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]

...You assume that 'God' is the default until a 'natural' explanation is proven 100%.

No, I believe in God, because of the Bible. I don't believe in God because the need for explanation to this world. Explanation itself is not useful in this case, because explanations are not necessary true, even if they would be logical. You can make thousands of explanations and it still would not mean that any of them is true.

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.

Ok, I can accept that there can be countless number of explanations. What is the point with that, when the existence of explanation is not necessary the same as what is actually true?

That is even without the materialist belief which has weight because science and technology is known to work without a god being necessary...

Science and technology sees things only in material level, they don't actually know is God necessary. And, I think the existence of life is one evidence for that God is required, because we don't see life appearing spontaneously from dead non organic material.

But, this leads to interesting idea. Some scientists have come up to simulation theory. According to them, world looks like reality is a computer simulation created by a higher being. Have they found God in science? We can continue with this in here:
viewtopic.php?t=41714

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.

One could say that nothing is necessary, except sailing and gardening. I don't believe in God because I would need some explanation. I believe because of the Bible and that things go as told in the Bible.

[TRANSPONDER]

...You assume that 'God' is the default until a 'natural' explanation is proven 100%.

No, I believe in God, because of the Bible. I don't believe in God because the need for explanation to this world. Explanation itself is not useful in this case, because explanations are not necessary true, even if they would be logical. You can make thousands of explanations and it still would not mean that any of them is true.

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.

Ok, I can accept that there can be countless number of explanations. What is the point with that, when the existence of explanation is not necessary the same as what is actually true?

That is even without the materialist belief which has weight because science and technology is known to work without a god being necessary...

Science and technology sees things only in material level, they don't actually know is God necessary. And, I think the existence of life is one evidence for that God is required, because we don't see life appearing spontaneously from dead non organic material.

But, this leads to interesting idea. Some scientists have come up to simulation theory. According to them, world looks like reality is a computer simulation created by a higher being. Have they found God in science? We can continue with this in here:
viewtopic.php?t=41714

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.

One could say that nothing is necessary, except sailing and gardening. I don't believe in God because I would need some explanation. I believe because of the Bible and that things go as told in the Bible.

Very bad reason to believe in a god. I'm not even sure that is true. I don't know your Story or whether you read the Bible and thought "Wow That must be true" or you were pump primed by cultural Christianity to think Christianity rather than Islam or Hinduism if you'd been born and brought up in Egypt or India.
I in fact doubt anything a Believer says - related to their Faith, because Evidence - even the Bible - can be lied about because it is the Faith that matters, not the Bible, which itself can be lied about for the Faith. Faith - indoctrinated Faith - is what makes a religion, not the Book itself.

I know i was subjected to persistent cultural indoctrination when I was brought up and, while i was interested in science as a kid and saw that right out of the blocks the Bible was wrong (unless one rejects science) I sorta accepted the Bible stories as in part a reliable record (not the Ark or sun standing still) but the Exodus as history and siege of Jerusalem being unaccountably broken off and Tyre really not rebuilt and Daniel being a prophecy that maybe looked like it panned out, and the broad stokes of the Gospels being a reliable record, even if one could argue for 'Natural' explanations for the supposed miracles.

Disease could have hit Sennacherib's army- sieges do get broken off for practical reasons. Daniel doesn't quite work- it has to be fiddled. But one can make it work.

The mobile star doesn't convincingly work as a supernova or conjunction of planets and frankly I was disgusted to hear Mr A Astronomer arguing for it. The darn thing has to be floating around two hundred fet up at mist and moving along or the story makes no sense unless fiddled, and if you have to fiddle a story to make it work, it doesn't work.

And of course, I credited the resurrection -story. Just like the rest. It was a bit by bit comparison to eliminate the Real problems and 'Reconcile' the gospels that made me realise - they didn't reconcile. They would NOT hold up in a court of law, to use the impudent claim i have heard, and those who use the Bible as a reason to believe are - in another term I have used more times than I've cracked ciders, Either ignorance or denial.

I know what Bible (and science) denial looks like, and it is not a good reason to believe the Bible, Gospels or Christianity. It is Not.

[Clownboat]

No, I believe in God, because of the Bible.

I believe because of the Bible and that things go as told in the Bible.

You would have made a good Muslim had you been born elsewhere in the world because they believe in their god concept for the same reason you believe in yours. They just love and revere a different holy book and this is where religion by geography comes into play. Had you been born in Iran for example, you would believe in Allah because you were taught to love and revere the Qu'ran.

So when I hear you say you believe in a god because of the Bible, I'm hearing that you love and revere a holy book because of where you were born.
(Exceptions to every rule of course).

[1213]

You would have made a good Muslim had you been born elsewhere in the world because they believe in their god concept for the same reason you believe in yours...

I don't see that to be true. But, interesting thing is that Quran says that people should believe Jesus. Makes one wonder why Muslims don't generally seem to be doing that.

“…The Messiah, Jesus, the son of Mary, was but a messenger of Allah… …believe in Allah and His messengers…”
Quran 4:171, https://legacy.quran.com/4/171

They just love and revere a different holy book and this is where religion by geography comes into play. Had you been born in Iran for example, you would believe in Allah because you were taught to love and revere the Qu'ran....

I don't believe in God because "I was taught to love and revere the Bible".

I said "I believe because of the Bible and that things go as told in the Bible". IF you think Quran is the same, please tell what has gone as told in the Quran?

[TRANSPONDER]

You would have made a good Muslim had you been born elsewhere in the world because they believe in their god concept for the same reason you believe in yours...

I don't see that to be true. But, interesting thing is that Quran says that people should believe Jesus. Makes one wonder why Muslims don't generally seem to be doing that.

“…The Messiah, Jesus, the son of Mary, was but a messenger of Allah… …believe in Allah and His messengers…”
Quran 4:171, https://legacy.quran.com/4/171

They just love and revere a different holy book and this is where religion by geography comes into play. Had you been born in Iran for example, you would believe in Allah because you were taught to love and revere the Qu'ran....

I don't believe in God because "I was taught to love and revere the Bible".

I said "I believe because of the Bible and that things go as told in the Bible". IF you think Quran is the same, please tell what has gone as told in the Quran?

Because you misrepresent what the Quran says about Jesus. He was a prophet, yes, but Muslims do not follow him but they follow Muhammad as his was the later revelation.

That is the same as Christians following Jesus and not Moses. Do you not understand this or do you not want to?

The point is that in a Muslim country you would be a Muslim and not a Christian for the same reason they do - because the Quran does not teach them to take Jesus as their belief - inspiration, but Muhammad. Either you don't know that (in which case, you have more learning than teaching to do) or you do know it but hope to fool us. Which is it? (1) Of course you fiddle the argument to suit yourself. Nobody but Muslims is trying to argue that the Quran is better history than the Bible. But they might claim it is better theology as it has one god, not three. It has clear rules to follow, not a pick and mix mess like the Bible.

And the point is not which is better, or which atheists would like better, but you would not be a Christian if you'd been brought up in Saudi Arabia. The demographics prove that point, no matter how you try to fiddle it. We are brought up to believe what our parents and schools teach us, which is why Religions want to control families and education. They know, and I know and why don't you know?

The point (or third one ) here is that IF there was a real god, you'd expect it to make sure we all got the same religion. That this isn't the case is evidence that religions are man made.
Add to that that prayer does not actually seem to work and the watchmaker argument fails, and you really have NO decent evidence for any god or religion.

(1) actually, I think I know - it doesn't matter as evidence of any kind doesn't matter. It can be misrepresented, lied about or denied, as only Faith matters.. The fallacies are more to fool themselves than others.

[1213]

You would have made a good Muslim had you been born elsewhere in the world because they believe in their god concept for the same reason you believe in yours...

I don't see that to be true. But, interesting thing is that Quran says that people should believe Jesus. Makes one wonder why Muslims don't generally seem to be doing that.

“…The Messiah, Jesus, the son of Mary, was but a messenger of Allah… …believe in Allah and His messengers…”
Quran 4:171, https://legacy.quran.com/4/171

They just love and revere a different holy book and this is where religion by geography comes into play. Had you been born in Iran for example, you would believe in Allah because you were taught to love and revere the Qu'ran....

I don't believe in God because "I was taught to love and revere the Bible".

I said "I believe because of the Bible and that things go as told in the Bible". IF you think Quran is the same, please tell what has gone as told in the Quran?

Because you misrepresent what the Quran says about Jesus. He was a prophet, yes, but Muslims do not follow him but they follow Muhammad as his was the later revelation.

The text clearly says people should believe all God's prophets. And it also says Jesus is God's prophet and so people should believe Jesus also.

That is the same as Christians following Jesus and not Moses. Do you not understand this or do you not want to?

I think I believe also Moses.

The point is that in a Muslim country you would be a Muslim and not a Christian for the same reason they do -
... ...And the point is not which is better, or which atheists would like better, but you would not be a Christian if you'd been brought up in Saudi Arabia. The demographics prove that point, no matter how you try to fiddle it. We are brought up to believe what our parents and schools teach us, which is why Religions want to control families and education. They know, and I know and why don't you know?

If I would believe what the society tries to make people to believe, I would be an atheist like you, and probably also a communist, not a Christian. I don't choose my beliefs by majority opinions.

The point (or third one ) here is that IF there was a real god, you'd expect it to make sure we all got the same religion.

If the real God wants people to be free to choose, it leads to this situation where some of them can reject Him. I think God is great, because He has given freedom and thus is not like earthly politicians who are against freedom.

[TRANSPONDER]

Of course the Quran has Moses as a prophet (suitably modified) as well as Jesus as just a prophet nothing more. And Muhammad as the latest prophet (never mind Joseph Smith, if they evcen heard of him) and you reject Muhammad, just as Jews reject Jesus and paul.

It is cultural indoctrination to believe what you are taught and reject anything that conflicts.

If you had been brought up secular you may well be an atheist (though mayhap no more communist than I am - Communism is as much authoritarian and denialist Dogma as Fundamentalist Christianity). Though you might have been talked around by the massive propaganda machine of religion, unless you fact - checked. Then you might be here arguing Science based points rather than Faith -based denial.

[1213]

...and you reject Muhammad,...

It is cultural indoctrination to believe what you are taught and reject anything that conflicts.
...

Do you know how Muhammad conflicts with Jesus?

[TRANSPONDER]

...and you reject Muhammad,...

It is cultural indoctrination to believe what you are taught and reject anything that conflicts.
...

Do you know how Muhammad conflicts with Jesus?

I know that Islam conflicts with Christianity just as Christianity conflicts with Judaism - in belief, because one adds a layer of doctrine that the former rejects.

Fiddle it as you may, Islam is a religion that is not Christianity, as Christianity is not Judaism, though it derives from it, partially.

The point being that if you had been brought up in Pakistan you'd be a Muslim and not a Christian (separate religion enclaves aside).

Old chum, It does you no good trying ask tricky questions, because everyone knows the point I am making is true, and your attempts to confuse the issue by trying to ask loaded and water - muddying questions (1) does not fool anyone and only makes you look crafty.

Of course, I know that Believers habitually ignore the fact that other people believe other religions. They simply assume the others are wrong and don't discus the matter other than pointing to the Bible and saying that is true, and the other holy books and religions aren't.

(1) I could ask 'if Jesus said to Honor God's word (and Moses), why aren't you observing Jewish traditions?' Because they are not the same, and we both know it. For that matter, if Muhammad said to believe Jesus, why is Islam a different religion for you and you don't observe Muslim doctrines and Dogma? Because you do not believe their Holy Book and the Revelation to Muhammad, any more than I do. I just disbelieve one more Holy Book and religion than you do.

[1213]

...I know that Islam conflicts with Christianity...

But you can't give even one example how?

Fiddle it as you may, Islam is a religion that is not Christianity, as Christianity is not Judaism, though it derives from it, partially.

Judaism and Christianity as in the Bible, are not in contradiction, if correctly understood.