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'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?

You are proposing that prophecy is real and the threats of punishment would never have formed part of a story written before the event.

But the more probable explanation is that the prophecies were retrospective, written after the event. The more probabl; theory is the latter since prophecies do not work now, except fiddled and fraudulently or retrospectively, and why should we suppose that it was different back then? The evidence is that Daniel had to have been written just before the Maccabean war as after a particular date, the prophecy is wrong.

The Prophecy of Tyre was wrong, and that means it Was written about the time it was about not to turn out right, and cannot have been written before.

All the evidence is for these prophecies being retrospective, history with God being credited with whatever happened - even the Jews being smit. Which explains why the 'invented' story has Jews being punished; it had already happened.

I know you will deny it as you always do, but the fact is that the OT is wrong, prophecy is wrong and there is no logical reason to take the OT or whole Bible as anything but a polemic, loosely based on existing material. Not as reliable, accurate or eyewitness or meriting belief.

[1213]

The Prophecy of Tyre was wrong, ...

Repeating that false claim makes the rest of your post also to look like false and not believable.

[TRANSPONDER]

The Prophecy of Tyre was wrong, ...

Repeating that false claim makes the rest of your post also to look like false and not believable.

Your denial of my case without any backup just discredits you, your case (such as it is) and the religion you are trying to bolster.

I know, and I have said it before. You think that if you deny everything, you win. But it isn't all about you and how how denialist you can be, but about the case you can present, and you have presented nothing at all but blindfaith denial. What's worse for Bible apologetics is that it makes other, les blatant, denialism look bad. Which of course, it is but is not always so blatant.

[TRANSPONDER]

sorry. One of those duplicate posts.

[Clownboat]

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

You should abandon your belief for being wrong. Why do you have this need to replace a wrong belief with another? Why not just believe things that are true and withhold belief until things are confirmed?

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.

Yes, humans have been inventing god concepts for many thousands of years. That they all referenced some same original god concept is not evidenced. The gods vary from region to region even today.

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.

Are you projecting? Is this why you hold on to your Christianity?

I don’t think humans could have developed the idea of biblical God on their own.

You seem to be denying how creative humans are. I am unable to share this denial with you.
Seneca, a poet who lived around 50 CE, is credited with saying, "Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful". Throughout history, religion has been a significant factor in legitimizing the power of rulers by providing divine sanction and moral authority to their rule.

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.

That doesn't even make sense.
You do think that humans invented gods, but not the biblical god concept, because some gods are nice statues that don't demand much or say anything.

[1213]

...
You should abandon your belief for being wrong...

...after someone has proven it wrong. You have not done that.

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 that when humans develop a god, it is something solid and silent, doesn't say anything annoying, especially not for the rulers.

Seneca, a poet who lived around 50 CE, is credited with saying, "Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful". Throughout history, religion has been a significant factor in legitimizing the power of rulers by providing divine sanction and moral authority to their rule.

It is interesting that Bible doesn't really give that authority to the rulers.

[TRANSPONDER]

...
You should abandon your belief for being wrong...

...after someone has proven it wrong. You have not done that.

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 that when humans develop a god, it is something solid and silent, doesn't say anything annoying, especially not for the rulers.

Seneca, a poet who lived around 50 CE, is credited with saying, "Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful". Throughout history, religion has been a significant factor in legitimizing the power of rulers by providing divine sanction and moral authority to their rule.

It is interesting that Bible doesn't really give that authority to the rulers.

It's n more complex than that. While it is true that religions back up rulership authority, rulership has to please the religion or it will find that Gd's hand has turned against them.

I have noted a sort of Sellars - yeatman Good and Bad king - list for Hebrew rulers. I have always noted that the Bad ones were just too tolerant of other religions and Good ones were the ones that enforced Judaism in a strict form.

Which king and indeed country had God's support seems debatable, and is better explained by saying its' human politics and an imaginarty god and religion is just used to provide spiritual authority.

[Clownboat]

...after someone has proven it wrong. You have not done that.

I did, you just quote mind it out of your reply. That's one way to deny, just pretend it didn't happen.
Again: "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…"

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 that when humans develop a god, it is something solid and silent, doesn't say anything annoying, especially not for the rulers.

First of all, you didn't address the mechanism for how they abandoned a real God for this golden calf. We have a story where a god saves these people from the Egyptians by performing amazing miracles. Next thing we know, they are abandoning that god for an idol they created themselves. I know, it's hard to imagine why a real God would be abandoned for one they would know to be false (a creation of their own), but this is your story, not mine. Perhaps they just had really bad memory and forgot which god helped them? This part of the story doesn't make sense.
Secondly, we are examining one claimed event and you think that it applies to all the gods that humans have invented. It's also nonsense because Thor for one example was not a silent God and you are not going to claim that Thor is a real God, therefore your qualifications are unacceptable and my noticing that humans create all sorts of god concepts is accurate.

Seneca, a poet who lived around 50 CE, is credited with saying, "Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful". Throughout history, religion has been a significant factor in legitimizing the power of rulers by providing divine sanction and moral authority to their rule.

It is interesting that Bible doesn't really give that authority to the rulers.

I wouldn't find that interesting even if true. Why do you think Seneca said these words? Within a couple decades of the Jesus story even!

[TRANSPONDER]

...after someone has proven it wrong. You have not done that.

I did, you just quote mind it out of your reply. That's one way to deny, just pretend it didn't happen.
Again: "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…"

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 that when humans develop a god, it is something solid and silent, doesn't say anything annoying, especially not for the rulers.

First of all, you didn't address the mechanism for how they abandoned a real God for this golden calf. We have a story where a god saves these people from the Egyptians by performing amazing miracles. Next thing we know, they are abandoning that god for an idol they created themselves. I know, it's hard to imagine why a real God would be abandoned for one they would know to be false (a creation of their own), but this is your story, not mine. Perhaps they just had really bad memory and forgot which god helped them? This part of the story doesn't make sense.
Secondly, we are examining one claimed event and you think that it applies to all the gods that humans have invented. It's also nonsense because Thor for one example was not a silent God and you are not going to claim that Thor is a real God, therefore your qualifications are unacceptable and my noticing that humans create all sorts of god concepts is accurate.

Seneca, a poet who lived around 50 CE, is credited with saying, "Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful". Throughout history, religion has been a significant factor in legitimizing the power of rulers by providing divine sanction and moral authority to their rule.

It is interesting that Bible doesn't really give that authority to the rulers.

I wouldn't find that interesting even if true. Why do you think Seneca said these words? Within a couple decades of the Jesus story even!

The first problem is that we don't even know the golden calf story is true.

When it comes to not disproven, how will you disprove the proposal that the Exodus was a concocted story? I won't rehearse the argument that Exodus doesn't really fit in history unless in a pretty later time in Egyptian history when there were a lot of gods and no Judaism yet?


The way it works is that you have to give reasons why Exodus and Moses and the golden calf is true, which I give the evidence for the hypothesis that it is false.

The problem with Faith is, it leads to the Ghost Bible, which is that the apologists doesn't use the bible in his hand and what it says, but the one in his heads and what he wants it to say.

Which is what America's Best Christian explains in this mustwatch video, which may go on the atheists 'Required Watching' list.

[1213]

...
Again: "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…"

Many nations have the idea of one supreme creator God. That can be the common memory from the era of Adam and Eve.

... We have a story where a god saves these people from the Egyptians by performing amazing miracles. Next thing we know, they are abandoning that god for an idol they created themselves. I know, it's hard to imagine why a real God would be abandoned for one they would know to be false (a creation of their own), but this is your story, not mine. Perhaps they just had really bad memory and forgot which god helped them?

Or they just wanted something less demanding, or wanted to be like the other nations. By what I see, it is very common for people to choose popular things, even if it is not good or wise.

Secondly, we are examining one claimed event and you think that it applies to all the gods that humans have invented. It's also nonsense because Thor for one example was not a silent God and you are not going to claim that Thor is a real God, therefore your qualifications are unacceptable and my noticing that humans create all sorts of god concepts is accurate.

What did Thor say, and how do you know that? I think it is possible that there was a guy called Thor and he was held as god. In a way such gods fit well to that is said in the Bible.

Seneca, a poet who lived around 50 CE, is credited with saying, "Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful". Throughout history, religion has been a significant factor in legitimizing the power of rulers by providing divine sanction and moral authority to their rule.

Yes, I can believe that is true. That is why I think Bible is refreshing, because it doesn't really help in that.

It is interesting that Bible doesn't really give that authority to the rulers.

I wouldn't find that interesting even if true. Why do you think Seneca said these words?

I think you should ask that from him. My guess is not worth much. But, I think he is generally correct and may have said it just because that is how things commonly are.