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]

...If all the other gods are false , why can't they all be false? If all the others are imaginary, why not all?

And since all the gods that are believed in can be said to be real, as I think you said once, isn't it a case of pick the one you like? ...

I didn't mean false god could not exist. With false I mean, not truly the God. There are many alleged gods that I can believe exists or have existed. But, I think people should not keep as their God something that is not worth it.

[TRANSPONDER]

...If all the other gods are false , why can't they all be false? If all the others are imaginary, why not all?

And since all the gods that are believed in can be said to be real, as I think you said once, isn't it a case of pick the one you like? ...

I didn't mean false god could not exist. With false I mean, not truly the God. There are many alleged gods that I can believe exists or have existed. But, I think people should not keep as their God something that is not worth it.

That seems a bit of a wabble and waffle, but I concur that we shouldn't beleive in gods that do not merit belief. That includes the Abrahamic god, whether of Judaism, Christianity, Islam or LDS.

[Clownboat]

I believe all people come from same ancestors, and therefore they would have the connection to the same God, the one who created Adam and Eve.

Then you should abandon this belief. Ancient humans did not believe in your proposed god concept because it had not been invented yet. If they did believe in it, we would see evidence for your god concept. What we see are earlier god concepts that are not the same as we have now. What you choose to believe does not address a mechanism for all the competing god concepts that we now have.

The explanation to a specific god depends on what god are your speaking of. Can you give one example, for what god concept you would like to have an explanation?

Yes, any of the 3,999 existing god concepts or any of the past ones that humans no longer believe in.

People have kept for example a golden calf as their god.

Now what was the mechanism for how they abandoned a real god concept for this golden calf and what does this show besides the fact that humans invent all sorts of god concepts?

I can easily believe such a thing exists.

I believe you! I'm going to withhold belief in golden calf gods until I'm provided adequate reasoning to believe such a thing is real and a God. Again, I easily believe that you easily can believe in such a thing.

I just don't think it should be kept as the God, because it is just something people made.

Good to know that we shouldn't keep god concept just because people made them up. On that, we agree. Any guesses on who made up your god concept? Would you possibly credit people coming out of Ur, like Abraham (according to the story in the Bible).

Can you give some other example of a god that you think humans invented?

Every known god concept available seems to be a god concept that humans invented. Is there a reason to suppose one of these god concepts is real when compared to the other available options? If so, please share.

[1213]

I believe all people come from same ancestors, and therefore they would have the connection to the same God, the one who created Adam and Eve.

Then you should abandon this belief. Ancient humans did not believe in your proposed god concept because it had not been invented yet. If they did believe in it, we would see evidence for your god concept. What we see are earlier god concepts that are not the same as we have now…

Abandon my belief and replace it with your belief, why?

By what I know, all ancient people seem to have had an idea of supreme God. Obviously, the idea may have been slightly different, but the essential idea is about the same.

People have kept for example a golden calf as their god.

Now what was the mechanism for how they abandoned a real god concept for this golden calf and what does this show besides the fact that humans invent all sorts of god concepts?

It shows some people like more of their won lies than truth.

Can you give some other example of a god that you think humans invented?

Every known god concept available seems to be a god concept that humans invented. Is there a reason to suppose one of these god concepts is real when compared to the other available options? If so, please share.

I don’t think humans could have developed the idea of biblical God on their own. the reason why I think so is for example that when people make their own gods, they are easy and nice statues that don’t demand much and don’t know or say anything.

[TRANSPONDER]

What you think is irrelevant; the case you can make is more to the point.

So you think all the various gods that people invented are wrong ideas of a single god?

Well, perhaps, which is why irreligious theism is something atheists can live with.

But the thing is that the old tribes invested animals and even inanimate objects with the qualities they saw in themselves. This suggests - I argue - that humans are not only capable of inventing gods, based on their own thoughts, preferences and feelings of identity, even before we get to personal and tribal gods) but it is almost demonstrable that the god - idea is based in human identity, which is why God is always on the side of the one who wins.

Whatever you may assert or deny, the better hypothesis by far is that all other's gods are human inventions, as well as whichever one some tribe or people happen to believe in.

[1213]

So you think all the various gods that people invented are wrong ideas of a single god?

Not necessary all. But, there seems to be common idea of one God who is the greatest. Obviously different nations have slightly different ideas of what it means, but the idea of supreme God is common.

But the thing is that the old tribes invested animals and even inanimate objects with the qualities they saw in themselves. This suggests - I argue - that humans are not only capable of inventing gods, based on their own thoughts, preferences and feelings of identity, even before we get to personal and tribal gods) but it is almost demonstrable that the god - idea is based in human identity, which is why God is always on the side of the one who wins.

So, how would you then explain Jews inventing the God who lets them have all kinds of calamities and allows them to be won multiple times?

And how would you explain, if people make gods in their image, why they would not just keep themselves as gods, after all, they are the model in that case?

[TRANSPONDER]

So you think all the various gods that people invented are wrong ideas of a single god?

Not necessary all. But, there seems to be common idea of one God who is the greatest. Obviously different nations have slightly different ideas of what it means, but the idea of supreme God is common.

But the thing is that the old tribes invested animals and even inanimate objects with the qualities they saw in themselves. This suggests - I argue - that humans are not only capable of inventing gods, based on their own thoughts, preferences and feelings of identity, even before we get to personal and tribal gods) but it is almost demonstrable that the god - idea is based in human identity, which is why God is always on the side of the one who wins.

So, how would you then explain Jews inventing the God who lets them have all kinds of calamities and allows them to be won multiple times?

And how would you explain, if people make gods in their image, why they would not just keep themselves as gods, after all, they are the model in that case?

I agree the idea of one god is common, but after all, the idea of one supreme ruler is an instinct. Even when a nation has got rid of kings, they treat their presidents like kings, especially when they are lifetime premiers with a dynasty. The idea of a king of the gods is a human idea, on the evidence. There is no cars for supposing this human invention tells us about a real creator, never mind validating a particular religion.

I'm frankly surprised, amused and disappointed that you think that that Biblegod must be real because of 'Why would the Jews invent a god that smote them for disobedience?'.

Because the history was, they had been smit. They had been smit by the Assyrians and then the Babylonians. So the god that was supposed to protect them didn't exist? Ooohh nooo....they must have annoyed that god, that's the excuse and doubling down they did, just as any other religion does. A most egregious example was some apologist who blamed a hurricane devastating the Bible belt was because God was angry about gays being allowed to marry in a different state that wasn't touched by the disaster.

Even without the excuses and Cope that the Abrahamic shill apologists did after the Tsunami, that should be a clear signal that IF there is a god, it does not micromanage affairs, does not intervene in human affairs, and does not answer prayers. You owe it to yourself to stop deluding yourself, never mind about trying to fool someone who has been swapping shrapnel with the Faithful for decades.

[1213]

...I'm frankly surprised, amused and disappointed that you think that that Biblegod must be real because of 'Why would the Jews invent a god that smote them for disobedience?'.
...

I believe God is real, because we have the Bible and this life. I asked 'Why would the Jews invent a god that smote them for disobedience?', because I wanted to know can you give any good answer for that.

[TRANSPONDER]

...I'm frankly surprised, amused and disappointed that you think that that Biblegod must be real because of 'Why would the Jews invent a god that smote them for disobedience?'.
...

I believe God is real, because we have the Bible and this life. I asked 'Why would the Jews invent a god that smote them for disobedience?', because I wanted to know can you give any good answer for that.

The Bible is full of things that are wrong - both books. I already explained why the Jews had a god that smote them. Because by the time the bible was written, the Jews had undeniably already been smit. Just as we do today, they explained that as being punished for somehow annoying the deity.

[1213]

...I'm frankly surprised, amused and disappointed that you think that that Biblegod must be real because of 'Why would the Jews invent a god that smote them for disobedience?'.
...

I believe God is real, because we have the Bible and this life. I asked 'Why would the Jews invent a god that smote them for disobedience?', because I wanted to know can you give any good answer for that.

The Bible is full of things that are wrong - both books. I already explained why the Jews had a god that smote them. Because by the time the bible was written, the Jews had undeniably already been smit. Just as we do today, they explained that as being punished for somehow annoying the deity.

Ok, that could maybe work as an explanation, if it would not first have been said what will lead to the calamities.

If we accept your baseless belief, why do you think they "created the God", if it is not actually beneficial for them?