The Instigator
Pro (for)
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
1 Points

Where did God come from? A dream, A lie, And an explanation

Do you like this debate?NoYes-1
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...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/20/2018 Category: Religion
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 638 times Debate No: 119089
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (0)
Votes (1)




Taken from "The Atheist Republic"
Where did god come from? To Atheist Republic contributor Dean Van Drasek, The answer is simple: a dream, A lie, And an explanation.

You may have come across this topic in books and articles about religion, Psychology, Anthropology, Philosophy, Comparative mythology/religion, Archeology, And even popular science books. Sadly, There is no answer, As it's buried in the depths of time before humans developed writing, And probably even before there was cave painting. I am not an expert in any of these fields, But I do have some ideas that I find more persuasive than others. Nothing here is original, And it's been picked from a wide variety of sources.

Intelligence in apes seems to be linked to brain size, At least when cross-referenced with technological accomplishments. Hominid's brains in the genus homo developed slowly until about 200, 000 years ago. This marked the arrival of our species of hominid, Homo sapiens. I suspect that the belief in the supernatural may have been as early as this.

Every human society ever discovered has had some belief in the supernatural. So where does this come from? The answer I find most persuasive is because we, Like other animals, Dream, But we had the intelligence to question what was the source for this experience.

The origin of gods lies in the belief in spirits, Which is the belief that the experience of the mind in dreams was an externally originated experience. Many early cultures (which we know about through their written records) did not know that human thoughts were derived internally from the brain. By the time writing evolved, It was a well-established concept that dreams were frequently thought of as messages from the gods or another outside sources.

All other human sensory perceptions, Such as sight, Sound, Taste and touch, Come from external stimulants. When we are awake and thinking, We do not experience purely mental sensory events. Waking memory and dreams use different parts of the brain, Which is why dreams can seem so real compared to mere memory. Dreams often use the same parts of the brain which are responsible for the processing of normal sensory signals, Such as sight. This, The neurological experience is nearly the same.

In our dreams, Which can be fearsomely realistic, We often see our dead family and friends. This presented our ancestors with a logical conundrum, As they "knew" their loved ones are dead, But they could see and hear and may even touch them in their dreams. So without other references, If we see what is real, And in our sleep we "see" those who are dead, Then there must be something present that we can't see during the daytime. So an assumption that nocturnal senses would also be stimulated by external forces would be logical.

What happened next was pure human ingenuity. People were seeing these images in dreams, And could not always understand them. At some point in human history, Some human decided to lie and claim that they could understand those nocturnal communications. They could interpret the cryptic messages from the dead friends or relatives, Or they might even be able to communicate with them or channel them. The first conman was born, Who no longer had to hunt or be productive for a living, But who could use their imagination and get the tribe (who more honestly did not claim to be able to understand or speak to these dream-people) to accord them a high status. Thus, The first shamans evolved within the tribes. It is an intrinsic part of almost every human culture, Even our modern popular one (just look at all the movies and TV shows where people talk to ghosts and spirits). When we see someone today supposedly channeling the spirit of the dead, We are seeing a relic of humanity going back perhaps as far as 150, 000 years or more.

But how to get from spirits of the dead to gods? I like the idea that is based on a basic human weakness that exists still today. People in authority don't like to admit ignorance, Because they are afraid this will weaken the regard that others have for them. It would be natural for the tribe to ask the shaman questions such as: Where does the lightning come from? Why does the wind blow? How can I save my sick child? The shaman had no way to answer these questions, But they didn't want to admit this, So they made up an answer based on what people already believed and they knew worked for them within the community: namely, That these other occurrences were also the result of the actions or omissions of spirits, Same as in the dreams, But stronger ones. As the lies multiplied and were retold over time, These spirits often became gods. Early recorded religions had thousands of such spirit gods, In the tress, Rocks, Waters, Clouds, Animals, Etc.

As the explanations got more complex, And writing allowed the stories of the shamans and their ritualistic prescriptions to be recorded, The gods became more complex, Rituals more refined, And the priesthood more powerful and organized. Out of this probably arose the institution of monarchy, Where a secular ruler was in part entitled to the obedience of the people due to the favor of the imaginary gods. At some point, Leadership became hereditary, Which is not something we see in most other ape species, Where any male can contend for the top spot. But at some point in human history, We decided that a person was entitled to rule over others not because of their own capabilities and merit, But because of their lineage - probably one of the worst ideas in all of human history. At that point, The shaman and the ruling class recognized that they had the same interest in promoting the religion of the gods which kept both in power and affluence.

So why do we have gods? Because we dream, And some people are very imaginative liars, And as we all know, Any lie told often enough and loud enough tends to be accepted by many people as the truth.

answer the question below. . .
Why do you think god was invented?

dsjpk5 will not be allowed to vote in the voting process.


Paragraph 1 (P1) " This is not a fact"it"s an opinion"a theory"the idea that God is a dream/lie is a theory that I do not subscribe to.

P2 " "sadly there is no answer" is again, An opinion, A theory held by you. I believe there to be an answer.

P3: Again, A theory, Not shown to be proven by you yet. While Intelligence MAY be linked to brain size in apes, One can"t make the leap from apes to humans. While Darwin"s theory of evolution proposes that humans developed from apes, What his theory doesn"t explain is HOW nature made the leap from species to the other.

P4: I agree. We have intelligence that allows us to interpret and differentiate reality. While dreams are indeed real (they do exist, We have them), The content of them is not real. As a child, I would have dreams of jumping over the Snake river on a motorcycle (yes, I watched too many Evel Knievel specials on TV), But those events never happened. I used my intelligence to distinguish reality from my dreams.

P5: Disagreed. "Belief in spirits" is NOT a belief that that the experiences of the mind in dreams are an externally originated experience. "Belief in Spirits" is a belief that there exists things that are not made up of matter (that are immaterial). It"s a subtle, But important, Distinction. I believe that things exist that are not made up of the matter like physical objects". Things like dreams". Thoughts"ideas". Concepts like truth and justice". . These things clearly exist, But they are not made up of physical matter (tell me how much a dream ways, Or what color that idea is". Or how much density truth has).

P6: You are making a huge assumption that early man (or even current man) did not have the ability to distinguish an idea from a dream, Which roughly the same thing, Except one is the product of the conscious (awake) mind and the other the product of dormant person (asleep)

P7: Wrong. We don"t see them, We imagine them. See argument against P6 above. You"ve provided no evidence that this is how "early man " (our ancestors) viewed dreams. To assert this as fact is an assumption and theory.

P8: I don"t disagree"as long as man has had the capacity to think there have been men trying to swindle men out of something. Perhaps early man tried to swindle his neighbor out of the "prized" Tyrannosaur's claws his neighbor used for hunting. Who knows. This does not prove that man invented God.

P9 I think this argument is akin to the classic "our ancestors were unable to explain scientifically phenomena, So they made up "God" or "Gods" to explain things that could not be explained scientifically. We understand science now, Which explains phenomena thought to be the work of a "God"". This may be so, But yet"we are still left with the question, Where did "science" come from?

P10 " Nice theory. But that"s all that is.

P11 " We arrive at the idea of God through reason and induction. Certain questions have answer that point to things that are attributed to our version of God". . "What made matter? " (something immaterial) ". "What made the universe? " (something outside the universe, And thus not bound by time or space), Etdc. Etc

My Answer: I do not think GOD was invented. When one asks the right questions, One arrives at key attributes that point to what we would call "God". See response to P11.
Debate Round No. 1


"This is not a fact"" Well the only facts that there are, Are mathematical equations. 2 + 2 = 4 now matter which language you speak. Your god can be disproved no matter which language you speak. One thing that is for sure is your writing is very hard to read and thus acknowledge.

I am going to assume that you took each paragraph separately, Thus your "P1, P2" etc?
""it"s an opinion"a theory"the idea that God is a dream/lie is a theory that I do not subscribe to. " Well see, The BOP to prove your god is always, No exceptions, None, Upon you who believe because after all your god has never been proved by anyone, Not ever, By nobody. There"s no tests or demonstration or decorations to prove your god. You don"t even know what your god is. What is it? Give a description of your god. You can"t.

P3: Yet you didn"t offer anything as far as god. Strange. Why not?

P4: Your dreams really do not come into play. But then again are you a dream expert? If so where are your credentials/ resources? If not then you really cannot make your arguments as being truthful

"P5: You contradicted yourself. You stated "is NOT" and then in the very next sentence you state "is a belief" and you also state "I believe" in other words you have no concrete evidence. You guess. Then you "These things clearly exist, " So you are bouncing back and forth. Do you know what you are talking about. ? Please make up your mind.
P6: "You"" Whoops! I didn"t write the article. You made a fatal mistake in assuming that I did. I did credit where the article came from at the top of this argument. So interpret as you will. But still you have yet to prove your god. Why not?

P7: Wrong. Um no right. I see my dreams. So does ---everyone--- else. Yes, Even those with severe autism glues to chairs for their entire lives. Its called "daydreaming". And yes I also imagine my dreams. "To assert this as fact is an assumption and theory. " And that"s what your god is based on with all the gullibility, Hate and evil in the world.

P8: "This does not prove that man invented God. " That"s not the issue. The issue is "why do you think man invented god? " Now I"m not sure which paragraph you are on and frankly I really don"t care because you"ve lost the flow of the article at least 10 times over, But here"s a very good statement from the article" "As the lies multiplied and were retold over time, These spirits often became gods. Early recorded religions had thousands of such spirit gods, In the trees, Rocks, Waters, Clouds, Animals, Etc. " So prove that wrong and false. AND don"t you think that this very thing could have and in fact did happen to your god?

P9 "I think"" Which means you don"t know. You guess. "this argument is akin to the classic "our ancestors were unable to explain scientifically phenomena, So they made up "God" or "Gods" to explain things that could not be explained scientifically. " Well see, Here"s the thing about all known religions, No exceptions, None, As yes this includes yours" all religions are invented to explain the unexplained. Most of them, Though not all are geared though power, And then fear and then control. Yours is no exception. All known religions have these three things in common also which means that there was and is one helluva lot of plagiarizing going on" 1. They all have a creation myth. 2. They all have an above world, A heaven if you will. 3. They all have a below world. A hell if you will. Its a far far far too much of a coincidence. "Where did "science" come from? " Well describe science? Would you call it with the invention of the spear? Learning to kill? Building the first city? Inventing the first language/ writing system/ the first mathematical equation?

P11 "We arrive at the idea of God through reason and induction. " Its also intimidation and you can tack onto induction with a lot of indoctrination as everybody, No exceptions is born as an atheist.

"Certain questions have answer that point to things that are attributed to our version of God". . "What made matter? " (something immaterial) ". "What made the universe? " (something outside the universe, And thus not bound by time or space), Etdc. Etc" Well cee, Now you are stepping out of the context of the article into the who cares area? The answer is simple for now and it is for everybody "I don"t know". Because nobody does knopw. Not one person. And it is quite possible that nobody will ever know. And you know what? That is perfectly fine. You don"t just jump in and say without a single shred of proof "therefore god".

"Assume that we have no answer. Then the answer is "I don"t know". The answer isn"t "I can"t think of anything better, Therefore a god did it. ""Matt Dillahunty

What do you call "god"? Exodus 34:14 "For thou shalt worship no other god: for the LORD, Whose name is Jealous, Is a jealous God:" How truly pathetic can you get?


The debate is not about proving God. We can certainly go there. Say something, Let's call it an "entity", Created the universe. This entity would have to be "outside" the universe, Right? Not "of the universe". The tools we use to "prove" things in this universe, Then, Could not be used to "prove" something outside the universe. So to have an expectation that "science" can "prove God exists" is basically starting off on the wrong foot. One can't use "science" to prove God. However, One can USE science to "Point" in the direction of God.

I don't need to be a dream expert to be able to say I can distinguish dreams from reality, Which is what my point was. The fact that I'm not a dream expert has no bearing on whether or not I can say this dream is not reality.

Re-read what I wrote in P5. I'm basically saying "Belief in spirits" is not the same as saying "experiences of the mind in dreams are externally originated. " What do you mean by "concrete" evidence-- do you mean physical evidence? I would say you are right-- I do not have physical evidence that something non-physical (spirits) exist. It's not logical to expect a non-physical entity like a spirit or a dream to leave behind physical evidence.

Earlier in your argument you include "Sight" as one of the human sensory perceptions that come from external stimuli. But then you go on to say you "see" dreams, Which is an internal perception. Which is it? Or are you now changing what you said earlier to now say "sight" includes both external and internal stimuli?

See, There you go again, Asserting as FACT that which you can't prove-- you call it a myth. How do you know it's a myth and not true? Why not call it a creation story. Calling it a story leaves out your own bias (you already think it's myth). I would agree most religions, It not all, Have creation stories. But I would say perhaps one of them is true (ie not a myth). I mean, Creation had to have happen at some point right? Or do you believe in the perpetual exist of matter without having a starting point. I would say the various religions idea of "heaven" and hell are different.

WHere did science come from? I believe the physical laws of nature came into being at the creation of the universe. How would I describe science? Well, Allow me to lean on Webster for this one : knowledge or a system of knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws especially as obtained and tested through scientific method". I would say, Yes using science man learned to do different things: invent tools, Learn to use those tools, Learn what it takes to end another's life. Most, If not all of our learning comes from our knowledge or system of knowledge covering general truths or operations of general laws. Hell, Given this definition, One can argue that learning to walk is a scientific process.

Nope, I don't use intimidation (or insults or personal attacks) to argue my point about God and religion. Even so, Just because someone uses intimidation to force others to think X is true, The use of intimidation doesn't make X false. This chalice may be filled with poison. . . . The fact that I may use intimidation to make someone believe it does (or doesn't have poison) has no bearing on whether or not it does or not. Likewise, The fact that someone (a person or institutions) may use force/intimidation to get others to believe something is true has no bearing on whether ornot something is true.

Now you may not care about the other questions I posed, But I believe those are critical to the God discussion. Why? Because those questions logically point to something-- the point to characteristics of something. Will it point 100%. . . Possibly not, But it might give one sufficient reason or logic to believe. Imagine you approach this object, Let's say it's an elephant. And you describe this object to me. . . . You say it's big. . . It's grey. . . It has 4 legs. . . . . Big ears. . . . It smells. . . It has a long trunk. . . . You can describe and point me to all these attributes of the "elephant". But at the end of the day, I can still choose to say "Bah! I still don't believe it's an elephant. " I might even be so bold and say something like "That's not how I would define an elephant. " At the end of the day, I could still refuse to believe it's a being that you would agree is an elephant (if you and I don't agree on what an elephant is at the start, Then chances are we may never reach an agreement). Now imagine if I don't even give you an opportunity to describe or prove these attributes-- I just start off by saying "'Elephant' doesn't exist. It's preposterous! " That's basically what you are doing when you refuse to allow someone to describe and show you, Logically, The attributes.
Debate Round No. 2


"The debate is not about proving God. " Oh absolutely it is. Didn"t you pay attention to the rules in which was the closing question for the article that came from The Atheist Republic "Why do you think god was invented? " "We can certainly go there. " So the BOP isd on you. Go right ahead and prove YOUR god. "Say something, Let's call it an "entity"" No call it "god", Or actually "jealous as that"s what YOUR god names himself in your bible in which your god would never use text as a form of communication, The worst form of communication possible. "Created the universe. " Didn"t happen according to your bible. "This entity would have to be "outside" the universe, Right? " Not necessarily. "Not "of the universe". " Depends on your interpretation. Let"s see you bring in some verses to show which is which.

"The tools we use to "prove" things in this universe, Then, Could not be used to "prove" something outside the universe. " Um no. You say and so does everybody else "I don"t know. " And nobody does know as wow are there so many theories as to what is and what isn"t that there could be and what couldn"t be if there is something that is or isn"t outside of this universe or not. "So to have an expectation that "science" can "prove God exists"" doesn"t exist. As stated there"s no tests that have been done, No demonstrations that have been done, Nop declarations that have been done. You have no ideas what your god is. What IS it? That"s not one shred of evidence your god exists. Go ahead and describe what your god is. Yeah, You can"t do it. Nobody can.

"One can USE science to "Point" in the direction of God. " WRONG! As just proved.

"I don't need to be a dream expert to be able to say I can distinguish dreams from reality, " Well then you don"t know what dreaming is. And did you make a point?

Now you are getting off track here. If you are trying to prove god through dreams, You are way off. Spirits? "What do you mean by "concrete" evidence-- do you mean physical evidence? " Tangible evidence and not gullibility. You are so right that you do not have physical evidence. "I would say you are right-- I do not have physical evidence that something non-physical (spirits) exist. It's not logical to expect a non-physical entity like a spirit or a dream to leave behind physical evidence. " Oh I see, So you believe in nonphysical entities. Now its up to you to prove that they exist. So I"m not going to read or subjugate myself to any more of your panhandling until you prove that they do exist. And if you can"t, Then "Why do you think god was invented? "


Before we continue, Let's do something that really should be done at the start of every debate-- agree to terms. We should agree to what is meant by the term "God". So, Since the you initiated the debate, Define "God" in your terms-- what does the term "God" mean to you? Please note, I'm not asking you to "prove" God doesn't exist, I'm simply asking you what is your idea of God?

Do you understand why this needs to be done? As an analogy, If you and i are going to debate whether or not a particular object is an Elephant, Then we need to at least have an understanding, If not agreement, As to what each side considers to be an "Elephant". If I believe an "elephant" is an object that has no legs, No ears, And slithers around on the ground, Then no matter how thorough you describe the object you see in front of you (the object you believe to be an elephant), I will still not see it. You can "prove" the object is an "Elephant" in your terms, But if i have a different understanding of what an "elephant" is, I will still be obstinate and say "I don't agree! "

I sort of equate it to the idea of "love". Sometimes my teenage son sees "love" this way: "If you 'love" me you will let me do whatever I want! ". Of course, He doesn't accept my definition of love when I say "It is precisely because I love you that I will not let you do whatever you want. " We are at odds because our idea of "love" differs.

Likewise, With any discussion about God. If we don't agree, Or at least understand what each thinks it means to be "God", Then we neither one will "convince" the other side. If you don't accept my terms of God, Then any attempts on my part will be futile. Likewise, If I don't accept your idea of God, Then any argument on your part will be futile.

I'm not trying to prove God through dreams. My argument relative to dreams is this:

- "Dreams" are an indication that non-material (non-physical) things exist. I think they exist. If I were to ask a number of people, My guess is the majority of them would say non-physical entities (Dreams, Ideas, Concepts) exist. Why? Because they, Like me, Experience them. Does this PROVE they exist, Not necessarily. All of us could be wrong. But again, Science doesn't necessarily anything 100% without a doubt-- it simply gives you strong evidence of something. Now, Does the fact that dreams exist "prove" God exists? Absolutely not. I never said they do. All I'm saying is that non-physical, Non-material things exist.

So, Some questions for you:

1. Do you believe "Dreams" are non-physical, Non-material entities?
2. Do you believe that "Dreams" exist?
3. Do you believe that "non-physical", "non-material" entities are exist?
Debate Round No. 3


Not necessary. Terms don"t need and or are not required to be set at every debate. Sometimes I don"t set them. But there was only one here and that was "Why do you think god was invented? " Pretty simple really.
Regardless, Don't yah think its a bit late for terms of acceptance considering that this is the final RD?
god. The god according to the bible. It is termed by The Atheist Republic and its tens of thousands of articles. Of course there"s the billions who believe (for no reason at all, Especially without thinking, Reasoning, Rationalizing, Using common sense, Using logic as none is required) and disbelieve in this god.
Now like some darling little maggot, Oh say Donald Trump, Who with no questions asked happens to be the worst president of all time and has quite a few things in common with your god, Https://www. Debate. Org/debates/Things-that-Donald-Trump-the-worst-president-of-all-time-and-god-both-are-unclean-have-in-common/1/ (some are satirical, Some are not and are right to the bone), Well at any rate, There"s certainly no terms needed at all as debate requirements are set everytime that p. O. S. Opens his braced up lockjaw maw.

I"ll tell you this" I don"t accept any side for accepting god for a number of reasons, Probably at least 1, 000 or more. But there are 5 main ones. 1. Nobody has ---ever--- been able to prove that this god exists. 2. Your bible is the most violent, Hateful book ever written with its god truly hating children of all things, Committing genocide after genocide for no reason at all thus proving himself to be completely immoral when in fact this character is supposed to be a character of love, Peace, Harmony, Care, Kindness, Etc etc etc and in fact under this characters inception its never been achieved for any length of time, Not anywhere. 3. No god would be stupid enough to use text as a form of communication, The worst form of communication possible. 4. No god of supposed, Peace, Love, Kindness, Love, Care etc etc etc would allow suffering and pain to exist especially unto children. Now ask yourself "what can children learn from suffering? If you"ve answered "nothing", You"ve answered correctly. 5. Faith is not evidence. Your god if he wanted to convey any messages would not do it through faith especially considering that the only outlet to your god is through the bible and your god is of a superior ego god complex in which is what your god is entirely about. "Faith is the reason people give when they don"t have evidence. " Matt Dillahunty. He"s right. Your god if in any possible way true, Would not use faith, But evidence such as TALKING TO US. But then again he lied to his prophets. Soooo. Wow.

"Dreams" are an indication that non-material (non-physical) things exist. I think they exist. " There you go again with "I think" which means you don"t know. You guess. And you made the statement the B. O. P. Is on you to do exactly that. And since you can"t, And nobody else has, Oh let"s call it the spooky "supernatural", Yeah you are reaching, "Dreams, Ideas, Concepts" and the way is it that none of you, Not one can draw them out, Test them declare them or demonstrate them. And until you can, Then there"s no proof for them. Next time if you are going to continue with this debate, Please provide some tangible evidence, Otherwise the only thing you provide is gullibility.
1. Dreams are physical until proven otherwise.
2. Of course dreams exist. They exist in dogs.

3. No. Until proven otherwise. I"m an atheist. Now what do you think?

Now here are 2 questions for you"
1. Why believe in your god of the bible? I"m not talking about "god is love", In which he is clearly not if you"ve read your bible, Or "god created everything". I"m talking about a real honest answer.
2. Since you refuse to answer "Why do you think god was invented? " and thus go against the rules, Why do you think god exists? Btw, To save yourself from gibberish, It would be detrimental for an explanation to use anything that is scientific because the bible is not scientific in its explanation of creation and all of its miracles etc.


Terms are absolutely necessary. You use "God" in your argument, But I have no idea what your understanding or idea of God is. FOr all I know, You can expect "God" to be the starting forward on the L. A. Lakers.

So, Tell me how you define God.
Debate Round No. 4
No comments have been posted on this debate.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by dsjpk5 3 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro called Con a "maggot" in round four. That's poor conduct.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.