The Instigator
ATHOS
Pro (for)
Winning
2 Points
The Contender
DonSutherland
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

The Judeo-Christian God is derived from the ego.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
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 1 vote the winner is...
ATHOS
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/23/2014 Category: Religion
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 776 times Debate No: 53237
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (3)
Votes (1)

 

ATHOS

Pro

before accepting completely read R1.

definitions:

The Judeo-Christian God = The God that is described in The Holy Bible

derive: to have something as a source : to come from something

ego: Ego as defined in psychology (1) and as expressed by spiritual systems of thought (2) e.g: Buddhism, Advaita Vedanta and A Course In Miracles

It is important to remember that the "ego" is an aspect of the mind.

It seems that I have given "ego" a broad definition. Simply put, the ego is just the concept of self.

I listed both the psychological and spiritual definitions of ego. There are seeming differences between both definitions, but these differences occur only in the form of the definitions, while the content of both definitions are consistent. I can see no contradictions between the two.


debate format:
R1 is for acceptance only
R2 arguments
R3 rebuttals and closing arguments

I am (pro) for the resolution.

Con must argue that the "Judeo-Christian God" has a source from anywhere other than the human mind.


before accepting:
please, no devil's advocates. I intend this to be a somewhat serious debate. Preferably, someone from within the Christian sects.
Debate Round No. 1
ATHOS

Pro

Thanks to Con for accepting.

I will present the argument in the form Modus Ponens:



P1. If both god and human ego have the same characteristics, then God will have the same origin as that of the ego.


P2. Both god and human ego have the same characteristics .

C. Therefore, God has the same origin as that of the ego.





P1: Does both God and the human ego have the same characteristics?



To answer this question we must look at the Bible, and also examine what people of faith believe are the wants and needs of God.



Quick Bible synopsis:
God creates the world, then creates two people. These two screw up, then God screws them up, endowes them with death, and Eve must suffer terrible pain with child birth, that'll teach her! Then God assures them that all successive generations after them will be just as screwed as they are. It goes on that people screw up again, then God screws them with a world wide flood, except for Noah which is his favorite.



The whole of The Old Testament has this type of content. God is always defending against his creation's unacceptable behavior, it appears that he feels threatened by it. It is important to remember that from within the ego system all defenses do what they would defend.


"an eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth" Exodus 21:24




Wha
t do people of faith believe are the wants and needs of God?




People of faith express that God wants us to love him, worship, and praise him. The same can be said of the human ego, more commonly know as "ego boost"




So, does both God and the human ego have the same characteristics? I'll let the voters decide.




Human ego originates from the human mind. It is impossible for it to have come from anywhere else.
DonSutherland

Con

First I will argue with your initial construction of your argument.

It is facile to say that if God and human ego have the same characteristics, they have the same source. Correlation never equals causation and this argument is assuming precisely that.

Even if correlation did equal causation, one could just as easily come to the conclusion, given this evidence, that the human Ego has derived from God, not the other way around.

In any event, even if it were all true, you simply have stated that God and the human ego have a common ancestor, not that God is derived from the human ego.

The Judeo-Christian God is also a being placed above all humans, a being that dwarfs any human's greatness unlike the things created by the human ego, which always compliment the human(s) creating them. The human ego would feel nothing but threatened by the existence of a beings such as God.
Debate Round No. 2
ATHOS

Pro


Con says:




'
It is facile to say that if God and human ego have the same characteristics, they have the same source. Correlation never equals causation and this argument is assuming precisely that.'



What are other possible causes that could lead some people to believe in the existense of God?




Con goes on to say:




'Even if correlation did equal causation, one could just as easily come to the conclusion, given this evidence, that the human Ego has derived from God, not the other way around.'


But, he fails to show how this could be the case, and in order to that he would have prove that god exists. Perhaps he may elaborate on this in R3.




Con also states:




'
In any event, even if it were all true, you simply have stated that God and the human ego have a common ancestor, not that God is derived from the human ego.'




The mind and ego are one and the same. By studying ego defense mechanisms is how we understand how the mind works.




and also:




'The Judeo-Christian God is also a being placed above all humans, a being that dwarfs any human's greatness unlike the things created by the human ego, which always compliment the human(s) creating them. The human ego would feel nothing but threatened by the existence of a beings such as God.'



The human ego produces many kinds of delusions, and not all of them are complimentary.

DonSutherland

Con

"What are other possible causes that could lead some people to believe in the ***existence*** of God?"

First, there are many things that could lead to the existence of the idea of God. It could have come out of a "disease of languages" as Max M"ller believed. It could have arisen from primitive people unable to make sense out of dreams as E.B. Tylor believed. Of course also God could be real and have no beginning therefore nothing would lead to his existence. Given the current evidence by the pro argument, none of these are any less likely than derivation from the ego.

Con - 'Even if correlation did equal causation, one could just as easily come to the conclusion, given this evidence, that the human Ego has derived from God, not the other way around.'

Pro -"But, he fails to show how this could be the case, and in order to that he would have prove that god exists. Perhaps he may elaborate on this in R3."

The burden of proof lies with the one making the claim, that being said I will elaborate as requested. I stated not that it did in fact derive from God, but that it is just as likely to have derived from God as visa versa given the evidence. besides it would not need to be proved that God exists, only that the Idea of God exists, which, given the fact that we are having this debate, I think that much is proved already. It is to say "since these two things are similar, one came from the other". There is absolutely no evidence to prove one case over the other. Once again correlation DOES NOT equal causation and this argument was purely hypothetical since it is bypassing an more fundamental flaw in the argument and assuming just that.

con - "The mind and ego are one and the same. By studying ego defense mechanisms is how we understand how the mind works."

I must strongly disagree with the statement "the mind and the ego are one and the same'. the mind and the ego aren't separate entities, rather the ego is a very specific part of the mind, not one and the same as the mind. The example pro gave from Wikipedia was over psychological projection. This is a very relevant to the debate over ego, however i'm afraid pro's example seems to further prove my point. Psychological projection is a defense mechanism as pro said, and therefore exists to defend the host that already feels threatened by something, not to threaten the host itself. Examples from pro's source include bullying and marital infidelity projection, specifically intended to make the host feel better about itself by putting others below it, precisely the opposite of the position of God.

Thanks for debating!
Debate Round No. 3
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by Sagey 3 years ago
Sagey
Yes, our brains are the most deceptive items in the known universe.
We are all being completely fooled by our own brains 24/7.
Nothing we perceive is truly as it is.
Posted by ATHOS 3 years ago
ATHOS
It would be derived from ego, the ego is sometimes called the master illusionist.
Posted by Sagey 3 years ago
Sagey
If Abraham was high on Mushroom or breathing Ethanol (Oracle Of Delphi) at the time he Hallucinated the Bible God, would that be a God derived from Ego or Illusion?
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Sagey 3 years ago
Sagey
ATHOSDonSutherlandTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:20 
Reasons for voting decision: Both posed equally convincing arguments, though Pro did provide a source, as Con did not. I could not decide on whose argument was better. God may have been derived to satisfy human ego, though God could also have been derived as an only feasible explanation for things humans could not understand or from hallucinations (dreams they could not explain).