The Existential Crisis

[Veritas Aequitas]

Show me which of the premise is false?

Your premise that there was evidence for a DNA "existential crisis" connection was false. You admitted as much yourself. But even if you take that back, you're still wrong.

Dead.

Horse.

Quit flogging.

Wrong? Where?
I asked which of my premise within the whole argument is false that led to the conclusion is false.
You provided none.

My point re DNA/RNA to "existential crisis" was the existential crisis itself is not coded within the DNA/RNA.
What happened is, the DNA/RNA generate the elements that when combined within the nurturing process generate the "existential crisis" where the majority are driven into theism.

• For example the sexual organs and systems are encoded in the DNA/RNA for the purpose of procreation. But if a person is diverted to a sexual perversion, that is not because it is caused by the DNA/RNA directly but it because of some nurturing process or neural damage after birth.

For those who are not driven into theism by the existential crisis, many ended as drug addicts, addicted to pain-killers and all other activities that could soothe the existential pains.

I can understand, you are running away from the truths I presented because they posed a threat to your psychological security from your theism as a crutch. Your defense mechanism is very desperate. I hope you can wake up from it and provide something rational to the premises of the argument I presented.

[FlashDangerpants]

You are SO ignorant and stupid.
That is because your "reptillian" and barbarian brain is dominating your consciousness.

If one were to google, the term "link" is related to "cause" ..

Two examples from the millions..

Correlation is a link but not a cause. You are linked to your uncle but caused by your dad.
So did you write link because you cannot demonstrate causation (which would be unusually perspicacious on your part) in which case your whole argument is worhtless junk with no strict conclusion...
Or did you write link just because you are clumsy and you actually meant "cased by", in which case your argument is worthless junk because the premises don't support that conclusion.

Where I wrote 'link' and the intention is 'cause', it is a matter of semantics.
Note Principle of Charity.
Show me which premise is false?

It doesn't matter if the premises are true or false, in fact your argument is so weak we can even let you have the conclusion just for laughs. It's simple, even if all the premises are true, and even if we accept that they support a conclusion that this thing causes religion... we can still just dismiss your argument with the words "maybe, but that's only part of the story" and there is nothing in there that prevents this, because you ignored what I told you pages ago about your argument not being sufficient and necessary.

The most you can get with what you have presented is a claim that religion can be caused by this thing, there is nothing there to show it must be so, or that it can only be caused the way you describe, there isn't even anything to show that it has ever been caused this way. You certainly haven't shown that it cannot be arranged by the words and grace of an omnipotent being, doubly so given that said being would have created the DNA that you pointlessly reference.

You are just shit at this stuff Aquafresh.

[Immanuel Can]

I can understand, you are running away from the truths I presented...

Well, thanks for the laugh, anyway.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Correlation is a link but not a cause. You are linked to your uncle but caused by your dad.
So did you write link because you cannot demonstrate causation (which would be unusually perspicacious on your part) in which case your whole argument is worhtless junk with no strict conclusion...
Or did you write link just because you are clumsy and you actually meant "cased by", in which case your argument is worthless junk because the premises don't support that conclusion.

Where I wrote 'link' and the intention is 'cause', it is a matter of semantics.
Note Principle of Charity.
Show me which premise is false?

It doesn't matter if the premises are true or false, in fact your argument is so weak we can even let you have the conclusion just for laughs. It's simple, even if all the premises are true, and even if we accept that they support a conclusion that this thing causes religion... we can still just dismiss your argument with the words "maybe, but that's only part of the story" and there is nothing in there that prevents this, because you ignored what I told you pages ago about your argument not being sufficient and necessary.

The most you can get with what you have presented is a claim that religion can be caused by this thing, there is nothing there to show it must be so, or that it can only be caused the way you describe, there isn't even anything to show that it has ever been caused this way. You certainly haven't shown that it cannot be arranged by the words and grace of an omnipotent being, doubly so given that said being would have created the DNA that you pointlessly reference.

You are just shit at this stuff Aquafresh.

Note I wrote this earlier:

• My argument and model can be tested [and verified].
  Where we can manage and modulate the subliminal fears 'caused' by the DNA/RNA, the subject will let go of theism, as in Buddhist practices [mindfulness] and others who had converted out of theism.

The above is already done in practice within Buddhism since 2500+ years ago albeit in a 'black-box' approach.
We now has advanced neuroscientific knowledge and technology to dig deep into the brain along the mechanisms I had presented.
I have done extensive research in these areas to support my optimism.
You can stay as an ignoramus in your tall silo and insist on whatever is based on your ignorance.

[Veritas Aequitas]

I can understand, you are running away from the truths I presented...

Well, thanks for the laugh, anyway.

Heard of Nervous laughter??
It is a subconscious subliminal reaction to a threat.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nervous_laughter
Nervous laughter is laughter provoked from an audience's expression of alarm, embarrassment, discomfort or confusion, rather than amusement.
Nervous laughter is a physical reaction to stress, tension, confusion, or anxiety.

People laugh when they need to project dignity and control during times of stress and anxiety. In these situations, people usually laugh in a subconscious attempt to reduce stress and calm down, however, it often works otherwise. Nervous laughter is often considered fake laughter and even heightens the awkwardness of the situation.

[FlashDangerpants]

Where I wrote 'link' and the intention is 'cause', it is a matter of semantics.
Note Principle of Charity.
Show me which premise is false?

It doesn't matter if the premises are true or false, in fact your argument is so weak we can even let you have the conclusion just for laughs. It's simple, even if all the premises are true, and even if we accept that they support a conclusion that this thing causes religion... we can still just dismiss your argument with the words "maybe, but that's only part of the story" and there is nothing in there that prevents this, because you ignored what I told you pages ago about your argument not being sufficient and necessary.

The most you can get with what you have presented is a claim that religion can be caused by this thing, there is nothing there to show it must be so, or that it can only be caused the way you describe, there isn't even anything to show that it has ever been caused this way. You certainly haven't shown that it cannot be arranged by the words and grace of an omnipotent being, doubly so given that said being would have created the DNA that you pointlessly reference.

You are just shit at this stuff Aquafresh.

Note I wrote this earlier:

• My argument and model can be tested [and verified].
  Where we can manage and modulate the subliminal fears 'caused' by the DNA/RNA, the subject will let go of theism, as in Buddhist practices [mindfulness] and others who had converted out of theism.

The above is already done in practice within Buddhism since 2500+ years ago albeit in a 'black-box' approach.
We now has advanced neuroscientific knowledge and technology to dig deep into the brain along the mechanisms I had presented.
I have done extensive research in these areas to support my optimism.
You can stay as an ignoramus in your tall silo and insist on whatever is based on your ignorance.

So? If it can be tested, that test would show that the thing you describe CAN happen.
That test would not show that it MUST happen.
Or that it is the ONLY WAY that the phenomenon could occur.
So without that stuff above, you cannot even say that IT HAS ever happened.

This is why I have repeatedly told you that your best possible outcome is an argument that is sufficient but not necessary. And therefore the argument fails .... because, as I already told you... it can be dismissed in one sentence: "Maybe, but that's only part of the story"

And that's giving you the benefit of the doubt just because I find working out that mess of nonsense premises to be more effort than it deserves. We don't need to look in depth at the premises to establish if they are true, they aren't worth a bucket of warm spit because of your logical failings.

[Immanuel Can]

Heard of Nervous laughter??
It is a subconscious subliminal reaction to a threat.

Yes. You're very threatening. I'm really quite terrified.

[Veritas Aequitas]

• My argument and model can be tested [and verified].
  Where we can manage and modulate the subliminal fears 'caused' by the DNA/RNA, the subject will let go of theism, as in Buddhist practices [mindfulness] and others who had converted out of theism.

The above is already done in practice within Buddhism since 2500+ years ago albeit in a 'black-box' approach.
We now has advanced neuroscientific knowledge and technology to dig deep into the brain along the mechanisms I had presented.
I have done extensive research in these areas to support my optimism.
You can stay as an ignoramus in your tall silo and insist on whatever is based on your ignorance.

So? If it can be tested, that test would show that the thing you describe CAN happen.
That test would not show that it MUST happen.
Or that it is the ONLY WAY that the phenomenon could occur.
So without that stuff above, you cannot even say that IT HAS ever happened.

This is why I have repeatedly told you that your best possible outcome is an argument that is sufficient but not necessary. And therefore the argument fails .... because, as I already told you... it can be dismissed in one sentence: "Maybe, but that's only part of the story"

And that's giving you the benefit of the doubt just because I find working out that mess of nonsense premises to be more effort than it deserves. We don't need to look in depth at the premises to establish if they are true, they aren't worth a bucket of warm spit because of your logical failings.

Again you are ignorant and failed to get to the point.

My thesis did not insist it MUST happen, i.e. the existential crisis/dilemma MUST lead to theism.

My thesis is the origin and cause of theism is driven by the existential crisis/dilemma traceable to the DNA/RNA.
Therefore a genuine-clinging [not pretending] to theism is traceable to the existential crisis/dilemma via the DNA/RNA.
This conclusion can be tested crudely at present and potentially with higher precision in the future given the current trend of the exponential expansion of knowledge and technology.

I did not insist the existential crisis/dilemma MUST lead to theism.
The existential crisis/dilemma can lead to many other mental issues beside the God-delusion.

Btw, I am merely presenting a proposal, why do you feel such a pain in your ass, as if I am forcing you to agree. As with any discussion, just give your counter views and shut up!

[Skepdick]

Again you are ignorant and failed to get to the point.

My thesis did not insist it MUST happen, i.e. the existential crisis/dilemma MUST lead to theism.

My thesis is the origin and cause of theism is driven by the existential crisis/dilemma traceable to the DNA/RNA.
Therefore a genuine-clinging [not pretending] to theism is traceable to the existential crisis/dilemma via the DNA/RNA.
This conclusion can be tested crudely at present and potentially with higher precision in the future given the current trend of the exponential expansion of knowledge and technology.

I did not insist the existential crisis/dilemma MUST lead to theism.
The existential crisis/dilemma can lead to many other mental issues beside the God-delusion.

Btw, I am merely presenting a proposal, why do you feel such a pain in your ass, as if I am forcing you to agree. As with any discussion, just give your counter views and shut up!

Does your thesis explain what leads Philosophers to believe in the God of Logic?

[FlashDangerpants]

My thesis did not insist it MUST happen, i.e. the existential crisis/dilemma MUST lead to theism.

My thesis is the origin and cause of theism is driven by the existential crisis/dilemma traceable to the DNA/RNA.
Therefore a genuine-clinging [not pretending] to theism is traceable to the existential crisis/dilemma via the DNA/RNA.
This conclusion can be tested crudely at present and potentially with higher precision in the future given the current trend of the exponential expansion of knowledge and technology.

I did not insist the existential crisis/dilemma MUST lead to theism.
The existential crisis/dilemma can lead to many other mental issues beside the God-delusion.

You seem to misunderstand what the word therefore does in an argument. It is incompatible with all those caveats.

In any case, if your "thesis is the origin and cause of theism is driven by the existential crisis/dilemma traceable to the DNA/RNA", then the presence of THE in that sentence is exclusionary - it is a claim that there is no truthful competing explanation. Only a necessary argument can support such a thesis. Having failed to construct such an argument, you are now pretending not to have tried. In which case your thesis also needs a downgrade.

You can accurately rephrase is as "my thesis is that one of the potential factors in the origin of theism might be an existential dilemma traceable to heritable biologoical factors"

That's as far as you can possibly get with the material you have come up with so far, and I am still being generous with your shitty premises to allow this much.

Btw, I am merely presenting a proposal, why do you feel such a pain in your ass, as if I am forcing you to agree. As with any discussion, just give your counter views and shut up!

Why should I beleive that? Within this thread you have linked to your other equally shit arguments - like the one about God being "an impossibility to be true", or your pisspoor efforts to convert values into fact. You refer back to those heaps of shit as if they are compelling reasoned arguments, and you will do the same with this one given the opportunity, imagining it to have proven something. You are only pretending that such was not the intent because this conversation is not going well for you.

You won't learn anything from this either. Your next dumb argument will make the same mistakes again.

[Veritas Aequitas]

My thesis did not insist it MUST happen, i.e. the existential crisis/dilemma MUST lead to theism.

My thesis is the origin and cause of theism is driven by the existential crisis/dilemma traceable to the DNA/RNA.
Therefore a genuine-clinging [not pretending] to theism is traceable to the existential crisis/dilemma via the DNA/RNA.
This conclusion can be tested crudely at present and potentially with higher precision in the future given the current trend of the exponential expansion of knowledge and technology.

I did not insist the existential crisis/dilemma MUST lead to theism.
The existential crisis/dilemma can lead to many other mental issues beside the God-delusion.

You seem to misunderstand what the word therefore does in an argument. It is incompatible with all those caveats.

In any case, if your "thesis is the origin and cause of theism is driven by the existential crisis/dilemma traceable to the DNA/RNA", then the presence of THE in that sentence is exclusionary - it is a claim that there is no truthful competing explanation. Only a necessary argument can support such a thesis. Having failed to construct such an argument, you are now pretending not to have tried. In which case your thesis also needs a downgrade.

You can accurately rephrase is as "my thesis is that one of the potential factors in the origin of theism might be an existential dilemma traceable to heritable biologoical factors"

That's as far as you can possibly get with the material you have come up with so far, and I am still being generous with your shitty premises to allow this much.

English is not my mother tongue but there is no way your English is superior to mine in this case of using 'therefore'.

Note;
How to Use Therefore in a Sentence
https://www.wikihow.com/Use-Therefore-in-a-Sentence

You can accurately rephrase is as "my thesis is that one of the potential factors in the origin of theism might be an existential dilemma traceable to heritable biological factors"

NOPE.

My thesis conclusion is this;
The most critical cause of theism is the existential crisis/dilemma traceable to DNA/RNA.
All other causes are not proximate thus secondary.

Thus, my hypothesis: ALL theistic beliefs grounded on a clinging to God are caused primarily by the existential crisis/dilemma and traceable to the DNA/RNA.
From the evidences given and testing and justified;
Therefore, ALL theistic beliefs grounded on a clinging to God is caused by the existential crisis/dilemma and traceable to the DNA/RNA.

The only reservation is the evidences provided are not that powerful and testing is a bit crude and my "therefore" is qualified to these limitation but with optimism in the future to achieve greater precision.

[Sculptor]

My thesis is the origin and cause of theism is driven by the existential crisis/dilemma traceable to the DNA/RNA.

Just because you can ultimately trace a thing to DNA does not mean you gain any understanding of that thing.
The entire living kingdom can be causally traced to DNA.
But my journey to Liverpool the other day can be causally traced to the sunshine on planet earth during the Cretaceous period, as Without the energy of the sun I would not have been able to put petrol in my car for the journey.
But there is nothing about the sunlight in the Cretaceous period that helps us understand WHY I drive to Liverpool.
And that is why your entire thread is basically without merit.
Because not only can you causally trace theism to DNA, and make everything else "secondary", you can do much better than that - you can trace Theism back to the BIG BANG and make all other causalities secondary INCLUDING DNA.
THEREFORE your causality is arbitrary and useless.

[FlashDangerpants]

My thesis did not insist it MUST happen, i.e. the existential crisis/dilemma MUST lead to theism.

My thesis is the origin and cause of theism is driven by the existential crisis/dilemma traceable to the DNA/RNA.
Therefore a genuine-clinging [not pretending] to theism is traceable to the existential crisis/dilemma via the DNA/RNA.
This conclusion can be tested crudely at present and potentially with higher precision in the future given the current trend of the exponential expansion of knowledge and technology.

I did not insist the existential crisis/dilemma MUST lead to theism.
The existential crisis/dilemma can lead to many other mental issues beside the God-delusion.

You seem to misunderstand what the word therefore does in an argument. It is incompatible with all those caveats.

In any case, if your "thesis is the origin and cause of theism is driven by the existential crisis/dilemma traceable to the DNA/RNA", then the presence of THE in that sentence is exclusionary - it is a claim that there is no truthful competing explanation. Only a necessary argument can support such a thesis. Having failed to construct such an argument, you are now pretending not to have tried. In which case your thesis also needs a downgrade.

You can accurately rephrase is as "my thesis is that one of the potential factors in the origin of theism might be an existential dilemma traceable to heritable biologoical factors"

That's as far as you can possibly get with the material you have come up with so far, and I am still being generous with your shitty premises to allow this much.

English is not my mother tongue but there is no way your English is superior to mine in this case of using 'therefore'.

Note;
How to Use Therefore in a Sentence
https://www.wikihow.com/Use-Therefore-in-a-Sentence

I'm already applying a discount because I know English isn't your first language. You still are wrong.

Your own link says " It shows cause and effect between independent clauses", but your own defence of your argument is that it isn't of that sort, that it is weaker than this effect is caused by this source. If you aren't arguing A must be the cause of B, or in other words that that All Bs are caused by A, then you cannot have a Therefore B is traceable to A at the end of it. And if you were arguing that, then your argument can only work if it is both a necessary and sufficient explanation, which you have already admitted you cannot do, and so have decided you don't need to.

This is very simple logic, not an English test.

You can accurately rephrase is as "my thesis is that one of the potential factors in the origin of theism might be an existential dilemma traceable to heritable biological factors"

NOPE.

My thesis conclusion is this;
The most critical cause of theism is the existential crisis/dilemma traceable to DNA/RNA.
All other causes are not proximate thus secondary.

Pick one. If you are claiming that all alternative causes are insufficient, then you are claiming necessity on part of your argument. In which case you must make a necessary argument, otherwise you have no grounds for concluding that other proposals are insufficient. In that case, your thesis needs to contain that exclusive MUST that you have explicitly told me it does not claim.

Just to make sure you understand, that is a claim that If this occurs, then that must be the cause. I've just realised you have may have misunderstood that as meaning if condition A (existential anxiety) exists then condition B (theistic stuff) must result. That's not it, this is the other way round: if condition B exists, then Condition A must be the cause.

Again, this is elementary reasoning, I can't begin to describe how silly it is for me to have to explain this to somebody who fools themselves they can lecture me about the proper applications of philososphy. L

Thus, my hypothesis: ALL theistic beliefs grounded on a clinging to God are caused primarily by the existential crisis/dilemma and traceable to the DNA/RNA.

this, again, directly contradicts your previous claim that "My thesis did not insist it MUST happen".

From the evidences given and testing and justified;
Therefore, ALL theistic beliefs grounded on a clinging to God is caused by the existential crisis/dilemma and traceable to the DNA/RNA.

And this is getting counted as another instance of you contradicting yourself. This is a claim that All theistic belief must be the result of ....

The only reservation is the evidences provided are not that powerful and testing is a bit crude and my "therefore" is qualified to these limitation but with optimism in the future to achieve greater precision.

I really that I have already pointed out enough times that making your argument dependent on empirically testable criteria necesitates that the same argument is subject to the limits of what empirical testing can justify. When you are honest about your conclusion, it is always far in excess of that that can logically justify.

Look at your stuff here and do the basics. Ask yourself if it makes certain claims true on an "if and only if" basis. Have you really done enough in your own judgment to say that any theistic belief X can arise if and only if it is casued by that poorly described DNA/RNA thing. Then posit an untestable eternal deity and explain how the stuff you have provisioned for here, tests for that guy telling one unknown person somewhere in untestable history a theistic religious truth about himself. Has your argument, actually proved that that HAS NEVER happened?

The correct answer would be "no - this isn't the type of argument that can do that sort of thing". And the next logical requirement would be to downgrade the conclusion exactly as I drescribed for you. A better solution is to realise that the whole argument is bankrupt because I haven't even bothered with the set of premises you used to get to that conclusion, but they aren't looking good.

[Skepdick]

My thesis conclusion is this;
The most critical cause of theism is the existential crisis/dilemma traceable to DNA/RNA.
All other causes are not proximate thus secondary.

Pick one. If you are claiming that all alternative causes are insufficient, then you are claiming necessity on part of your argument. In which case you must make a necessary argument, otherwise you have no grounds for concluding that other proposals are insufficient. In that case, your thesis needs to contain that exclusive MUST that you have explicitly told me it does not claim.

Dude. Even I could understand what he's saying and I am no philosopher.

He isn't claiming insufficiency of the alternative causes.
He is claiming multi-variate causality (duh! That is the default position)

All causal factors are necessary - none are sufficient in isolation, but one of them (DNA/RNA) correlates better.

He's talking about the Coefficient of determination

Again, this is elementary reasoning, I can't begin to describe how silly it is for me to have to explain this to somebody who fools themselves they can lecture me about the proper applications of philososphy.

Nobody can lecture you anything when you think you have a monopoly on reasoning.

The irony that your input is strictly grammatical, with zero focus on the actual content is quite epic.

I really that I have already pointed out enough times that making your argument dependent on empirically testable criteria necesitates that the same argument is subject to the limits of what empirical testing can justify.

What empirical testing can justify depends on the strength (or weakness) of evidence you are willing to accept. There are varying standards for "evidence".

To me empiricism justifies objective morality. But it's way more trivial than that, you don't even accept as evidence that which I accept as evidence.

You think I am dumb for accepting it.
I think you are dumb for rejecting it.

Now what?

[FlashDangerpants]

My thesis conclusion is this;
The most critical cause of theism is the existential crisis/dilemma traceable to DNA/RNA.
All other causes are not proximate thus secondary.

Pick one. If you are claiming that all alternative causes are insufficient, then you are claiming necessity on part of your argument. In which case you must make a necessary argument, otherwise you have no grounds for concluding that other proposals are insufficient. In that case, your thesis needs to contain that exclusive MUST that you have explicitly told me it does not claim.

Dude. Even I could understand what he's saying and I am no philosopher.

He isn't claiming insufficiency of the alternative causes.
He is claiming multi-variate causality (duh! That is the default position)

All causal factors are necessary - none are sufficient in isolation, but one of them (DNA/RNA) correlates better.

Yawn. He is either caliming that ALL theistic religious beleif originates as he describes or he is not. His problem is that he is trying defend his claim as a weak one, but demands it be understood as a strong one. One contains an if-and-only-if claim, the other does not. If you want to defend an if-and-only-if position, you must defend all of it, which includes the only-if part. Or you can weaken it so a sufficient not necessary claim of if-but-not-only-if and see what happens to the therefore part of the conclusion.

You are totaly capable of understanding that, and you are capable of working within the relevant logical structures when evaluating such claims. If you choose to be too clever to to lower yourself to if-and-only-if stuff then you may enjoy your isolation and irrelevance.