There is anti-matter but it's still material.

Thomathy wrote:

Anti-gravity!  I want some of what you're smoking.  That's fucking batshit insane!  Anti-gravity!  My mind has been blown away!  I'm surprised I can still type or breathe!  I'm surprised I can be surprised.  You're complete misunderstanding of 'dark' matter is also aching my ribs and robbing me of brain cells.  It is not distinguished by the difference you imagine and the name is descriptive, not a definition.

You do know how stupid what you've written is, right? (rhetorical)

There is no anti-material.  You obviously did not understand or have not read the entire article.  All that exists in the universe is all that exists in the universe.  I realize the tautology is simple, but it is key to understanding just how ludicrous what you wrote really is.  The universe is material, that is it exists and all that is in the universe is also material and exists.  Anti-material would, I imagine, be something that doesn't exist, something without of the universe.  The immaterial is a broken concept because it has no universe of discourse, it is negatively defined.  To be clear if the immaterial or anti-material did exists they could only be either in name for the very fact of their existence would nullify what is to be understood as immaterial or anti-material.

I can barely think; what you've written is so stupid.

It was just an approach, nothing to lose your head about.  I guess you're not up on that much scientific theory.  That's alright.  It is understood that the Universe is material.  That's why it's known to us as what it is. 

Anti-material is just a name I made up to coenside with the understanding of scientific theories of opposites.  I'm not sure how else I could explain it to you, but by your response it seems clear to me that unless you can touch it, see it, taste it, hear it... it doesn't exist.  Therefore, there's nothing more we can do on this topic. 

 

it seems clear to me that unless you can touch it, see it, taste it, hear it... it doesn't exist.

Whats a matter? Afraid of defending magic? Need to take the long road and tell us the bible doesn't say what it says?

I am not fooled and neither is anyone else here. The difference is that others have more patience than I do in trying to unscramble your brain. I prefer shock treatment, and you need it.

You are trying to strip the bible of it's hocus pokus by re-defining the words, it cannot be done. That work of fiction is full of bullshit claims right from page one.

Now, the only person here that is convinced that the bible is not a book of fictional magical claims is you.

When you get called on it your only resort is to back peddle and say that the bible doesnt say what it says.

When one starts from the naked assertion that a super natural being exists, and convinces themselves of that without question, they can further justify myth they want.

"God did it"

Is the same as

"Allah did it"

Is the same as

"Thor did it"

You are merely back peddling because you don't want to admit that people, including you, want to believe in a magical protector in the sky, and now since science has stripped away that fiction, you cling to it because of emotional appeal. So mentally you go back and try to make the words sound more naturalistic.

Is heaven(insert favorite deity here) an actual physical place? For Muslims it is a harem and rivers of milk and wine. For Christians it is where they get to hang out with other dead relitives, including people who did horrible things only later to be forgiven by Jesus. All of it is crap, utopian crap. Your heaven or their hell is merely a product of human imagination.

None of us here are fooled by your dead and tired argument that words don't mean what they mean.

You are afraid to admit that you want a magical protector. Why do you feel you need a deity by any name? Are you afraid you might forget how to tie your shoes? Are you afraid you might start BBQing kittens?

Or re you afraid that your mortality is finite and not infinite? This is what you are really afraid of and the emotional appeal that you have in your head right now has you in a stranglehold. The only way to escape this is to question the magic.

If it sounds like fiction, it is fiction, and you have bought a work of fiction merely because it makes you feel good. You don't realize it, but that IS what is going on in your head. I only hope for your own intellectual sake you have the bravery to be introspective and question it.

Brian37 wrote:

Whats a matter? Afraid of defending magic? Need to take the long road and tell us the bible doesn't say what it says?

I am not fooled and neither is anyone else here. The difference is that others have more patience than I do in trying to unscramble your brain. I prefer shock treatment, and you need it.

I'll play any game you'd like to play.  We could have fun with this, but please don't be offended by my sarcasm.  If you are, just tell me.  I don't mean to offend.  I'll stop. 

I'll still be the same for everyone else.  If anyone else doesn't like it either, please just say so. 

Shock treatment it is. 

Brian37 wrote:

You are trying to strip the bible of it's hocus pokus by re-defining the words, it cannot be done. That work of fiction is full of bullshit claims right from page one.

Why not?  Others have done it.  the Jehovah's Witnesses are famous for it.  Many non-believers are very good at it.  I don't believe I redefine anything in the Bible.  Carefully researched... yea... redefined... nah..

Brian37 wrote:

Now, the only person here that is convinced that the bible is not a book of fictional magical claims is you.

derrrr... couldn't be because I'm on an anti-theism site could it? 

Brian37 wrote:

When you get called on it your only resort is to back peddle and say that the bible doesnt say what it says.

OR!!! it doesn't say what you want it to say.    If I've changed my views, I'll tell you.  I can guarantee that my understanding is shared by millions around the world, thousands in the United States.  It's not just me.

Brian37 wrote:

When one starts from the naked assertion that a super natural being exists, and convinces themselves of that without question, they can further justify myth they want.

"God did it"

Is the same as

"Allah did it"

Is the same as

"Thor did it"

God is known by many names...

Don't miss it. I get your point.

Brian37 wrote:

You are merely back peddling because you don't want to admit that people, including you, want to believe in a magical protector in the sky, and now since science has stripped away that fiction, you cling to it because of emotional appeal. So mentally you go back and try to make the words sound more naturalistic.

the science I know has only further confirmed that belief for me.  (see science vs. religion forum) I don't remember what was covered, but we'll go from there.  I've probably learned a bit since then too. 

I don't try to make anything sound any way.  Other than the above excuses, I haven't seem much in the way of evidence against my understanding.

Brian37 wrote:

Is heaven(insert favorite deity here) an actual physical place? For Muslims it is a harem and rivers of milk and wine. For Christians it is where they get to hang out with other dead relitives, including people who did horrible things only later to be forgiven by Jesus. All of it is crap, utopian crap. Your heaven or their hell is merely a product of human imagination.

If heaven was a physical place, then I guess God would be physical too huh. 

Ironically again.... ok, not so ironic, but that view that you have about Christians beliefs is yet again not accurate... eh, but you're not interested in my views.  Remember, I change things so they sound good to me.

Brian37 wrote:

None of us here are fooled by your dead and tired argument that words don't mean what they mean.

I think you missed the part where I said you missed the point... or are missing a lot of information.  As I've said, you can't take a phrase out of the Bible and claim that's what God is about.  There's probably a deeper reason why they're there. 

If you want to do that, then I can prove to you by means of taking a phrase out of context that your pet dog is going to drink your blood when you die.  Or, for technicality reasons you don't have a dog, your neighbors dog, or some stray walking down the street when you die.  Eh.. let your imagination run with it.  You're good at that. 

Brian37 wrote:

You are afraid to admit that you want a magical protector. Why do you feel you need a deity by any name? Are you afraid you might forget how to tie your shoes? Are you afraid you might start BBQing kittens?

hey! don't knock BBQ'd Kittens until you've tried it.  Very tender...

anyway, if there's a spiritual world as described in the Bible, sure I want a "magical protector".  The only one who can protect someone from the evils of a magical world is a magical protector.  Doi. 

actually.  He's understood to be my creator... Therefore, my Father! It is also understood he wants us to LOVE him, not be his slave like most on here would like to think. 

yea yea, I know I know.  If he loves us so much why did he... (Put out of context story phrase here)  If you really want to know, ask me in a PM or another forum and I'll explain my best understanding of it.  If I don't know, I'll find out by some means what is understood.  That way we can level on where either of us might be misunderstanding something. 

Brian37 wrote:

Or re you afraid that your mortality is finite and not infinite? This is what you are really afraid of and the emotional appeal that you have in your head right now has you in a stranglehold. The only way to escape this is to question the magic.

yea, been there, done that.  Questioned it long time.  Can't deny it due to many factors.  Studied hard.  Tried to disprove the possibility. 

Brian37 wrote:

If it sounds like fiction, it is fiction, and you have bought a work of fiction merely because it makes you feel good. You don't realize it, but that IS what is going on in your head. I only hope for your own intellectual sake you have the bravery to be introspective and question it.

How many times do I have to say it. I ALWAYS QUESTION MY OWN UNDERSTANDING. That's why I'm on here too!!!  Unfortunately, few have been helpful in giving me something worth questioning. 

...haven't read or seen suggestions yet...

Thank you for giving me a sensible and meaningful conclusion in all seriousness.  I do appreciate your views and understanding.

Maybe we can start hitting some specific points and see where it goes instead of just going back and forth like we did on this post.  Your "shock factor" really brought no progress to any part of this whole forum nor my understanding. 

What I do understand at this point is that on a Christian site like this,  people are sincere and show they care (for the most part... can't speak for everyone) regardless of what is said or how much people don't want to accept what is being said.  whereas on here the going trend I see is people getting angry, frustrated, and just plain rude in many instances.  (Don't think I'm talking about you, it's a general statement and is not directed toward any single person)

It's people's behaviors that is one of many factors that leads me to believe.  Being in a Christian crowd is so much different as well.  There is a lot of trust within those groups whereas otherwise there is a major lack of it. 

 

God is known by many names...

It's people's behaviors that is one of many factors that leads me to believe.

There is a lot of trust within those groups whereas otherwise there is a major lack of it.

Thomathy wrote:

Anti-gravity!  I want some of what you're smoking.  That's fucking batshit insane!  Anti-gravity!  My mind has been blown away!  I'm surprised I can still type or breathe!  I'm surprised I can be surprised.  You're complete misunderstanding of 'dark' matter is also aching my ribs and robbing me of brain cells.  It is not distinguished by the difference you imagine and the name is descriptive, not a definition.

You do know how stupid what you've written is, right? (rhetorical)

There is no anti-material.  You obviously did not understand or have not read the entire article.  All that exists in the universe is all that exists in the universe.  I realize the tautology is simple, but it is key to understanding just how ludicrous what you wrote really is.  The universe is material, that is it exists and all that is in the universe is also material and exists.  Anti-material would, I imagine, be something that doesn't exist, something without of the universe.  The immaterial is a broken concept because it has no universe of discourse, it is negatively defined.  To be clear if the immaterial or anti-material did exists they could only be either in name for the very fact of their existence would nullify what is to be understood as immaterial or anti-material.

I can barely think; what you've written is so stupid.

It was just an approach, nothing to lose your head about.  I guess you're not up on that much scientific theory.  That's alright.  It is understood that the Universe is material.  That's why it's known to us as what it is. 

Anti-material is just a name I made up to coenside with the understanding of scientific theories of opposites.  I'm not sure how else I could explain it to you, but by your response it seems clear to me that unless you can touch it, see it, taste it, hear it... it doesn't exist.  Therefore, there's nothing more we can do on this topic. 

 

 

Science, very simply, is a process. It is a method, like math or logic. More precisely, it is the method for learning about our universe. Contrary to popular belief, it is not the sole milieu of trained academics and stodgy old men with glasses. Science is practiced by everyone on the planet on a daily basis. In fact – and this is a crucial point – it is impossible to avoid using science.

 

A simple way to learn the scientific method is to perform a series of thought experiments. Let's start at the very beginning. Imagine that you are walking along a road, and you spot an object on the sidewalk. It is metallic, roughly circular, and covered with a sticky black substance. Now suppose you decide that you want to know what it is. The first thing you are likely to do is pick it up. Imagine that when you do, you discover that it is very hot – so hot, in fact, that you are unable to hold it for very long. Out of sheer reflex, you drop it again.

 

At this point, we have quite a bit of data to work with. First, we have a physical description of the thing, and we have verified, as well as possible, that our eyes reported approximately accurate information to our brain. From picking the object up, we've learned that the object feels like it looks. It does indeed feel metallic. It has a heft that we would expect from metal. In short, we now have corroborating evidence – feel and touch – to help us decide what it might be.

 

If you will forgive the pedantic nature of this next observation, I promise it will be worthwhile. Picking the object up is a very important step in our little science experiment. We have all learned that our eyes are often not reliable sources of information. Not only are they often fooled, but many substances look very much like other substances, even though they are quite different. We might very well have discovered that the object, which gave every appearance of being metallic, was actually styrofoam covered with metallic paint. The simple act of verifying our initial observation with a second kind of observation is crucial to science.

 

Now, after you have dropped the very hot object, you make a third observation. When you put your fingers near your face, you notice a distinct smell and recognize it as that of burning motor oil. This new data puts an idea into your head. Perhaps this object is part of a car, and has recently been expelled from a running engine, landing on the sidewalk only a few moments earlier. In support of this idea, we have the following set of data:

•  

  Metallic object

•  

  Much hotter than expected from the current weather

•  

  Appears to be mechanically crafted

•  

  Appears to be covered with oil

•  

  Found very near a road

 

By itself, any one of these pieces of data might not be enough to reasonably conclude that the object is a car part, or that it was recently in a running car. However, when you put all of the information together, it seems a reasonable conclusion. Now, suppose that as you look up, you see a disabled car about fifty feet ahead, and a man working under the hood. At this point, you will probably feel confident enough to take the object to the man, certain that you have found something he needs. If, having done so, you watch him place the object back into his engine, in a space that appears specifically designed for it, you can leave satisfied of the facts.

 

Removing the details, what can we say has happened here in terms of general principles? First, you encountered something unknown. Second, you made multiple observations. Third, you tested the observations against one another for consistency. Fourth, you made a guess, based on your observations, about a likely explanation for the unknown object. Finally, you devised a test to determine if your guess was correct.

 

This, in a nutshell, is the scientific method. There's nothing magical about it, and certainly nothing requiring years of education. In fact, without consciously thinking about it, you performed the steps in exactly the correct order! The reason for this is that the correct order is the order that works and you intuitively knew it.

 

For comparison, let's try thinking of ways in which you could have deviated from the scientific method and reasonably hoped to get the correct answer. Is there any way that you could have looked at the object without recording the observation as data in your brain? Unlikely, to be sure. Could you pick it up without noticing the texture, temperature, or weight? Again, no. In short, there's no way to avoid recording empirical data about the world. Simply by interacting with the world, we are collecting evidence.

 

Likewise, if a pattern emerges from your observations, it is entirely unreasonable to suggest that our brain will not try to subconsciously make sense of it. That's what brains do. The process of forming guesses about patterns is ingrained in our consciousness, and cannot be avoided. It is the way we think. Literally.

 

Very simply, the scientific method is just the expression of what we as humans unavoidably do. We make observations and predictions based on patterns of information. Now, let us do another thought experiment about the same situation. Suppose that after having gathered all your data about the mystery object, you decided that the object was likely a piece of debris from an alien spacecraft. Would that guess be a good one? There are obviously several problems with it. First, nobody on earth has ever produced an alien spacecraft for observation, so it's hard to test the idea. Second, unless alien spacecraft are invisible, there would be considerable evidence against the notion. Local radar, observations of other people, and satellite imagery could all demonstrate rather conclusively that no alien spacecraft were in the vicinity in the recent past. In short, there is a mountain of evidence against the guess.

 

Furthermore, there are clearly better guesses. Anyone noticing the broken down car could hazard a guess that makes more sense to the circumstances. In fact, a simple test will tell us whether this guess is accurate or not. If the man didn't actually need the part, and it didn't fit anywhere in his car, we would have to refine our guess. Perhaps it was from another car, which didn't suffer badly enough to stop running when the part was ejected. Perhaps it's from a riding lawnmower. (If there was a John Deere store in the vicinity, this guess would gain more credibility.)

 

Suppose now that after guessing that the part was from the broken down car, you tested your hypothesis by asking the man working on it, and it turned out that the part was not from that car. Has science failed us? Of course not! We have simply ruled out one possibility. The part might still be from a car. We could easily take it to an auto parts store and compare it with their inventory. If we found an identical part, we could be sure of it's identity. If, having tried several auto mechanics and auto stores, we were unable to find anyone with knowledge of cars who recognized the object, we would be forced to conclude that, barring any new information, the object was not from a car.

 

At this point, we could try various machine shops and manufacturing plants, repeating the same set of tests, until eventually, we correctly identified the object. This, again, is precisely what the scientific method prescribes. When we rule out one possibility, we keep looking for as long as it takes to find enough evidence to say what something is, or how it works. Here, we may ask a very pointed question. Supposing that we exhaust all of the known avenues for identifying the object, and we have still not determined its true nature. What is the correct answer to the question: “What is it?”

 

The answer, of course, is “I don't know.” This seems patently obvious, but it's astonishing how many times people forget this simple bit of logic. Suppose that, having exhausted our resources, we still had no evidence for what the object was. Would it be correct to say that since there was no evidence for its nature, that it must surely be part of an interstellar space station from the Andromeda Galaxy? Of course it wouldn't! In fact, it would be preposterously wrong to suggest such a thing, since the very result of our search demonstrated that there was no evidence for what the thing was!

 

It should be obvious at this point that whenever we don't have evidence for something, there's no way to form a reliable guess about its nature. However, just to drive the point home conclusively, let's do one more thought experiment. I have, on my desk at this moment, a picture of something. What is it?

 

Clearly, you have no idea. Perhaps, through random chance, you will guess the subject of the picture correctly, but it's highly unlikely. All you know is that the thing in question can be rendered in picture form, and that it definitely exists, or existed. You don't even know for certain that it exists on earth. Perhaps it is a photo of a far away galaxy, or of the upper atmosphere on Mars. (You don't even know if it's a photograph. Perhaps it's a drawing of something imaginary!) The point is that with no evidence, there is absolutely no way to make any kind of guess about what a thing is.

 

Suppose I ask you to now make a bet with me. If you guess correctly, you get ten thousand dollars, but if you guess wrong, you owe me ten thousand dollars, immediately. Unless you are a complete fool, you wouldn't dream of taking the bet, and for good reason. You have virtually no chance of winning. Now, suppose I gave you more information. Suppose I told you that it is a photograph of a baseball helmet. Would you be comfortable making the bet now? Probably not. If I added more information, and told you that it was a helmet from a Major League team, you would still only have a slim chance of guessing it – Far less than fifty-fifty, at any rate. However, if I told you that it was either a Chicago Cubs helmet or an Atlanta Braves helmet, you might feel sufficiently brave to take the bet.

 

Now, imagine that I told you that it's a photo of a Chicago Cubs helmet, and then asked you to make the bet with me. You'd be a fool not to take it, right? Or, would you? If you examined the evidence carefully, you'd realize that all you had to go on was my word. In fact, I would have a very strong motivation to tell you something inaccurate, so the weight of my testimony is almost nil. However, if I invited you over to my house and showed you the photo, allowing you to examine it to your heart's content, you would then have enough evidence to confidently take my bet.

 

This, again, is a step by step explanation for how (and why) science works. Some evidence is more reliable than others, and certainty can be measured in degrees. Imagine that I invite three people to make the same bet with me, and give each their own set of evidence. To the first person, I say only that I have a picture of something. To the second, I say that I have a photo of a Major League baseball helmet. To the third, I provide the photograph itself. Each one of these three people, if forced to make a bet, has a certain likelihood of getting it right. The first person's chance is virtually zero. In fact, we could probably let him take thousands of guesses with confidence that he would not get it right. The second person, on the other hand, would certainly guess it within thirty tries, since that is the number of teams in Major League Baseball. The third person, unless he was monumentally stupid, would guess right on the first try. Though we cannot be 100% certain of his guess, it's fair to say that for all practical purposes, he will win ten thousand dollars in the next few seconds.

 

All of this, I hope, seems really straightforward and simple. Perhaps it is even insultingly so. However, it is apparently something that needs to be drilled into a lot of heads. The number of times I have had to defend the scientific method against other “sources of truth” is staggering. In fact, I have no doubt that there are many people who, upon reading this, will still cling to the idea that science isn't the only way to get knowledge.

 

The Problem of Induction

 

Most objections to science come from people who have heard of the Problem of Induction, but don't understand it. I mentioned this briefly at the beginning of this chapter, but we need now to examine it in more detail. Put simply, it is the observation that nothing empirical (that is, existing in the material universe) can be known with certainty. People who subscribe to a philosophical concept called solipsism insist that the only thing that can ever be known is self. That is, I can never know for certain that anything besides myself exists. In fact, I can never know exactly what I am, only that I am. This is sometimes referred to as the “Brain in a Vat” theory. That is, we might simply be brains in vats, and everything we perceive of as reality is an intricate illusion.

 

This supposed problem is not nearly as difficult to resolve as you might immediately guess. For one thing, there's an obvious issue with the “Brain in a Vat.” Even if it is true (and we can't conclusively prove that it's not) we cannot help the fact that we can't test the idea in any way. If we are trapped in an illusion, then we are trapped, and the illusion, for every conceivable purpose which we might have, is real.

 

Furthermore, if there is some evidence that we are brains in a vat, the theory becomes testable. If we discovered a “tear in the Matrix,” for lack of a better term, we could scientifically study it, and if there was enough evidence to sway our opinion to the conclusion, it would no longer be in the realm of philosophy. It would be scientific fact.

 

We must, it appears, conclude that all the available evidence suggests that reality is what it appears to be, that other people exist, that our senses are basically reliable, and that through rigorous testing, we can verify the reliability of our observations.

 

Nevertheless, some will argue that even granting the reality of this existence, the fact that science cannot prove anything with certainty negates the value of science. This is clearly absurd, and we can prove it with the somewhat tedious examples I gave in the previous section. When provided with overwhelming evidence – the actual photo in question, in this instance – we can say with virtual certainty that a thing is a fact. We can clearly demonstrate that some sets of evidence are stronger than others, and that for all practical purposes, science does have measurable value.

 

Finally, (and forgive me for getting a little bit technical) scientific certainty isn't based on guesswork. It's based on deduction. Math is deductively true. That is, it is 100% certain. Probability equations are math, and therefore, based on deduction. When we can say, for example, that there is mathematical certainty that a thing is 50% certain, it is certainly 50% certain. What we cannot say is that any objects involved in the probability are 100% certain to exist. However, as we've seen, we can be so overwhelmingly sure that there's no point in questioning them. In fact, in science, whenever you hear the word “certain” you can interpret it as “so astonishingly probable as to negate any realistic chance of it being untrue.” When we say that gravity and evolution are certain, we mean just that. Assuming that we are not brains in a vat, the probability that they are true is a value approaching one hundred percent with only an infinitesimally small chance of being untrue – perhaps one in the number of atoms in the universe.

 

Consider this very simple example. Suppose that I am in a soundproof room (and suppose that I have used science to prove with overwhelming certainty that it really is soundproof) and there are only four things in the room – three boxes and me. The boxes are all across the room from me, and there is a noise coming from that general direction. With no other information at all, I can say that I am scientifically certain that the noise comes from one of the three boxes. However, at this point, any box I pick is only 33% likely to be the correct box. Now, suppose I ask an assistant to remove one of the boxes that is not making the noise. Now, I have a 50% likelihood of guessing correctly. If the assistant removes another box, and the noise persists, I can be 100% certain that the box is making the noise, even without doing any more experiments.

 

In many cases, this is what science attempts to do. When there are multiple possible explanations, scientists try to eliminate as many as possible. If they can do this successfully, and only one explanation remains, they can feel certain that it is the correct one. At every step of the scientific process, everything is questioned, tested, and retested. Nothing is ever assumed until it is demonstrated to be so certain that it is worth assuming. Even then, scientists are perfectly happy to concede that new information could exist which would change their conclusion.

 

However, it's important to note that there is also a way to calculate the probability of this happening. Suppose that science has observed a phenomenon thoroughly, and has determined that it has happened one hundred thousand times, and in all cases, it happened in exactly the same way. Furthermore, the proposed explanation of the phenomenon made it logically necessary that a second event will happen in a very particular way, and that event has been observed a hundred thousand times, without incident. Now, suppose that there is a chain of events, where there are not just one or two, but a hundred thousand things that would logically have to happen a certain way, and all hundred thousand have been observed a hundred thousand times, without a single instance of deviation.

 

How likely is it that the logic is wrong? How possible is it that our predictions are wrong, and that there is some other explanation for our observation of all of these events? Obviously, it's staggeringly improbable. It's so improbable that without any reason to believe otherwise, we can say that this is a fact of nature. Again, this is what science attempts to do – demonstrate things so many times that certainty becomes nearly complete – so nearly complete that it becomes unnecessary to provide a disclaimer because of the “Problem of Induction.”

Capo, I need to ask you two very, very important questions at this junction:

1) Do you accept evolutionary theory as a scientific fact?

2) How old do you think the Earth is?

 

Yea, I'm on a different subject, it's about spiritual verses physical.

And Muslims can be tight knit too and don't trust others outside the tribe. So? Again, what makes you cling to a group or label is the same STUPID reason other people of other religions do it, BECAUSE IT MAKES THEM FEEL GOOD. You belong to the same placebo club Muslims do and Hindus do. You  all hang out because you all like the same fictional super hero(incert favorite religion here). You claim to want to stand out and are "different than the others" but you have the same amount of evidence for your deity as they do.

But right there in that statement your pompiety(THERE I MADE UP A WORD)!

That is code in your own head, realizing it or not for, "Only Christians can be trusted". Your tribalistic behavior  is not via some fictional being talking in your head, it is your natural human need to socialize. Again, no magical "father" needed to understand mundane human psychology.