• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Do you choose to be ignorant of absolute facts in order to maintain belief in alternative facts?

  • I accept alternative facts over absolute facts.

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    13

TDselector

Is God an Alternative Fact?
The Final Selection Thought Experiment enables everyone to prove to themselves if God is an alternative fact or not. If there is a God that governs our existence as believed, then the two acts of selection (direct and indirect selection) cannot govern our existence which means that everyone can conduct the thought experiment in real life and continue their God given existence. However, if no one can continue their existence without the two acts of selection, then the belief of an all powerful deity (God) that created the universe and governs everything in it is not based on the Nature of our reality.

Final Selection Thought Experiment:
Let's say that one morning upon awakening you find yourself completely paralyzed absent of the ability to select. This means you cannot choose to move your body whatsoever. You cannot choose to take in any fluids. You cannot choose to take in any nourishment. You cannot choose to relieve yourself, et cetera. Nor can you have others indirectly choose for you. The outcome is absolute. The effect of a physical system to no longer have the capacity to make direct selections is certain death.​

Until now, humanity did not have a way to universally refute, without ambiguity, belief of a deity or deities governing our existence. Is it too late to correct ourselves in order to advance our humanity now that we have the knowledge to do so, or will we choose to be ignorant of absolute facts in order to maintain our beliefs in alternative facts? - See more at: How The NY Giants Super Bowl Commemorative Series Was Used To Confirm Science Is Based On "Alternative Facts" History
 

Kemosloby

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
It sounds like you want to bow down and worship "The Donald" , someone you can see and touch, confirmed by a press secretary.
 

TDselector

Is God an Alternative Fact?
Did you read the home page of the web site I used to obtain the findings which lead to the Final Selection Thought Experiment?
 

Kemosloby

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
Did you read the home page of the web site I used to obtain the findings which lead to the Final Selection Thought Experiment?

Yeah, it's the "he draws better than me so I should believe his BS " thought process. But I don't subscribe to that thought selection process.
 

TDselector

Is God an Alternative Fact?
Are you saying you can conduct the thought experiment in real life and continue your "God" given existence?
 

TDselector

Is God an Alternative Fact?
So are you saying you are going to conduct the thought experiment in real life in order to confirm your belief in God?
 

Kemosloby

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
Nah, I think i'll wait for the resurrection day. The Judgement day. "Then we will know God as we know ourselves".
 

beenherebeforeagain

Rogue Animist
Premium Member
followed your link; read the story over, checked out the "peer reviewed" article that supposedly makes the basis of this story...while the journal appears at first glance to be legit (and I could find no significant challenges, nor an impact factor rating or other assessment of quality), I do note that according to its website: "The News of Biomedical Sciences publishes the results of experimental and theoretical research in the field of physiology and general pathology, neuromorphology and neurochemistry, biochemistry and toxicology, virusology, microbiology and immunology, medical biology and medical genetics, biophysics and biomedical technologies."

The paper in question does not seem to be about experimental or theoretical research in any of those fields, and would seem to be out of place in such a journal.

In addition, it seems to be difficult to find--even on the publication's website--the issue in which this article is supposed to have been published. Yes, you can follow the link to the pdf from the article, but I at least haven't found it independently--The latest issue listed on the publication's website is 2013...

In the linked article, the author keeps referring to "Unambiguous empirical evidence..." As an academic, that's waving a red flag about the nature of the argument and the evidence--but at this point, I've put in more effort to verifying the authenticity of the article than I would like, and am doubtful about its validity.

So: is it fake news? Is it about alternative facts? Stay Tuned for more, cause believe me, there's more...:p:eek::oops::rolleyes:
 

TDselector

Is God an Alternative Fact?
Since empirical evidence (your existence) confirms that there is no such thing as God, why do you choose ignorance over knowledge?
 

Jeremiahcp

Well-Known Jerk
Facts are the best conclusion we can make given the available evidence. The fact that they can be wrong does not prove Donald Trump is right, nor does it prove God's existence or non-existence.
 

TDselector

Is God an Alternative Fact?
followed your link; read the story over, checked out the "peer reviewed" article that supposedly makes the basis of this story...while the journal appears at first glance to be legit (and I could find no significant challenges, nor an impact factor rating or other assessment of quality), I do note that according to its website: "The News of Biomedical Sciences publishes the results of experimental and theoretical research in the field of physiology and general pathology, neuromorphology and neurochemistry, biochemistry and toxicology, virusology, microbiology and immunology, medical biology and medical genetics, biophysics and biomedical technologies."

The paper in question does not seem to be about experimental or theoretical research in any of those fields, and would seem to be out of place in such a journal.

In addition, it seems to be difficult to find--even on the publication's website--the issue in which this article is supposed to have been published. Yes, you can follow the link to the pdf from the article, but I at least haven't found it independently--The latest issue listed on the publication's website is 2013...

In the linked article, the author keeps referring to "Unambiguous empirical evidence..." As an academic, that's waving a red flag about the nature of the argument and the evidence--but at this point, I've put in more effort to verifying the authenticity of the article than I would like, and am doubtful about its validity.

So: is it fake news? Is it about alternative facts? Stay Tuned for more, cause believe me, there's more...:p:eek::oops::rolleyes:

Facts are the best conclusion we can make given the available evidence. The fact that they can be wrong does not prove Donald Trump is right, nor does it prove God's existence or non-existence.

My findings show methods used in science are incomplete. This is why practitioners of the art are concerned and have tried to censor what they cannot contest: National Academy of Science of Belarus confirms science is based on "Alternative Facts"
 

Jeremiahcp

Well-Known Jerk
My findings show methods used in science are incomplete. This is why practitioners of the art are concerned and have tried to censor what they cannot contest: National Academy of Science of Belarus confirms science is based on "Alternative Facts"

"My findings show methods used in science are incomplete."

Your findings are a little dated, that is something that has been known since the scientific method came about. It is not some grand secret in science, and that is why facts can change in light of new evidence.
 

beenherebeforeagain

Rogue Animist
Premium Member
A press release, apparently, issued by the Belarus Academy of Science, but also apparently written by you. Responses which may or may not be legitimate or created, and which claims a conspiracy in science.

If that is true, you need to provide MORE evidence, because from what I've seen, you've got nothing convincing. And your thought experiment...I'm not even getting into critiquing it.
 

TDselector

Is God an Alternative Fact?
A press release, apparently, issued by the Belarus Academy of Science, but also apparently written by you. Responses which may or may not be legitimate or created, and which claims a conspiracy in science.

If that is true, you need to provide MORE evidence, because from what I've seen, you've got nothing convincing. And your thought experiment...I'm not even getting into critiquing it.
If you wish to confirm for yourself how the methods used in science are incomplete here's how: http://temptdestiny.com/pdf/ClassAssignment_SearchForFirstCause.pdf
 

beenherebeforeagain

Rogue Animist
Premium Member
The evidence is your very own existence. This is why we all can confirm for ourselves that God is not a fact. God is a false theory.
Your logic is flawed through your thought experiment, and the rest of your presentation.

Your personal experience, my personal experience, anyone's personal experience--is not empirical evidence; it's subjective evidence. Even if everyone attempts your thought experiment and comes to the same conclusion, it does not mean that it is true. It also doesn't mean it is NOT TRUE, either. But you still don't demonstrate any tested, verified empirical evidence that just because humans exist it means that God does not. Heck, you haven't even clearly defined your terms here in any measurable way...
 
Top