Please Challenge This Hypothesis

[POI]

After years of debate, one topic seems to remain without waiver and/or adjustment. I'm placing this topic here, in the forefront/spotlight, to expose it to direct challenge. I will be more than happy than to (waiver from/augment/abort) this hypothesis, baring evidence to the contrary....

Hypothesis: The reason most/all believe in (God/gods/higher powers) is because of evolution. Meaning, 'survival of the fitter." Meaning, all humans who favored type 2 errors over type 1 errors are now mostly gone. We inherit our parent's predisposition to invoke type 1 errors, until otherwise logically necessary. Meaning, few will still BECOME atheists after "going to the well enough times" and not seeing God there.

Allow me to explain. In this context, a type 1 error would be first assuming intentional agency, and being wrong -- (good or bad). Alternatively, a type 2 error would be not to first assume intentional agency, and being wrong.

1) Walking down a dirt path, from point A to point B, and hearing a rustle in the weeds, and first assuming danger, would be a type 1 error IF incorrect. This person would still be alive if they are wrong. Maybe it was actually just the wind. Alternatively, if one was to instead first assume no danger, the wind, but there was danger, this person has first committed a type 2 error and is now likely out of the gene pool. And since this has been happening for a long time, we only have the ones who first invoke type 1 errors.

2) Getting in a car wreck with 3 friends.... Your 3 friends die, but you live. You assume you are purposefully spared. IF you are wrong, there is really no harm and no way to know. There is really also no way to confirm you were not spared. Hence, your possible type 1 error is never confirmed/corrected. Which means you can and will continue to attribute agency, where there may not really be any.

In essence, you first assume agency, until proven otherwise. For God, it is never really unproven. Humans connect the dots, accept the hits and ignore the misses, other...

For debate: Is this is viable reason why most believe in a higher power? Is this also why other arguments, against god(s), hardly change the believer's mind?

[1213]

...It's the exact opposite 1213. You just demonstrated my hypothesis correct. Type 1 errors often times cannot be falsified. This is why there are so many who continue believing.

Truth can't be falsified, does it make truth wrong?

[Clownboat]

In short, you have no argument or case. Which means there is NO good reason to believe in a god.

In your opinion. In my opinion Bible and world as told in the Bible are good enough evidence, for example because it would be more difficult for me to believe humans alone could have written the Bible.

What the silly! Who/what do you propose wrote the books included in the Bible if it wasn't humans? What the heck is going on!
Did aliens come to earth and write the books? Did angels write the books?

[Clownboat]

...It's the exact opposite 1213. You just demonstrated my hypothesis correct. Type 1 errors often times cannot be falsified. This is why there are so many who continue believing.

Truth can't be falsified, does it make truth wrong?

Depends on the 'truth'. Which 'truth' did you have in mind when you asked this question as a dodge to ignore how you demonstrated POI's hypothesis to be accurate.

[POI]

...It's the exact opposite 1213. You just demonstrated my hypothesis correct. Type 1 errors often times cannot be falsified. This is why there are so many who continue believing.

Truth can't be falsified, does it make truth wrong?

This response does not address what I said.

[1213]

In short, you have no argument or case. Which means there is NO good reason to believe in a god.

In your opinion. In my opinion Bible and world as told in the Bible are good enough evidence, for example because it would be more difficult for me to believe humans alone could have written the Bible.

What the silly! Who/what do you propose wrote the books included in the Bible if it wasn't humans? What the heck is going on!
Did aliens come to earth and write the books? Did angels write the books?

I meant, without God's influence, not that God wrote it.

[1213]

...It's the exact opposite 1213. You just demonstrated my hypothesis correct. Type 1 errors often times cannot be falsified. This is why there are so many who continue believing.

Truth can't be falsified, does it make truth wrong?

This response does not address what I said.

The point is, even if something could not be falsified, it is not necessary wrong.

[TRANSPONDER]

Of course, we know where you are coming from. Or what the argument is.

We should believe what the Bible says and why shouldn't we believe what the Bible says? In fact whether written by men or by God or both what it says looks like a reliable record. So why shouldn't we believe it?

I'll tell you why I don't. Because the OT is wrong about a lot of things. Just the claim of the sun standing still.To believe that means that one had to abandon reason for madness as old Gandalf says. And more and more, OT claims look dodgy. Order of creation, Ark and Flood, the whole exodus story, and Daniel is now demonstrably dated to the 260's BC, not the end of the Babylonian empire. Retrospective history explains prophecy half the time. We did Tyre and that prophecy fails, despite your efforts to debunk the archaeological evidence that it was rebuilt and the band played on.

The same applies to the prophecies of the NT. And here far too much credence is given to the Gospels as a reliable narrative. Even then, it is taken as a reliable record of a reforming (Jewish) Rabbi and not a divine being who rose from the dead. I don't think so. I think it is a basic story of a failed messiah reinvented by Greek Christians following the doctrines of Paul and even more, Jesus turned by the Gentiles into a god.

As we have discussed, the whole Christian claim stand or falls on the resurrection and nothing else really matters. If that fails, everything else fails. We discussed the reason the resurrection - story fails: contradictions. And I know you deny and dismiss them, but I don't and what Bible apologists deny doesn't matter, any more than what I may believe; it is the evidence and the argument and the ideas getting out there that matters.

As i see it, the two Biggest biggies - nativities and resurrections - have been sewn up. Once it is Out There that the nativities have to be wrong and the 2nd census apoologetic fails, that is the sun stopping for the NT. It is a made up and contradictory story. Once this understanding gets out there, the cat cannot be put back into the bag. And once that is known, the contradictions of the resurrection have to be understood to undermine the credibility of that fundamental claim, even if one swallows the rest of the story.

Before you even say it, nobody is interested in that you think you have 'explained' it, or you haven't seen it or you believe this or don't believe that. Your opinions and beliefs don't matter and nor do mine. It is the case that one can argue and only that.

[Clownboat]

I meant, without God's influence, not that God wrote it.

Are you wanting me to believe that humans wrote all the holy books that we have, but the Bible's writing was different because it was influenced by a god?
You can't fool me. I have read the book and there is nothing in it that requires nor suggests a gods influence. This is simply a belief you hold.

Now the Book of Mormon, that one has a God behind it because it would be to difficult for me to believe that a human alone could have written it.
(I trust you see how meaningless a statement like this is).

[POI]

The point is, even if something could not be falsified, it is not necessary wrong.

Your response does not address what I'm saying. There exist many many many assertions for "god" which could never be verified or falsified. This allows for the ones asserting 'god' to go on continuing to assert a 'god' without ever actually possibility verifying <or> falsifying such a claimed agency. In at least some of these cases, they would be false, even IF such a 'god' or asserted agency existed. The point being, some committed type 1 errors render no harm or correction. Thus, they continue unchecked. This is why I believe so many can assert agency, like a 'god'. Evolution has also weeded out most/all who first infer a type 2 error over first inferring a type 1 error. It's about survival, as well as believing we are the center of everything; which is one of the reasons why Christianity believes "God" favors humans in this vast universe.

[1213]

I meant, without God's influence, not that God wrote it.

Are you wanting me to believe that humans wrote all the holy books that we have, but the Bible's writing was different because it was influenced by a god?
You can't fool me. I have read the book and there is nothing in it that requires nor suggests a gods influence. This is simply a belief you hold.

Now the Book of Mormon, that one has a God behind it because it would be to difficult for me to believe that a human alone could have written it.
(I trust you see how meaningless a statement like this is).

The meaning why I told my opinion is that otherwise people might think that your belief is the only one.

But, if you think humans alone wrote the Bible, how do you think they knew that in the beginning there was only one continent?