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]

...There exist many many many assertions for "god" which could never be verified or falsified...

But as long as you can't prove them untrue, it is possible that they are true.

[POI]

...There exist many many many assertions for "god" which could never be verified or falsified...

But as long as you can't prove them untrue, it is possible that they are true.

1) Do you understand my position?
2) If so, do you accept this hypothesis as valid? If not, why not?

[1213]

1) Do you understand my position?
2) If so, do you accept this hypothesis as valid? If not, why not?

1) I think so.
2) I don't think human behavior is inherited, and therefore is not something evolutionary.

[POI]

1) Do you understand my position?
2) If so, do you accept this hypothesis as valid? If not, why not?

1) I think so.
2) I don't think human behavior is inherited, and therefore is not something evolutionary.

Sounds like you are consistent. You are a science denier, so it would make sense you deny the study of genetics too.

[TRANSPONDER]

1) Do you understand my position?
2) If so, do you accept this hypothesis as valid? If not, why not?

1) I think so.
2) I don't think human behavior is inherited, and therefore is not something evolutionary.

Human instinct is evolutionary and thus evidence oif evolution. It can further be learned (or nobody could play sports). And finally, behavior is taught and learned from parents, teachers and society.

None of this needs a god, name your own, anyway.

[1213]

Human instinct is evolutionary and thus evidence of evolution...

If instinct is evolutionary, it would mean that people inherit in some way and so it should come from DNA. Can you explain how it is stored in DNA?

[1213]

1) Do you understand my position?
2) If so, do you accept this hypothesis as valid? If not, why not?

1) I think so.
2) I don't think human behavior is inherited, and therefore is not something evolutionary.

Sounds like you are consistent. You are a science denier, so it would make sense you deny the study of genetics too.

If human behavior is evolutionary, please explain how behavior is transferred by DNA?

[TRANSPONDER]

Vaguely; I am not a biologist let alone geneticist. But the discovery of DNA showed how genetic traits were transferred from parents to offspring with characteristics of both parents because of the combining of genomes. There is every reason to suppose that behavior - traits are transferred the same way, but as ancestral characteristics, physical and instinctive, are passed along. While research is still going on, it (evolution) explains hereditary and instinctive patterns and one gap for a god (name your own, anyway....this was never an apologetic for Christianity after all ) has all but closed.

In short, Consciousness was never a very good gap for a god, and is pretty much closed by now. same as argument from morality, because that is down to evolution and DNA - transferred instincts. Theism has lost so much ground since Creationism Rules in 1980 and there is nothing left but nit picking (Explain this detail or that detail or it is my excuse to reject everything) and denial. (cue: "science research and evidence is just 'human opinion'.")

But as usual, it isn't about the stubborn faithbased denialist, but Joe public and his vote and being able to see who makes sense and has the evidence, not who can do the most extreme denial.This looks like it might explain DNA traits (and I hypothesize, if it isn't genetics theory already, instinct as well) and if you don't watch videos, others will.




p.s the 'You must explain and Prove, down to the last nanoparticle, how everything works, or Goddunnit - theory stands or rather 'I have an excuse to deny everything', is an apologetic I was familiar with before i even parachuted in here. But I expect it as a matter of the denailist course.

[1213]

Vaguely; I am not a biologist let alone geneticist. But the discovery of DNA showed how genetic traits were transferred from parents to offspring with characteristics of both parents because of the combining of genomes. There is every reason to suppose that behavior - traits are transferred the same way, but as ancestral characteristics, physical and instinctive, are passed along. While research is still going on, it (evolution) explains hereditary and instinctive patterns and one gap for a god (name your own, anyway....this was never an apologetic for Christianity after all ) has all but closed....

It is amazing how little you need to believe all that.

...'You must explain and Prove, down to the last nanoparticle, how everything works, ...

No, it is simpler, if you want people to believe your extraordinary claims, you should have at least some good argument to support it. I don't believe things without any good/intelligent reason.

[TRANSPONDER]

Vaguely; I am not a biologist let alone geneticist. But the discovery of DNA showed how genetic traits were transferred from parents to offspring with characteristics of both parents because of the combining of genomes. There is every reason to suppose that behavior - traits are transferred the same way, but as ancestral characteristics, physical and instinctive, are passed along. While research is still going on, it (evolution) explains hereditary and instinctive patterns and one gap for a god (name your own, anyway....this was never an apologetic for Christianity after all ) has all but closed....

It is amazing how little you need to believe all that.

...'You must explain and Prove, down to the last nanoparticle, how everything works, ...

No, it is simpler, if you want people to believe your extraordinary claims, you should have at least some good argument to support it. I don't believe things without any good/intelligent reason.

You prove POI's OP point. You assume that 'God' is the default until a 'natural' explanation is proven 100%.

No. A natural hypothesis means that 'God' (name your own, anyway) is not the only option and one should be 'agnostic' (which mandates non - belief until you do know) until the matter is settled.

That is even without the materialist belief which has weight because science and technology is known to work without a god being necessary, and you know this because I did a post just now where you were arguing that just because a thing can happen naturally, doesn't prove there is not a god (name your own) behind it.

But that is the Faith - based fallacy. The burden of proof falls on the god claim when the evidence (or hypothesis) makes it un-necessary. That is why theism is illogical before it even starts arguing, because it is faithbased.

That's even before we get to your denial of the science. I recall that you never watch videos. Well I only watched the first bit to check it was likely to do a reasonable job, but I already know that DNA and the passing on of genetic traits is understood, and for you to deny it is just your personal denial of evidence if you don't like it.

You carry on doing that as a Good bad example that (hopefully) makes Believers wonder "Is that how I sound?" Yes, true believers. That is what you do.