perfection.

Second, Jesus is unique because he is representative of God reaching out to humans, not humans reaching out to God.

Third, Jesus was not a god clearly reflected of culture, as the Jews at the time wanted war, rebellion, and revenge against the Romans. So even, though, Athos tries to demonstrate that Jesus was the product "of the new perfect human being" his statement is vastly outside of any historical basis. Jesus was a disappointment to his religion.

Fourth, the greater portion of the historical community agrees that Jesus is an actual historical figure. If Athos wants to engage me on this, I gladly welcome it. [1][2]

Fifth, Jesus was not about humanly pleasures, politics, wars, ego, pride, and humanly concerns and qualities. Instead he taught people to empty themselves of their humanistic qualities and just connect to their souls. A vastly different teaching than given in most culture's attempts to conceive of God. Philippians 2 says : "Let the same mind be in you that was in Christ Jesus, who, thought he was in the form of God, did not regard equality with God as something to be explored but emptied himself, taking the form of a slave being born in human likeness, and being found in human form, he humbled himself and became obedient to the point of death - even death on a cross."
Sixth, Jesus came back to life from death at the cross, which fulfilled the prophecies of the old testament. They're were five hundred witnesses and after this Christianity became a rapidly growing religion.

Thus the story of Jesus, reasonably so, is a true myth.


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.

Now I have quite a bit of space left, so I'll start a new point. It's slightly distracted from the topic but in the broader sense is still entirely relevant.


T.A.G.


Athos and I can dance around this topic for infinity. The fact of the matter is is that we both clearly show biases toward our worldview. We both interact with the same world, just with different subjective lenses. We will look at the same facts and claim differing implications. The question over the validness of God ultimately reaches back to the presuppositions of each of our worldviews. Thus the ultimate test of our opposing worldviews must come in the form of TAG. What TAG helps us do is discount the worldview, theism or atheism, that does not meet the following obligations:

FIRST: The accounting of the worldview is applied to everyday life.

SECOND: The accounting does not contradict the presupposition of the worldview.

ACCOUNTING OF LOGIC

We know the laws of logic are abstract, as in they are not a object in nature. There is also no variance to the laws of logic. Thirdly, we also know that it is a universal truth. It does not need to be tested in different times and places.

To say they are material, variant, or conventional is to say that the Law of Non-Contradiction (LNC) could be false in some time or place. But the laws of logic, which are our mechanism for observation and subsequently thought, must be treated absolute and invariant to be reliable in their form at all therefore the FIRST obligation has not been met. Now the presupposition of atheism is nature and the cosmos is all there is and all there ever was. The cosmos, however, is not absolute and it is not abstract. Therein the SECOND obligation has not been met, as the account for logic contradicts the worldview's.

God is invariant, immutable, and universal so he account for these conditions of human reasoning.


[1]http://en.wikipedia.org...
[2]http://www.xenos.org...
[3]http://en.wikipedia.org...
Debate Round No. 2
ATHOS

Pro



Again, I would like to thank my opponent for accepting and for not forfeiting R2

Note: It appears Con did not follow the debate format. 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...
jwesbruce

Con

jwesbruce forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
ATHOS

Pro

Sigmund Freud





According to Freud, religion was also an illusion. He believed that the human mind had created religion to help us deal with our inner psychological conflict, the conflict between our societies, and our helplessness and fear of nature. Religion was something that answered our inner needs, but was not necessarily a false belief.

His work on religion centred on its role in the overcoming of inner fear and turmoil. This process was associated with the minds development into adulthood – which also dealt with how the mind reacted to traumatic experiences. If traumatic experiences were not resolved they could re-emerge in later life from the subconscious mind and lead to further trauma. He dealt with patients who had neurotic attitudes as regards to hygiene or tidiness, and felt that religion operated on a similar level, in that it was a collective neurosis stemming from repressed traumatic memories from the unconscious mind, and being of course sexual, religion was an illusion resulting from sexual difficulties.

Fred was influenced by the work of early naturalists and anthropologists and he believed that primitive humans were divided into hordes. In these hordes were the dominant males, who were afforded first pick of breeding females, and headed the horde. Eventually, the younger males in the group became resentful of the dominant male and eventually plotted to kill him. After his death they began to experience a feeling of traumatic collective guilt, and they began to idolise the male as a father figure. This idol then became a way of controlling guilt, which Freud called animism, and then the dead male became almost divine, leading to the religious phase.

Religion was also a method of us overcoming our fear of nature and the universe. Humans are unable to control the shifting and dynamic conditions of the world, and this induces dear and panic – we are defenceless against higher forces. Religion helps this by creating the belief that there is a higher power controlling nature that can protect us from the world

Freud argued that religion was a method of dealing with inner guilt, and combined with a fear of natural forces, which led to the need for a belief in a father figure.
http://www.alevelphilosophy.com...


That's all I have. Handing it back to Con.
jwesbruce

Con

Thank you for Con, for allowing me to still do this debate. I had an unexpectedly busy weekend. Very Sorry, but Thanks once again.


CLARIFICATIONS


I 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 3

1) 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.


Therein


THE KILLER


In 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) TAG

Athos 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.

Therein


THE 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 Freud


I'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*
Debate Round No. 4
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by ATHOS 5 years ago
ATHOS
Whoa, eeeaaasssy big fella.......hold on, it's a friday night. Going out for a little while. We have time. Patience is virtue.
Posted by jwesbruce 5 years ago
jwesbruce
Hey, well I ain't going out for the next 3 hours, so lets get it goin'
Posted by ATHOS 5 years ago
ATHOS
Take your time, bro. :)
Posted by jwesbruce 5 years ago
jwesbruce
haha I believe you
Posted by ATHOS 5 years ago
ATHOS
@Con-jwesbruce. 1st round is for acceptance only, just a friendly reminder.
No votes have been placed for this debate.