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]

So again, thanks for leaving my hypothesis unchallenged.

Am I challenging it and if so, how? What you are saying above is that I'm not challenging it, correct?

ETA: If you don't respond to this, I will demonstrate how I didn't challenge your hypothesis I completely obliterated it. You missed it because your hypothesis is meaningless. Remember?

[POI]

So again, thanks for leaving my hypothesis unchallenged.

Am I challenging it

Up until now, no. Are you even trying to challenge my hypothesis, regarding "type 1 > type 2"?

[Data]

Up until now, no. Are you even trying to challenge my hypothesis, regarding "type 1 > type 2"?

Neither. Those are silly smokescreens. I didn't give them a thought. Your hypothesis was obliterated by me when I pointed out that the OP reference to God/gods/higher powers was immediately dismissed so that you could make the illogical assumption that they aren't a part of the hypothesis while lumping them all in the guise of the God in question you completely ignore the results in other words completely compromise the data. We can't compromise the data. Data is to be respected. Even if it is meaningless. What do we do with it then? Carry out the argument, the wrong argument? Indefinitely. Job security. Huh? Know what I'm saying?

The answer is 42.

[POI]

Data. Below are just some of the reasons I no longer take your responses too seriously anymore, aside from the shining example I presented about you not reading my responses anymore.....

I've already explained.... For the intents and purposes of this discussion, here in the 'debating Christianity' forum, I am only speaking about the Bible God. If we were talking about baseball, we might instead be talking about how Micky Mantle/other was/is a 'god'.

Stop arguing and think. The OP: "Hypothesis: The reason most/all believe in (God/gods/higher powers) is because of evolution." This Bible God you speak of is, then, in your estimation, all gods/higher powers?

I already explained, but you instead want to argue. We are in the "Debating Christianity" forum and I also already know you believe in the Bible God Jehovah. If you were an atheist, my response to you would be different, yes. I tailor my responses to who I am exchanging with. That's all. Stop making something out of nothing.

And by 'agency', I mean the Bible God is perceived to intervene.

So, just another argument of yours, the same as every other argument of yours. Theism envy. As usual it doesn't matter what anyone responds with because the argument is in your own soul, using the Biblical term.

Do you want me to chase this too, or not?

Supernatural simply means science doesn't currently understand, why couldn't they?

By your given response, this would mean the drugs Accutane and Ozempic are, in part, "supernatural" as 'science' still does not fully understand the mechanism(s) which make them do what they are sometimes intended to do. Should we chase this some more too, or just INSTEAD agree when I state 'supernatural', I mean the God YOU believe in?

Crystal ball? Social neuroscience? Archaeology? Space exploration? The human mind? The Bible?

I asked a serious question, and you did not truly answer. Nor did you really read the question, as some of your response included "science".

If you do not like me, and/or you do not trust me, and/or other, and you think all my arguments are the same, then just stop responding.

[Data]

Data. Below are just some of the reasons I no longer take your responses too seriously anymore, aside from the shining example I presented about you not reading my responses anymore.....

Has it occurred to you that I don't want you to take my responses seriously, that that isn't the intention? Or that I don't take yours seriously. What you say only demonstrates what you actually mean, underneath the façade of what you are saying. It's not a game I'm playing with you, it's a puzzle you have on display which I'm examining. Not your motive, not your belief, not your opinion or philosophy or whatever. For what is underneath. I'm not doing this to hold up like some trophy, I'm doing it because it is important for me to examine. I really don't need to participate. It's just faster that way.

I already explained, but you instead want to argue. We are in the "Debating Christianity" forum and I also already know you believe in the Bible God Jehovah. If you were an atheist, my response to you would be different, yes. I tailor my responses to who I am exchanging with. That's all. Stop making something out of nothing.

The point is that your hypothesis is ambiguous. You adapt. What is it you are really examining and why? I don't want to argue. Unless I have to.

I asked a serious question, and you did not truly answer. Nor did you really read the question, as some of your response included "science".

Those were all serious options to suit your hypothesis. I operate under the pretense of not knowing that you were so specific. In which case the Bible. Simple.

If you do not like me, and/or you do not trust me, and/or other, and you think all my arguments are the same, then just stop responding.

Whether I like, trust or anything else is irrelevant. Don't take any of this personal would be my advice to your science minded skepticism. Just the facts, man.

[POI]

Whether I like, trust or anything else is irrelevant. Don't take any of this personal would be my advice to your science minded skepticism. Just the facts, man.

Hmm?

I don't trust you and I don't like you. I don't think you're capable of providing your own argument, so I won't be reading your posts anymore.

Looks like they are relevant. And yet you still respond anyways.

Just the facts, man.

Good by!

[Data]

Looks like they are relevant. And yet you still respond anyways.

Just the facts, man.

Good by!

Good by!

I don't need your responses. I don't even really need your posts. I already know it all. Your posts are irrelevant. As are mine and everyone else's. Completely irrelevant. The child sacrifices of four thousand years ago are irrelevant. And you expect your silly argument of ego to be relevant? You think exposing someone who makes up voices in their head now is more relevant than the child sacrifices of four thousand years ago?

What a difference you will make for the science utopia! You and Transponder are changing the world right here. Is this what you think? Or are you just satisfying your own curiosity?

By the way. I'm not going to read or respond to your posts anymore.

Good by again.

ETA: I've changed my mind again. I will be reading and responding to them.

Cast out. Three days. Then come again. Watch me.

[POI]

I find it odd that Data states he is (again), not going to read my responses, but asks me follow-up questions? I guess such questioning was meant to be rhetorical

[TRANSPONDER]

The 'wind up an atheist for Jesus' responses are not unfamiliar. But the post at top of page is revealing if a delicious craftiness.

So again, thanks for leaving my hypothesis unchallenged.

Am I challenging it and if so, how? What you are saying above is that I'm not challenging it, correct?

ETA: If you don't respond to this, I will demonstrate how I didn't challenge your hypothesis I completely obliterated it. You missed it because your hypothesis is meaningless. Remember?

This is trying to pretend one has won the argument before it starts.

We saw the putrid little ploy used - again a not unfamiliar effort of the wind -up artist; semantic fiddling. Dictionary definition of God/Gods that is irrelevant

And after the ensuing posts, 'I win because I was just wasting your time, anyway".

Supposing that the average theist and believer looks at that without too much "Ho ho, we wasted an atheists' time, what a win for the Bible!" it doesn't hurt the atheist case any more than it makes the anti -atheist (since no other purpose suggests itself) look as much a winner as he may tell himself he is.

I must say, though, that anti atheists (as distinct from Believing Christians, which they often are not) can be the most persistent of posters. I suspect because, their theism having failed, they have nothing left for self -justification than anti -atheism.

Not saying that's what we got ourselves here, but it is very familiar. Lapsed believer with residual and politicized hate of the name atheism, and that can be marooned up by asking about vaccines, same sex restrooms and the general government situation.

I could be wrong, of course, but the style is very familiar. What has a sub - definition of 'god' as the hunk rapper poster blue -tacked to the wall to do with the discussion, let alone winning it for Jesus, Bible or Christianity?

Hypothesis not approached, let alone addressed.

[Data]

The 'wind up an atheist for Jesus' responses are not unfamiliar. But the post at top of page is revealing if a delicious craftiness.

Fight the valiant fight, soldier of truth and the science utopia. You will win, I can assure you. And then there will be a flash of light. It comes not from God but from science. From the city they will flee. To the small villages. The vanquished will not give them food or shelter. The utopia, used up. Evaporated.

This is trying to pretend one has won the argument before it starts.

An argument that doesn't exist. An argument about a thing that it isn't about. The only winner in this argument is the one who has seen it, long before it was an argument. Not that that would have been necessary. From the OP: " The reason most/all believe in (God/gods/higher powers)"

Wait. what God/gods/higher powers?

We saw the putrid little ploy used - again a not unfamiliar effort of the wind -up artist; semantic fiddling. Dictionary definition of God/Gods that is irrelevant

Hear! Hear! Gods are irrelevant to this argument about Gods.

And after the ensuing posts, 'I win because I was just wasting your time, anyway".

So obsessed with the battle old soldier. It reminds me of the Japanese soldier who hides in a cave and has to be drug out decades later because he doesn't know the war is over.

Supposing that the average theist and believer looks at that without too much "Ho ho, we wasted an atheists' time, what a win for the Bible!" it doesn't hurt the atheist case any more than it makes the anti -atheist (since no other purpose suggests itself) look as much a winner as he may tell himself he is.

So obsessed with a battle that depends entirely upon the imagination of the opponent. How unoriginal.

I must say, though, that anti atheists (as distinct from Believing Christians, which they often are not) can be the most persistent of posters. I suspect because, their theism having failed, they have nothing left for self -justification than anti -atheism.

What a strategist you are. In this battle to end all battles.