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?

[TRANSPONDER]

...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.

You understand incorrectly, and even deny what's in the Bible, on occasions. We already did the Quran in that the teaching is that God has not had a son and Jesus did not die on the cross, and is just one of a line of Prophets. That conflicts with the gospels and Christianity. To believe the latest revelation, you should agree with me that Paul never saw Jesus as divine, but raised to heaven by God, and Paul also sidelined the mosaic law, which the Gospels also do and thus Christianity debunks Judaism, just as Islam debunks Christian dogma of the nature of Jesus and his resurrection (demonstrably fabricated, so a point to Islam here).

Point is, the only reason you are not a Jew or a Muslim is Not because of 'what's in the Bible' but the cultural pump - priming you got, which is the case with most cultural entities.

Which looks like religion is the teaching of humans, not of a god who couldn't get his ducks in a row. And the Free will excuse makes no sense. It makes no sense unless Some Pow'r is doing its' best to mislead as many people as possible by making it look like no god or religion is real, or, of course, none of them are.

[William]

[Replying to POI in post #1]

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?

Q: Is this is viable reason why most believe in a higher power?

I think it is a case of cause and effect. The development of belief that we exist within a created thing and having no memory of a prior existence coupled with the knowledge that one is going to die, does get the brain thinking about one's situation and perhaps even trying to find reason in what appears to be a very unreasonable situation one is finding oneself within.

I do not think any one thing can be attributed to the cause of belief one exists within a created thing.

Q: Is this also why other arguments, against god(s), hardly change the believer's mind?

My perspective has it that the argument for the existence/non-existence of gods itself stems from the fact of life and whether this universe has a mindfully created cause, and how anyone could possibly show that to being/not being the case, is part of that process.

As such, "arguments, against god(s)" are a dime a dozen whereas arguments against us existing in a created thing are rare and oft overlooked/under prioritised.

I do not think any one thing can be attributed to the cause of belief in god(s)

[1213]

You understand incorrectly, and even deny what's in the Bible, on occasions.

I have not denied anything in the Bible.

We already did the Quran in that the teaching is that God has not had a son and Jesus did not die on the cross, and is just one of a line of Prophets. That conflicts with the gospels and Christianity.

Would be nice to see what how exactly that is said in the Quran. But, in a way it is true, Jesus still lives, also by what is said in the Bible. And Jesus is not a son in similar way as humans normally are.

To believe the latest revelation, you should agree with me that Paul never saw Jesus as divine, but raised to heaven by God, and Paul also sidelined the mosaic law, which the Gospels also do and thus Christianity debunks Judaism, just as Islam debunks Christian dogma of the nature of Jesus and his resurrection (demonstrably fabricated, so a point to Islam here).

Please give one example what is debunked by Christianity in Judaism (by Bible)? And what has been demonstrably fabricated?

Point is, the only reason you are not a Jew or a Muslim is Not because of 'what's in the Bible' but the cultural pump - priming you got, which is the case with most cultural entities.

It is almost funny how easily you can make baseless claims. Do you think people believe everything you say, even when you have nothing intelligent to support your claims?

[TRANSPONDER]

You understand incorrectly, and even deny what's in the Bible, on occasions.

I have not denied anything in the Bible.

We already did the Quran in that the teaching is that God has not had a son and Jesus did not die on the cross, and is just one of a line of Prophets. That conflicts with the gospels and Christianity.

Would be nice to see what how exactly that is said in the Quran. But, in a way it is true, Jesus still lives, also by what is said in the Bible. And Jesus is not a son in similar way as humans normally are.

To believe the latest revelation, you should agree with me that Paul never saw Jesus as divine, but raised to heaven by God, and Paul also sidelined the mosaic law, which the Gospels also do and thus Christianity debunks Judaism, just as Islam debunks Christian dogma of the nature of Jesus and his resurrection (demonstrably fabricated, so a point to Islam here).

Please give one example what is debunked by Christianity in Judaism (by Bible)? And what has been demonstrably fabricated?

Point is, the only reason you are not a Jew or a Muslim is Not because of 'what's in the Bible' but the cultural pump - priming you got, which is the case with most cultural entities.

It is almost funny how easily you can make baseless claims. Do you think people believe everything you say, even when you have nothing intelligent to support your claims?

You have denied that the Bible endorses slavery. You have denied that JMary magdalene heard the angel, saw the empty tomb and met jesus while running back to the disciples (Matthew and Luke) and John says she didn't. You have denied that the bible endorses slavery. but of course you aren't y the only one to do this.
an - nisah
People of the Book, do not go to excess in your religion, and do not say anything about God except the truth: the Messiah, Jesus, son of Mary, was nothing more than a messenger of God, His word, directed to Mary, a spirit from Him. So believe in God and His messengers and do not speak of a ‘Trinity’- stop [this], that is better for you- God is only one God, He is far above having a son, everything in the heavens and earth belongs to Him and He is the best one to trust.
Q4:157, ... Haleem—[Jews] said, ‘We have killed the Messiah, Jesus, son of Mary, the Messenger of God.’ (They did not kill him, nor did they crucify him, though it was made to appear like that to them; those that disagreed about him are full of doubt, with no knowledge to follow, only supposition: they certainly did not kill him.)

You may of course wriggle around this as others do, but the verses are the basis of the islamic belief that Jesus was not 'begotten' of God, did not die so was not resurrected. I know this as what they believe, as i know what evolution says without having to quote Origin of species and that Christianity has doctrine that Faith in Jesus saves, not works, which I recall you also deny.

The gospels alone sideline the value of the sabbath and temple, though of course Christianity replaced it with Sunday and Church.

What has been demonstrably fabricated is at least one nativity and probably both. And like speciation, validate one such claim and it validates the others. Like the resurrection being four different (fabricated) accounts.

It is almost funny that you keep making the d same demands, accusations and denials, when I have dealt with them before. Several times.

[1213]

You have denied that the Bible endorses slavery.

Bible gives right to own slaves with certain conditions. I think the conditions are very strict and limits actions that would be bad.

You have denied that JMary magdalene heard the angel, saw the empty tomb and met jesus while running back to the disciples (Matthew and Luke) and John says she didn't.

Mark and Luke don't say Mary M. met Jesus when running back, that is your poor interpretation.

...God is only one God...

That is what the Bible tells.

He is far above having a son, everything in the heavens and earth belongs to Him and He is the best one to trust.
Q4:157, ... Haleem—[Jews] said, ‘We have killed the Messiah, Jesus, son of Mary, the Messenger of God.’ (They did not kill him, nor did they crucify him, though it was made to appear like that to them; those that disagreed about him are full of doubt, with no knowledge to follow, only supposition: they certainly did not kill him.)

It says they didn't kill him. Does he mean Jews? IF so, it can be true, because it was the Romans who killed him.

“We killed the Messiah, Jesus, son of Mary, the messenger of Allah.” But they neither killed nor crucified him—it was only made to appear so.1 Even those who argue for this ˹crucifixion˺ are in doubt. They have no knowledge whatsoever—only making assumptions. They certainly did not kill him.
Q4:157

It is interesting that then Quran says God raised Jesus, as also the Bible tells. That is why I think the differences are minor and not very relevant essentially.

Rather, Allah raised him up to Himself. And Allah is Almighty, All-Wise.
Q4:158

But, even if there would be difference in that, Quran says people should believe Jesus. And I think that is the important point.

...when I have dealt with them before. Several times.

And always fail the same way. It is sad that you never seem to understand, or intentionally act like you don't understand.

[Waterfall]

[Replying to 1213 in post #105]

Namaskaram 1213

https://isha.sadhguru.org/en/wisdom/art ... ar-meaning

Let us inspire our brothers and sisters Have you done your homework...







Your friend forever

Waterfall

[TRANSPONDER]

You have denied that the Bible endorses slavery.

Bible gives right to own slaves with certain conditions. I think the conditions are very strict and limits actions that would be bad.

You have denied that JMary magdalene heard the angel, saw the empty tomb and met jesus while running back to the disciples (Matthew and Luke) and John says she didn't.

Mark and Luke don't say Mary M. met Jesus when running back, that is your poor interpretation.

...God is only one God...

That is what the Bible tells.

He is far above having a son, everything in the heavens and earth belongs to Him and He is the best one to trust.
Q4:157, ... Haleem—[Jews] said, ‘We have killed the Messiah, Jesus, son of Mary, the Messenger of God.’ (They did not kill him, nor did they crucify him, though it was made to appear like that to them; those that disagreed about him are full of doubt, with no knowledge to follow, only supposition: they certainly did not kill him.)

It says they didn't kill him. Does he mean Jews? IF so, it can be true, because it was the Romans who killed him.

“We killed the Messiah, Jesus, son of Mary, the messenger of Allah.” But they neither killed nor crucified him—it was only made to appear so.1 Even those who argue for this ˹crucifixion˺ are in doubt. They have no knowledge whatsoever—only making assumptions. They certainly did not kill him.
Q4:157

It is interesting that then Quran says God raised Jesus, as also the Bible tells. That is why I think the differences are minor and not very relevant essentially.

Rather, Allah raised him up to Himself. And Allah is Almighty, All-Wise.
Q4:158

But, even if there would be difference in that, Quran says people should believe Jesus. And I think that is the important point.

...when I have dealt with them before. Several times.

And always fail the same way. It is sad that you never seem to understand, or intentionally act like you don't understand.

You fail in the same way. Fore example "It doesn't say those words". But it doers say in Matthew that the women met jesus and Luke says it was Mary Magdalene and the others wj ho 'saw and heard' all these things. But did not see jesus. That's a demonstrable contradiction, even if if you try to deny it.

You don't even deny slavery though you try to excuse it, and it Your interpretation that the tough but fair conditions, as a lost cause apologist might put it were only for hebrew slaves and not for foreign ones, but even then it asn apologetic for God endorsing slavery which he could just have forbidden IF he had a moral sense better than ours.

And you are absolutely fiddling the Quran verses but I suspect you know it is a fraud as you revert to the fingers in the ears 'they believe in Jesus' which they don't, in the Christian sense.

But suppose you were right and essentially there is no doctrinal difference between Islam and Christianity just as you appear to want to argue there is no difference between Judaism and Christianity. Why aren't you a Muslim? It's the more recent update of God's revelation after all, so why do you reject it?

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to Waterfall in post #106]

Now that is a post relevant to the present polemic polearm bout between myself and our pal, 1213 even if that strayed from topic as we often tend to do.

I'm lucky as I reject all the Abrahamic god - claim which takes out LDS too, which is nice. On my Other board, I did a long debate on Islam and really their arguments do go down the tube, notably fresh and salt water doesn't mix, which it does, and the 'knocking star' (pulsars don't knock, only the radio rendition of the on/off light blip) looks more like a religious KGB agent coming to bang at the door of the backslider at midnight. And we can shrug at the vague poetic similes presented as 'science in the Bible', though in the Quran this time. And after all, the moon that split in half is no worse (and no better) than the sun that stops moving so those without God on their side can all be slaughtered. The ludicrous Fly's wing cure is excused by them as it is in the hadiths, not the actual Quran. Good to know we can now dismiss the hadiths out of hand.

And the Low place 'prophecy' turned out not only to be explainable as retrospective (if as i suspect, the Quran was written after Muhammad's time) but though the dead sea is a geographically low place, the battle wasn't there but seems to be a battle between Heraclius and the sassanids at Antioch. Which of course isn't geographically low enough to prove that the Quran writer had advanced GPS equipment or 'scientific knowledge from God'

Which is just as well for me, as no religion that forbids bacon and prawns Pad Thai could ever be the intention of any God worth a worship. No more than one who would not replace one of the 'grovel to me' commandments with 'Thou shalt not own another human being as property'.

[William]

[Replying to William in post #102]

I do not think any one thing can be attributed to the cause of belief in god(s)

Although - if "mindfulness" was "one thing", then yeah - we have a contender...

[1213]

You fail in the same way. Fore example "It doesn't say those words". But it doers say in Matthew that the women met jesus and Luke says it was Mary Magdalene and the others wj ho 'saw and heard' all these things. But did not see jesus. That's a demonstrable contradiction, even if if you try to deny it.

You err, not knowing the Scriptures nor the power of God.
Matt. 22:29

Luke says the women told the things. He doesn't say they all saw the same things.

Now they were Mary Magdalene, Joanna, and Mary the mother of James. The other women with them told these things to the apostles.
Luke 24:10

You don't even deny slavery though you try to excuse it, and it Your interpretation that the tough but fair conditions, as a lost cause apologist might put it were only for hebrew slaves and not for foreign ones, but even then it asn apologetic for God endorsing slavery which he could just have forbidden IF he had a moral sense better than ours.

Why forbid it, if people voluntarily want to be slaves?

But suppose you were right and essentially there is no doctrinal difference between Islam and Christianity just as you appear to want to argue there is no difference between Judaism and Christianity. Why aren't you a Muslim? It's the more recent update of God's revelation after all, so why do you reject it?

What is the update?

Main problem for me in Islam is that they seem to worship a stone in the desert. I think that is wrong and against the Biblical teachings. If that idea comes from Muhammad, then I think he is not a God's prophet.

Also, if Quran doesn't mean what it says, it makes the message not useful and reasonable, which is why I reject it. In this case for example, if the believe Jesus doesn't really mean that, then it is not logical book, and I have to ignore it.