I have an almost indisputable explanation regarding God and how He (or rather the idea of Him) came to be. It is a known fact that the first people to define or describe the presence of a God were those who were looking for an explanation for unexplained things that happen such as natural disasters or deaths before there was knowledge of disease or bacteria, or even good things such as rain after a long drought. So they ultimately decided that these things were being caused by a celestial being that they decided existed and was causing anything that could not be explained. This is believed to be the foundation of the first so-called religion, and things just took off from there. It makes sense when you consider in those times that people likely suffered a great deal of hardships and losses when people got sick and died or when their crops failed, which happened frequently, and I can imagine that the idea of having someone or something to look to for answers offered them a great deal of comfort, as it does to people even today. However, this does not by any means change the reality of the situation, which is that the being or thing they are turning to is just that, and has no physical presence beyond that which they decide that He does.
If I decide that an invisible spirit exists and several other people agree with me, then we have all simply made the decision to believe it, even though this invisible spirit does not actually exist. I know that it is difficult for people to accept this about God because on some level they don't want to believe it, and they also want something to be there for them when they have nothing else, so perhaps it is best that these people do still have the idea of God to offer them comfort and keep their spirits up. But I feel like we must also understand that doing this does not at all change the idea of God as He relates to my invisible spirit example. This is important to remember since it could easily be forgotten by reading or listening to anything religious that talks about God in a matter-of-fact manner. — BBQueue

Are you familiar with pan-psychism? There are over 11 forms of it and Plato even had his own form. If you are an atheist do you atleast agree that scientific determinism (~Fate) determines all of our actions? I'm not sure how someone who claims to embrace reason and rationality can at the same time reject scientific determinism (~Fate).

What causes feeling or awareness? All things are particle and wave collisions (waves collide and interact with each other just like particles). Does a neuron (a complex particle collision happening in "slow" motion) create feeling or awareness? A significant amount of scientists doubt that complex particle colliosions such as a neuron or human brain (a slow motion particle collision) can explain feeling or awareness.

Noah Harrari would argue that Humans have religion and legal fictions because thats what enabled us to have mass coordination and dominate the planet. Apes don't typically operate in groups bigger than 150 and there are approximately 155 Human Nations on the earth. This fun fact is stated in this Naturalist/Atheist's book called "Sapiens".

If you are an atheist do you atleast agree that scientific determinism (~Fate) determines all of our actions? I'm not sure how someone who claims to embrace reason and rationality can at the same time reject scientific determinism (~Fate). — christian2017

I don't entirely believe that fate determines our actions, simply because it is said that we have the ability to choose and to make choices. I agree that we may not always be conscious or aware of what we are doing at any given time, for example if I move my foot without realizing it or thinking about it, but very often we are forced to become aware of our actions, such as when making decisions or performing very specific tasks. Moreover, it is primarily in cases of decision-making that we become the most self-aware and have a conscious ability to choose, even in spite of of actions that we don't think about but that we are taking subconsciously outside of the decision-making process. But the fact that any task can be performed consciously without us being made directly aware of us doing it, shows that task is a matter of free will and not of fate. For instance a person doesn't choose to do something without being aware that they are making a choice, or what the choice is.

I also don't believe that so many decisions would be stressful or difficult to make if we actually knew in hindsight that the decision was determined by fate, so the fact that we still have to make decisions and often don't know what to decide is another indication that the decision is not predetermined. But we also can't allow ourselves to believe that our decisions are predetermined, as we may ultimately allow that thought process to determine what decisions we make.

If you are an atheist do you atleast agree that scientific determinism (~Fate) determines all of our actions? I'm not sure how someone who claims to embrace reason and rationality can at the same time reject scientific determinism (~Fate).
— christian2017

I don't entirely believe that fate determines our actions, simply because it is said that we have the ability to choose and to make choices. I agree that we may not always be conscious or aware of what we are doing at any given time, for example if I move my foot without realizing it or thinking about it, but very often we are forced to become aware of our actions, such as when making decisions or performing very specific tasks. Moreover, it is primarily in cases of decision-making that we become the most self-aware and have a conscious ability to choose, even in spite of of actions that we don't think about but that we are taking subconsciously outside of the decision-making process. But the fact that any task can be performed consciously without us being made directly aware of us doing it, shows that task is a matter of free will and not of fate. For instance a person doesn't choose to do something without being aware that they are making a choice, or what the choice is.

I also don't believe that so many decisions would be stressful or difficult to make if we actually knew in hindsight that the decision was determined by fate, so the fact that we still have to make decisions and often don't know what to decide is another indication that the decision is not predetermined. But we also can't allow ourselves to believe that our decisions are predetermined, as we may ultimately allow that thought process to determine what decisions we make. — BBQueue

i guess.

But the fact that any task can be performed consciously without us being made directly aware of us doing it, shows that task is a matter of free will and not of fate. — BBQueue

Read that back a couple of times...

But we also can't allow ourselves to believe that our decisions are predetermined, as we may ultimately allow that thought process to determine what decisions we make. — BBQueue

Could not allowing oneself to believe in determinism alter one's decisions in any way? Or does it only work the other way around, as you stated.

But the fact that any task can be performed consciously without us being made directly aware of us doing it, shows that task is a matter of free will and not of fate.
— BBQueue

Read that back a couple of times...

But we also can't allow ourselves to believe that our decisions are predetermined, as we may ultimately allow that thought process to determine what decisions we make.
— BBQueue

Could not allowing oneself to believe in determinism alter one's decisions in any way? Or does it only work the other way around, as you stated. — Key

I am not disputing any of what you have said, but none of this or any of what Christian2017 said has anything to do with my original post. I feel like no one can dispute my original argument, and therefore they are changing the subject or avoiding it completely. It's ok if you don't want to accept that my argument is true, but at least acknowledge it.

As far as I can tell, your observation is that the likely origin of the idea of an entity who resides in the dimensions of the unknown is spawned by the very existence of the "unknown." This is nothing new to anyone who has endured philosophy for even a short time; much of what you said in your original post is known in theology as the "god of the gaps" divine fallacy.

The problem is you use your words in a way which disregards the due process of rationality and builds a very shaky "argument" where one of sufficient persuasion could've more handily been erected.

I have an almost[?] indisputable explanation regarding[...] — BBQueue

It is a known fact that the first people to define or[...] — BBQueue

Don't tell us; show us.

I said ALMOST indisputable, because there is nothing at all that can be proven with 100 percent accuracy by anyone, and I also know that there are people who will disagree with me for whatever reason or who will otherwise say that I am speaking too matter-of-factly, for instance implying that my explanation is indisputable without any doubt at all. I have had people do this kind of thing on other posts, so for the most part I have tried to be extremely careful how I word things as much as I can; however there is not much room to negotiate with a binary statement such as this.

As for the "known fact," I will refer you to this wikipedia article which gives multiple examples of times throughout history where different theistic groups have used the idea of a "god" who is said to exist in the sky, to give meaning to the unexplained.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sky_father

Of course nothing that any person can or will ever say is known to be true with 100 percent certainty, but what I am considering is that so many different people/groups of people created the exact same concept of their respective God(s) existing as a spirit in the sky, and to that extent we can assume that they more or less accepted that unexplained things were being caused by an unseen spirit whom they believed existed. Again, this cannot be proven, which is another reason why I only said it is ALMOST indisputable, but there is also nothing that can be proven as true with 100 percent accuracy. You are only ever relying on (strong) evidence to determine what the most likely concept or idea may have been, as I am in this case.

Your argument does not prove that no god exists, merely describes a theory of how non-existent gods came to be. Even in that respect, it is incomplete in places and unjustified in others. For instance, "first known religion" is not the same as "first religion", so as an origin story it allows evidence that is not really there. We have no evidence for how the first religion formed, because we do not know what it is.

However, we do have an idea of how culture forms generally. Dennett, citing Rogers & Ehrlich, citing Alain, used the story of the boat builders. I cannot recall the particulars, but it goes something like this. A tribe of people use boats to go out fishing for food. The boats are much of a muchness, not very good, with each boat builder learning how to build boats from other boat builders, e.g. by observation or by teaching. One boat builder makes a boat that lasts longer than the other boats. The boat builders don't know why this boat is better than theirs, but they want good boats too so they copy that boat. If that boat had, say, a U-shaped hull, they would copy the U-shaped hull. If it had a particular feature in the wood that vaguely looked like a banana, they would look for wood with banana shapes or else daub on a banana shape in the same place. They find these new boats better if the new design is an overall improvement. (Overcome my laziness and read Dennett.)

This is one of the ways in which mystic symbols, including non-graphical ones like prayers and sacrifices, gain their potency. An anthropologist can study these cultures and say, "Well, the U-shaped hull is for better fishing, but the banana shape is an arbitrary local cultural artefact: it is art". A scientist can show that the banana shape is irrelevant by building U-shaped and flat-bottomed boats with and without them and demonstrate it makes no difference. But the tribe knows that U-shaped hulls with the banana motif are the best boats through generations of pedagogy, mimesis and experience.

There is then the possibility of recognising such cultures by examining their "art" or "irrelevancies". We can, and have, tested that prayer doesn't work. We can, but ought not, test that human sacrifice doesn't work. These are irrelevancies that give us some idea of their origins, if not a complete description of their copying mechanisms (the above is different to indoctrinating children, and is very different to "convert or die" ultimata) and allow us to put them in a category of unjustified beliefs. This does not preclude a god, though, a listening deity who genuinely would make your life better if only you knew who to negotiate with and how. In principle, someone could have a revelation that we were doing it wrong and you must pray with your hands behind your back and your nose always touching the floor. If this alone proved to be efficacious in getting one's way, it would not fit into the above schema, though how two prayers with mutually exclusive requests would get resolved, I don't know. ("Tell me how does God choose? Whose prayers will he refuse" -- Tom Waits.)

There are a lot of other factors. Humans are prejudiced to infer agency where none exists. We are not natural materialists. We are extremely anthropocentric. We are hugely ignorant. If belief in something grants anyone power, someone will exploit that power and defend its authority. We are slow to negate long-held, unjustified beliefs, especially ones forced upon us in childhood, be it the belief in Hell or the belief that Communism is inherently evil. A major religion probably hasn't had a new cultural artefact that it recognises to be utilitarian for a very long time, but even in the last hundred years new religions have formed (based on e.g. copying the design of runways so that the great metal bird will bring food) that are analogous to features in major religions.

If I decide that an invisible spirit exists and several other people agree with me, then we have all simply made the decision to believe it, even though this invisible spirit does not actually exist. — BBQueue

It doesn't even necessitate that the originator believes in the god either, look at scientology. L Ron Hubbard must have known he was making it all up on some level, even if he claimed it was revelation, and yet people still believe in it. It doesn't even necessitate that the originator intended for others to believe in it.

It doesn't even necessitate that the originator believes in the god either, look at scientology. L Ron Hubbard must have known he was making it all up on some level, even if he claimed it was revelation, and yet people still believe in it. It doesn't even necessitate that the originator intended for others to believe in it. — Kenosha Kid

My belief or non-belief in the invisible spirit would not change the fact that it didn't exist though. You are assuming that this is a hypothetical scenario and that I am simply pretending that a spirit exists to prove a point, while all along knowing that it does not exist. But assuming that this was not the case, and that rather I actually did believe that the spirit does exist, it still would not exist regardless, just as the premise of Scientology would be as false as it is now, even if it was fully believed and trusted by L. Ron Hubbard. So that hindsight is irrelevant in this case.

You are assuming that this is a hypothetical scenario and that I am simply pretending that a spirit exists to prove a point, while all along knowing that it does not exist — BBQueue

Unless you are L. Ron Hubbard risen again, no I am not. It was for completeness that I pointed that a religion does not need an original believer. Your belief, hypothetical or otherwise, is irrelevant to this point.