Is God an Alternative Fact?

[beenherebeforeagain]

You are correct, the "thought" experiment was designed for those who have the capacity to think for themselves. There will always be clever folks that think they are entitled to their own facts in contradiction to the laws that govern our existence. For those who refuse to acknowledge Nature's laws for what they are, they have the option to conduct the thought experiment in real life (not recommended) in order to directly challenge the findings and thus support their opinions to the contrary. - See more at: Manuel Morales Tempt Destiny Research Findings - Home

Don't say "correct" as if you are agreeing with me and my point, because you clearly are not getting the point. Thinking about something, no matter how hard and how well you do it, unless you can directly link it to something in the real world, is worthless...Kant demonstrated quite a while back.

Are you Manuel Morales? Is this your art project? This going to be part of your book? Because, again, the exact same bs, linked to the same sites and papers and information--and of course, anyone who contradicts you or points out the logical and other flaws must therefore be unable to think for themselves...

 

[TDselector]

Don't say "correct" as if you are agreeing with me and my point, because you clearly are not getting the point. ... anyone who contradicts you or points out the logical and other flaws must therefore be unable to think for themselves...

If you understood the findings you would realize that opinions, including my own, in contradiction to our reality is mute. By your comments you appear to be one of the clever ones that think they are entitled to their own facts. I realize that I am not entitled to think as you. So then what makes you think you are entitled to be superior to the laws that govern our existence, yet fail to conduct the thought experiment in real life to support your cleverness?

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

If you understood the findings you would realize that opinions, including my own, in contradiction to our reality is mute. By your comments you appear to be one of the clever ones that think they are entitled to their own facts. I realize that I am not entitled to think as you. So then what makes you think you are entitled to be superior to the laws that govern our existence, yet fail to conduct the thought experiment in real life to support your cleverness?

Because your wise and clever thinking isn't worth the time and effort I have put into it already, much less the time and effort you have. Your thought experiment is garbage in, garbage out, and isn't convincing to anyone who understands logic, or who might require something in the line of real evidence.

 

[TDselector]

If you wish to speak of logic, then you know logic not based on reality is illogical. The evidence you speak of is our very own existence that which cannot violate the two laws that govern our existence as exemplified via the thought experiment which you blatantly fail to contest in real life.

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

If you wish to speak of logic, then you know logic not based on reality is illogical. The evidence you speak of is our very own existence that which cannot violate the two laws that govern our existence as exemplified via the thought experiment which you blatantly fail to contest in real life.

Your undefined assumptions of 1) our existence, 2) that these two laws actually govern our existence in the way you seem to think, and 3) that your thought experiment really says anything of importance about reality leads you to make a logically unsupported and unjustified conclusion--that is, that God does not exist.

 

[TDselector]

Your undefined assumptions of 1) our existence, 2) that these two laws actually govern our existence in the way you seem to think, and 3) that your thought experiment really says anything of importance about reality leads you to make a logically unsupported and unjustified conclusion--that is, that God does not exist.

The fact that you are using selection to conduct your argument reveals the fallacy of your logic and exposes why you fail to put your money (life) where your mouth is. Thanks for the confirmation!

 

[dianaiad]

The "thought" experiment is a "safe" way to test the reality of your existence. If you were to test the Nature of your reality directly, the outcome has been predetermined.

It seems to me, then, particularly in view of this particular thought experiment, that the very ability to FORM the experiment of proof enough of the reality of one's existence.

Of course, I could be wrong here but is it possible to 'not exist' AND think about not existing?

Just askin.'

 

[dianaiad]

You are correct, the "thought" experiment was designed for those who have the capacity to think for themselves. There will always be clever folks that think they are entitled to their own facts in contradiction to the laws that govern our existence. For those who refuse to acknowledge Nature's laws for what they are, they have the option to conduct the thought experiment in real life (not recommended) in order to directly challenge the findings and thus support their opinions to the contrary. - See more at: Manuel Morales Tempt Destiny Research Findings - Home

Again, I could well be wrong, but...er....don't most ideas of deity posit an 'afterlife' of sorts? This adds an additional aspect to the thought experiment that doesn't seem, unless I missed something, to have been addressed. What of that aspect of religion...the 'spirit' or whatever...that is apart from the flesh? All that is addressed in that experiment is 'the flesh,' or all those things which make mortal life possible. It's a bit odd, because just the performance of that experiment requires something 'apart from' the flesh to DO all that 'selecting.'

Indeed, the only thing that experiment shows is that there might be a state in which one is not able to do any selecting oneself...and as I have also mentioned, there is more than one religious system that states that none of us ARE making our own deci...er, selections.

Look, guys.

Yes, I have a couple of post graduate degrees. I am NOT a complete idiot. However, I freely admit that I just. don't. get. it.

So if someone out there could explain this thing to me using language that isn't so loaded with jargon that you may as well be speaking proto-European, I really would appreciate it.

Thanks.

 

[Shad]

Clever proposition Shad, "confirm (cause) our existence (effect) without presupposing (cause) our existence (effect)".

It is not a proposition but an axiom that has existed for centuries. Confirmation is not a cause nor is our existence an effect of said cause.

Are you familiar with Cartesian product?

Vaguely.

 

[Bird123]

Perhaps you might find this article of interest: IN SEARCH OF FIRST CAUSE

You are right about one thing. God is not about good, evil or morality. These are mankind's beliefs.

You are in a universe bottle trying to figure it all out based on what you see. How much do you really see and of that how much do you understand?

Some things for you to ponder. In the quantum light experiment with the 2 slots, What is going on with observation?

Time is another issue overlooked. In a dimension without time, everything is Eternal yet everything just IS. Integrate time and observation and what do you get? Yes, there is much to work on.

I do know we are Spiritual beings in our true natures trapped in a physical body. I have direct experience to this. I conclude that the causal nature of this universe aids in our education of it all. It's one thing to Know it all exists but another to live it in a cause and effect universe. It is already part of who we are but much more glorious this way. True Wisdom will be acquired. The beauty of it all is that it is by our first choice.

 

[TDselector]

It seems to me, then, particularly in view of this particular thought experiment, that the very ability to FORM the experiment of proof enough of the reality of one's existence.

Of course, I could be wrong here but is it possible to 'not exist' AND think about not existing?

Just askin.'

Thought comes from a physical brain, not the other way around. Therefore what is necessary for physical existence is necessary for the effects (thought) of physical existence.

 

[TDselector]

It is not a proposition but an axiom that has existed for centuries. Confirmation is not a cause nor is our existence an effect of said cause. Vaguely.

Where did this existence you speak of come from? Are you stating that existence is self-causal?

 

[TDselector]

The beauty of it all is that it is by our first choice.

And so how does choice come to exist?

 

[TDselector]

All that is addressed in that experiment is 'the flesh,' or all those things which make mortal life possible. It's a bit odd, because just the performance of that experiment requires something 'apart from' the flesh to DO all that 'selecting.' Indeed, the only thing that experiment shows is that there might be a state in which one is not able to do any selecting oneself...and as I have also mentioned, there is more than one religious system that states that none of us ARE making our own deci...er, selections.

You are indeed very astute. There are two mutually exclusive domains (existence from non-existence) involved. The origin domain generates the two mutually exclusive and jointly exhaustive acts of direct and indirect selection. The Tempt Destiny experiment has shown that acts of selection can only "come-to-exist". They cannot preexist. This origin function necessitates non-existence in order for an act to become an act. When a selection has been made, existence of its effect can then be observed in time and space.

 

[Shad]

Where did this existence you speak of come from? Are you stating that existence is self-causal?

Never said any of that. I merely pointing out to have evidence of your existence is to presuppose you actually exist. Hence why it is an axiom

 

[Bird123]

And so how does choice come to exist?

Each creates it.

 

[TDselector]

Each creates it.

Which can only mean existence (each) creates existence (it). Therefore, you are stating that existence is self-causal which means you were never born because, according to your logic, you always existed. I wonder how your parents would feel about such logic ... hold on, you do not have parents because you were never born! PARADOX ALERT!

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Which can only mean existence (each) creates existence (it). Therefore, you are stating that existence is self-causal which means you were never born because, according to your logic, you always existed. I wonder how your parents would feel about such logic ... hold on, you do not have parents because you were never born! PARADOX ALERT!

The apparent first cause paradox applies to any explanation, God or nature; 'where did that come from?' So it's a wash. But not only that, it's a moot point, because here we are- obviously there is a solution one way or the other.

What's not even, is the creative capacity of creative intelligence, v nature.

The latter presents a unique paradox, that the laws of nature must ultimately be accounted for by.. those very same laws...

 

[TDselector]

The apparent first cause paradox applies to any explanation, God or nature; 'where did that come from?' So it's a wash. But not only that, it's a moot point, because here we are- obviously there is a solution one way or the other. What's not even, is the creative capacity of creative intelligence, v nature. The latter presents a unique paradox, that the laws of nature must ultimately be accounted for by.. those very same laws...

The error with the first cause logic you are referring to is the assumption that the existence of something (effect), whatever it may be, is causal of the existence of something else (effect), i.e., effect causing effect, which is a violation of temporal precedence. Your example has been proven not to be reflective of Nature. Case in point, unambiguous empirical evidence has shown that the two acts of selection do not exist nor cannot preexist. Acts can only become acts in order to be acts. For example:

How much does a direct or indirect selection weigh, what are their scales, and where was the mutually exclusive selection variable you used to read these words located when you used it?

 

[Guy Threepwood]

The error with the first cause logic you are referring to is the assumption that the existence of something (effect), whatever it may be, is causal of the existence of something else (effect), i.e., effect causing effect, which is a violation of temporal precedence. Your example has been proven not to be reflective of Nature. Case in point, unambiguous empirical evidence has shown that the two acts of selection do not exist nor cannot preexist. Acts can only become acts in order to be acts. For example:

How much does a direct or indirect selection weigh, what are their scales, and where was the mutually exclusive selection variable you used to read these words located when you used it?

yup, or the ol' chicken n egg problem, to be a little less cryptic..

I find few things are more ambiguous and subjective than 'empirical evidence'! but we agree on the apparent logical paradox here.

Apparent because our existence proves there is a solution. Whatever it is, forbidding the involvement of creativity doesn't help in explaining creation.


If you see the word 'Help' spelled out in rocks, on a deserted island beach, no evidence of anyone ever being there... do you put this down to the waves randomly washing them up like that? why not?'