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]

...
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.

The idea of One god is not too common. Rather there are tribes of gods with a king, just like humans do it.

The one god idea is the Jewish one, and I suggest it was an evolution of the Hebrew tribal god. When the Hebrews emerged from the hills after the bronze age collapse the in time found themselves in contact with a number of other tribes. I can recall hearing about an ancient list of gods of which YHWH was just one, and of course indications that early on YHWH had a goddess wife (Asherah, I believe). The OT, I recall, makes a point of insularity; not following other peoples and their gods. I recall a passage that even suggested that farming was not a suitable living and goatherding was the right way to live. Of course this idea was dropped when there was a new nation to run.

We know of course of the idea that, at first, YHWH was the king of the gods, not the only one. But the problem came when other tribes and their gods beat them. If other gods were more powerful.....

The idea that YHWH was punishing them would only go so far. It would help with this pesky backsliding and tolerance of other religions to change this from top god to the Only god. Speculations about Thor or Rama or Quetzalcoatl possibly being real people made into gods really makes no difference to whether the gods were based on real people or just invented tribal deities; there is no reason to believe in any of these god including the Abrahamic ones or deified humans, like the Christian one.
I think this is a plausible hypothesis of how the Jews invented monotheism. Christianity and Islam were just religions that built on that. So One God is actually rather uncommon.

There is of course the idea of some sophisticated thinkers drifting away from a raft of gods (Romans, Hindus) and moving towards a cosmic thought type of god. But that hardly helps the one Abrahamic god idea, unless one drifts towards Deism or irreligious theism. But that tends to leave the Bible behind.

It also leaves behind this hopeful (I'm being polite) idea that it's a memory handed down from Adam and Eve, like that spread all over the world when human stone age societies already had the first societies and towns and indication of religious thoughts, and for sure their own languages. The idea of a cultural spread of the One God idea from Eden just doesn't wash, especially e when species of gods, rules by a god - king was rather the norm.

I've already commented on the golden calf idea and how Exodus is an invented tale with no historical basis (other than vaguely based on the Hyksos, I am 70% convinced) so I'll just say that the hopeful suggestion of the Israelites, retaining a cultural identity (and even tribal structure, according to some schools of thought) and even a vague suggestion that they already had their god (Moses told Pharaoh he wanted to take his people into the desert to worship) suddenly decided to worship a bovine god made by melting down all their gold trinkets, like they had a goldworking furnace carried along with this Tabernacle they built.

This all sounds as anachronistic as the rest of the tale, and the Bull smacks more of the Canaanite god Baal than the Egyptian god Khnum.

You can disagree but I am pretty sure that Genesis and exodus were written quite late (Exile, there are clues to suggest) to explain how the Hebrews (what was left of them) were different from and superior to all other nations, despite have been beaten and most of their tribes vanished. So I offer the idea for discussion and an alternative to your suggestion that One God is a common human trait that can be traced back to Eden.

I don't buy that and nobody with an open mind who is aware of the way ancient history (and religious thought) looks will buy it either. I have to repeat, it isn't about how much denial you can do but what case you can present, and the Adam and Eve origin for a One God common to human though just doesn't stack up.

For the rest, I'm glad you god called on Seneca. I can recall no apologetic with Seneca supporting the Abrahamic god, much less religion, and it seems neither can you as you now duck and dive and use how the Bible says stuff different from what Seneca says as 'refreshing'. It is diverting to see when you are called on Seneca supposedly supporting Christianity you totally alter the point.

I won't labour the point but just say that, again, I am thankful I am not a Christian and don't have to twist my thinking into pretzels to try to support a Faith.

response to 'cue..." science (and evolution) is not a Faith. Theists (Projecting) think it is.

P.s. Looking back, it seems that Clownboat raised seneca and a Roman sketic about religion. So was Lucan, a Roman satirist who exposed the Glycon cult and was rather scathing about Christianity, too.

Point is, you didn't Use Seneca, even though your point that the Bible is 'refreshing' that is says something else. I put 'Refreshing' through Google translate Theist - English and it came out "Says what I want to hear".

[Clownboat]

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

Earlier god concepts are clearly not your currently believed in god concept. Therefore you should abandon this belief: "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."

Now if American Indians (North and/or South) had your Adam and Eve story, that would credit what you want to be true, but they don't so your want seems unjustified.
Again, there is no need to replace your belief with another. Abandoning false beliefs is good on its own.

... 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.

Put yourself in their shoes. The plagues happened and then the Red Sea miracle. Would you really be able to do what you suggest above? I could not abandon a god concept that I truly believed in for one that was created on the spot and this is your explanation. I have to reject it for not reflecting human nature and quite frankly for being silly.

What did Thor say, and how do you know that?

Thor said nothing in reality. Thor is human invented god concept, but certainly not a silent one as his followers believed.

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.

What you think might be possible is not interesting. Showing that ancient Thor beliefs also included an Adam and Eve story would be something, but you can't do that but will find it possible anyway because of the religious belief you are now trying to maintain.

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.

Then you need to learn your history. How can you pretend to not know about the Pope or the Crusades? Do you just deny that the Pope is real or that the crusades happened or how a god concept was used in the Old Testament to justify all sorts of atrocities? It's nonsensical to deny that the Bible helped in these instances.

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.

I agree with you that he said these words because that is how things were and still are.
This is telling.

[1213]

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

Earlier god concepts are clearly not your currently believed in god concept. Therefore you should abandon this belief: "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."

Now if American Indians (North and/or South) had your Adam and Eve story, that would credit what you want to be true, but they don't so your want seems unjustified.

But, by what I know, they also have an idea of great spirit, which can be seen as the God.

Thor is human invented god concept, but certainly not a silent one as his followers believed.

Apparently the human invention didn't say anything meaningful that would be wort to remember.

Then you need to learn your history. How can you pretend to not know about the Pope or the Crusades? Do you just deny that the Pope is real or that the crusades happened or how a god concept was used in the Old Testament to justify all sorts of atrocities? It's nonsensical to deny that the Bible helped in these instances.

It helped that people were kept ignorant on what the Bible tells. If one would be a disciple of Jesus (="Christian"), he would remain in word of Jesus and by it, one would not go on crusade. Bible doesn't support such an action.

[TRANSPONDER]

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

Earlier god concepts are clearly not your currently believed in god concept. Therefore you should abandon this belief: "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."

Now if American Indians (North and/or South) had your Adam and Eve story, that would credit what you want to be true, but they don't so your want seems unjustified.

But, by what I know, they also have an idea of great spirit, which can be seen as the God.

Thor is human invented god concept, but certainly not a silent one as his followers believed.

Apparently the human invention didn't say anything meaningful that would be wort to remember.

Then you need to learn your history. How can you pretend to not know about the Pope or the Crusades? Do you just deny that the Pope is real or that the crusades happened or how a god concept was used in the Old Testament to justify all sorts of atrocities? It's nonsensical to deny that the Bible helped in these instances.

It helped that people were kept ignorant on what the Bible tells. If one would be a disciple of Jesus (="Christian"), he would remain in word of Jesus and by it, one would not go on crusade. Bible doesn't support such an action.

You are struggling here. The various gods are human inventions. Now the 'great spirit' is more intelligent nature, such as Taoism and a few other awe at nature concepts. But these (so far as there is any evidence) come from our own minds, and is at least common, unlike the various gods we invent, that are just like us an our society - which explains wht the Greeks altered OT God into one that suited themselves.

And the human invented gods are still remembered today. Some even exist today. sure, the Abrahamic traditions have done well, because Judaism was developed to be insular and stubbornly refuse to integrate.

To that, Christianity added missionary s zeal, and Islam brought both.

Crusades, or Jihad. Who are you to say that was wrong, if The God wanted it? You are doing the old religious apologetic Cope of claiming everything for God unless it looks bad, and then you say it is all mans' fault. The Bible is full of warfaz\re and killing and even the NT (with its' new god) has a lot of destruction planned (that is, the Jewish war was over when it was written) And Jesus/God was clearly doing this as his plan. How can you say the crusades are not part of his plan...or Allah's rather since the crusaders lost in the end...though the muslims lost in Spain and the Balkans.

Just as we'd expect if it was not a god's plan at all,

Which you said but why is ANY of it a god's plan, never mind which one?

The problem is, if you claim all people know the One God, why don't they all know this God the same?

Cue, the Bible is reliable, other books are not.

Which is why the debate is really about Bible reliability (and specifically the contradictions that show it isn't) and that is the only debate that matters. All the rest is faithclaims.

[Clownboat]

But, by what I know, they also have an idea of great spirit, which can be seen as the God.

The Great Spirit can be seen as a god, but not your preferred god concept and that is the point.
Ancient Americans (for just one example) had their own god concepts and they were not your god concept.

Native American religions are spiritual practices that vary widely across tribes, nations, and bands. They often incorporate spirituality into daily life, viewing the natural and supernatural worlds as one. Beliefs can be monotheistic, polytheistic, animistic, shamanistic, or pantheistic, and may include a combination of these.

This does not describe your believed in god concept, because your god concept had not been invented in the Middle East yet.

It helped that people were kept ignorant on what the Bible tells. If one would be a disciple of Jesus (="Christian"), he would remain in word of Jesus and by it, one would not go on crusade. Bible doesn't support such an action.

You need to learn your history and your book (or just deny both). Religion was the primary motivation for the Crusades.

Deuteronomy 13:6-18 New Living Translation (NLT)
They might suggest that you worship the gods of peoples who live nearby or who come from the ends of the earth. But do not give in or listen. Have no pity, and do not spare or protect them. You must put them to death!

Exodus 22:20 Whoever sacrifices to any god other than the Lord, must be destroyed.

[1213]

...The problem is, if you claim all people know the One God, why don't they all know this God the same?

For example because they have lost or rejected some information.

[1213]

....This does not describe your believed in god concept, because your god concept had not been invented in the Middle East yet.

Can you offer any good reason to believe your claim?

Religion was the primary motivation for the Crusades.

Maybe "religion" was, Bible can't be the motivation, at least not for disciples of Jesus, if one has actually read the book.

[TRANSPONDER]

...The problem is, if you claim all people know the One God, why don't they all know this God the same?

For example because they have lost or rejected some information.

Then that implies that this one god that exists doesn't replace the information now, correct?

Cue: (tell me if you were going to do it differently ) He has given it in the Bible.

Or Quran; and you have the wrong religion.

No, the bible is the one·

Why?

Because it is more reliable.

So we come back to Bible reliability and you are in denial about that as you are in denial about any other religion being the right one.

It is Faith in the religion the Believers had, fed to them culturally or by missionary activity when their Faith in one religion was weak.

And the point is still valid - why doesn't God just put in our heads which is right, or just appear or do something other than act like He isn't there at all and all our religions are man - made?

Which for me is the simplest answer that explains all the facts.

....This does not describe your believed in god concept, because your god concept had not been invented in the Middle East yet.

Can you offer any good reason to believe your claim?

Religion was the primary motivation for the Crusades.

Maybe "religion" was, Bible can't be the motivation, at least not for disciples of Jesus, if one has actually read the book.

Yes, you can do that...and dismiss all the organised religions as man - made, and maybe you did because you appear to have invented your own religion, based on the Bible.

Or (of course) blame anything bad on men, and claim the religion, god and Book is good.

But the Bible is full of violence and even the NT threatens it. You can't claim the Crusades were not intended by God, just as the defeat of the Turks at Vienna because these military ventures saved Christianity. It is too easy, self - serving and downright dishonest to blame any inconvenient stuff about religion on man and claim anything good - including what man hath done by himself, on God. Like abolition of slavery.

[Clownboat]

Can you offer any good reason to believe your claim?

I did. All you did was remove them from this reply.
Ancient humans had god concepts that were not your own. Their god concepts were not your god concept like you want them to be.

Maybe "religion" was, Bible can't be the motivation, at least not for disciples of Jesus, if one has actually read the book.

You quote mined out a couple of the verses that show just how the Bible can in fact be the motivation.
Anyone can scroll up and see them, that you removed them from your reply does not make them go away. Shame on you.

[1213]

...Or Quran; and you have the wrong religion.

No, the bible is the one·

Why?

Because Quran says people should believe Jesus.

“…The Messiah, Jesus, the son of Mary, was but a messenger of Allah… …believe in Allah and His messengers…”
Quran 4:171, https://legacy.quran.com/4/171

...why doesn't God just put in our heads which is right...

You could ask Holy Spirit from God, if you would really want that. But, I don't think you would like the Spirit of truth.

However when he, the Spirit of truth, has come, he will guide you into all truth, for he will not speak from himself; but what-ever he hears, he will speak. He will declare to you things that are coming.
John 16:13
If you then, being evil, know how to give good gifts to your chil-dren, how much more will your heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to those who ask him?
Luke 11:13

...But the Bible is full of violence and even the NT threatens it. You can't claim the Crusades were not intended by God, just as the defeat of the Turks at Vienna because these military ventures saved Christianity. It is too easy, self - serving and downright dishonest to blame any inconvenient stuff about religion on man and claim anything good - including what man hath done by himself, on God. Like abolition of slavery.

I don't think slavery has been abolished, it has been polished to current tax slave form so that modern hypocrite people can feel like they are better than the ancient people.

Do you know any good reason to ignore these scriptures?

But I tell you, love your enemies, bless those who curse you, do good to those who hate you, and pray for those who mistreat you and persecute you, that you may be children of your Father who is in heaven. For he makes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the just and the unjust.
Matt. 5:44-45
not rendering evil for evil, or reviling for reviling; but instead blessing; knowing that to this were you called, that you may inherit a blessing.
1 Pet. 3:9