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?

[Data]

None of that seems necessary. How about differentiating your religious thinking from that of a Muslim for starters.

Not sure I follow. We believe differently.

Perhaps you believe claims from the Christian religious holy book? See a Muslim and their holy book.
Perhaps you believe in your god concept because of faith? See a Muslim and their faith.
Perhaps you are a Christian because of where you were born? See a Muslim and religion by geography.

I believe the Bible. Claims? Seems an odd distraction of atheists. I've read both the Bible and Quaran many times. I've published and translated parts of the Bible and the entire Quran. They're different. What's your point. I wasn't born a Christian, I'm not Christian now, I was born atheist/irreligious. Dad was atheist from, his folks were as well. Mom believed in some God concept but hated religion. I became a believer when I was poised on taking a militant stance against Christianity and decided if I was going to do that I needed to go on more than the tradition and so I began an intense study of the Bible. I live in the Bible belt. Well, actually I don't think it is technically considered that but it is as far as I can tell. The commonality and prevalence of specific teachings naturally have some relevance given geographic relevance, but so does language, and a dozen other things including secular.

Sure, levitating would be cool, but let's be honest, it isn't necessary. Showing that your reasoning is different when compared to the reasoning of humans that believe in a competing god concept would be a better start IMO, if that can be done that is.

Why do you think religion by geography is a thing? Do the available god concepts want it to be that way? Seems odd and very human to me. What's your take?

The same as anything else. If I were born in China I would likely be Taoist or Confucianist. The same goes for time. But so would you. Not really as significant or at least surprising as far as I can tell.

[otseng]

Isn't it yet fashionable for you people to be openly antichristian instead of just weak atheists. The agnostic part I would happily concede, but the rest. Fascinates me. Like an amoeba.

Moderator Comment

Please debate without making personal comments.

Please review the Rules.





______________



Moderator comments do not count as a strike against any posters. They only serve as an acknowledgment that a post report has been received, but has not been judged to warrant a moderator warning against a particular poster. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to Data in post #61]

That seems a self - serving argument. Of course cultural norms are dumped on the person where they grew up. But while you rushed to the Bible I went tyo all the religious claims, and saw no reason to see any of the god - claims as beating the others.

Except that Muhammad looked a real person (so did Joseph Smith, and L Ron Hubbard) and Buddha - I wasn't sure but the method looked the common one (contact with the ultimate reality). The main Bible claim was that it was a reliable record. A study soon shows that there was a norther view of that.

But you went straight to the Bible and dismissed the Quran, which you say you read. On what grounds,pray? Why is not the Quran the latest revelation as it says?

[POI]

Christians, please challenge my hypothesis. I state we are inherently preconditioned to invoke intentional agency, (i.e.) intentional intervening god(s), intentional evils like demons/ghosts/devil/other, dead relatives communicating through various "channels", the rustling in a bush first means a threat as opposed to the wind, etc., whether there is actually intentional agency or not. And when agency is not actually there, and we are wrong in reality and never know it, (which is a type 1 error), there exists no actual repercussions regardless. Hence, we will continue to make them until we die. Alternatively, if we first always assume no intentional agency (good or bad), but there actual is, or (a type 2 error), the consequences could instead be to our detriment.

Is this why so many believe in god(s)?

[1213]

Christians, please challenge my hypothesis. I state we are inherently preconditioned to invoke intentional agency, (i.e.) intentional intervening god(s), intentional evils like demons/ghosts/devil/other, dead relatives communicating through various "channels", the rustling in a bush first means a threat as opposed to the wind, etc., whether there is actually intentional agency or not. And when agency is not actually there, and we are wrong in reality and never know it, (which is a type 1 error), there exists no actual repercussions regardless. Hence, we will continue to make them until we die. Alternatively, if we first always assume no intentional agency (good or bad), but there actual is, or (a type 2 error), the consequences could instead be to our detriment.

Is this why so many believe in god(s)?

Difficult to say why other people believe. I believe in God because of the Bible and I believe Bible, because things go as told there and also because it's teachings are good. So, in my case your hypothesis is not true.

I think the biggest problem with your hypothesis is that you can't prove God is not influencing behind all, even if you can explain things in level 1 naturally.

[POI]

This:

I think the biggest problem with your hypothesis is that you can't prove God is not influencing behind all

Equals this:

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...

[TRANSPONDER]

Christians, please challenge my hypothesis. I state we are inherently preconditioned to invoke intentional agency, (i.e.) intentional intervening god(s), intentional evils like demons/ghosts/devil/other, dead relatives communicating through various "channels", the rustling in a bush first means a threat as opposed to the wind, etc., whether there is actually intentional agency or not. And when agency is not actually there, and we are wrong in reality and never know it, (which is a type 1 error), there exists no actual repercussions regardless. Hence, we will continue to make them until we die. Alternatively, if we first always assume no intentional agency (good or bad), but there actual is, or (a type 2 error), the consequences could instead be to our detriment.

Is this why so many believe in god(s)?

Difficult to say why other people believe. I believe in God because of the Bible and I believe Bible, because things go as told there and also because it's teachings are good. So, in my case your hypothesis is not true.

I think the biggest problem with your hypothesis is that you can't prove God is not influencing behind all, even if you can explain things in level 1 naturally.

Usual..in fact, universal...fallacy. Burden of proof is on the believer to show a god is behind it, not on the unbeliever to show it is not.

The discussion on the "Evidence' is already done. Argument from prayer, morals, ID and indeed Bible veracity have failed, Theist denial aside. e.g I have had things in my life that would be evidence of answered prayer - if I'd been praying. But I didn't. Coincidences can lead believers to think prayers are answered, even without them trying to persuade themselves.

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

n.b Faith is not a good reason.

[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.

[1213]

This:

I think the biggest problem with your hypothesis is that you can't prove God is not influencing behind all

Equals this:

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...

If so, you can't never say it could not have been God. And that is why you can't show the idea wrong, even if God would not be behind every thing that happens. And this is why your hypothesis fails.

[POI]

This:

I think the biggest problem with your hypothesis is that you can't prove God is not influencing behind all

Equals this:

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...

If so, you can't never say it could not have been God. And that is why you can't show the idea wrong, even if God would not be behind every thing that happens. And this is why your hypothesis fails.

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.