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 have sown many contradictions, you have just ignored them After you tried to wriggle out of them. ...

And I think I have shown in all the cases that it depends on the way how you interpret it. For some reason you seem to love the interpretation that makes it look contradictory. I can only wonder why. If Bible would be wrong and not correct, you would not need to do that.

The problem of Evil asks 'Why doesn't the god or gods do something about it? B...

I don't think evil is a problem, all evil ends and it is just something that we have to experience, because people wanted to know evil. Luckily this "life" is like the Matrix, and nothing of this world can destroy our souls.

Don't be afraid of those who kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul. Rather, fear him who is able to destroy both soul and body in Gehenna....
Matt. 10:28-31

Interpretation apparently means opinion and not evidence; as in the cetan sequence; proof - almost - of speciation, denial of the failure of the prophecy of Tyre, and denial of the Mary Magdalene contradiction which has been proven, despite your attempt to invent a splitting up that is not in the Bible, when i refuted that, you tried to leave out the contradictions, as I recall, and then reassembled the bits to make a different story, though that didn't work. Interpretation in my case is based on evidence and what the Bible says, and in your case, denial of everything, even what the Bible says. Note the day and night before the sun was made.
Apart from the miserable attempt to make cosmic radiation the residue of the 'light', and then invented a light (either cosmic or local in the place of the sun, which hadn't been made yet) and turning on and off to imitate the daylight, and then, damn your eyes tried to make me look bad by accusing me of denying the earth's rotation.

I don't believe you are bad by nature. Believers are not. But Bible apologetics forces them into doing bad things. Like pulling dirty tricks like that.

The matter of evil has been dealt with elsewhere, but here we go again.

Your theory denied mainstream Christianity, even if it does follow the Bible better (I have never ignored that Christian Dogma denied the Bible when it got going), but the problem of evil remains. It makes more sense that there is no god or gods and we are having to work it out for ourselves that somehow it's all perfect and God has it all worked out and it is all our fault and god doesn't do anything that couldn't equally happen if there was no god there.