I agree, it is indeed a "bad argument" to debate the legitimacy of a supreme being governing our existence when the Nature of our reality can clearly show without ambiguity that the two acts of selection supersede anything else governing our existence.
You can confirm without ambiguity or exception that your very own existence is NOT govern by a God. See link: Final Selection Thought Experiment
The Nature of our reality has proven that the theory of a deity that governs our existence (God) to be false or at best an erroneous fantasy.
"...you didn't get a say in the matter" BINGO! This is what makes a selection origin of states of existence and why you die trying to prove otherwise, a.k.a., Jesus Christ.
Our existence provides the simple fact that not a single human being can exist without the ability to select. The same holds true for elementary particle collisions and their byproducts. If you data then you must first select to obtain any and all data from the past, present, or future. Think...
Science is not dogma, hence, why discoveries are necessary. Unfortunately, it is fundamentally flawed because it assumes being successful at guessing (theories) means that guessing is knowledge. Fortunately, since it is not dogma, it can advance by being inclusive of how Nature allows mankind to...
If you understood what "science" is would you understand that it is an advance practice of reading tea leaves by using data to confirm its speculations, i.e., theories. See: Assumed Higgs Boson
Yes, the facts remain. The logic we use to perceive reality is the same for both science and religion. We think that existence of a super natural "being" or an elementary particle (Higgs boson) begets the existence of the universe, i.e., existence is self causal. The very Nature of our reality...
I suggest you that you take the time to understand the fundamentals of what makes science a study of the effects of Nature and why there is this thing called "scientific discovery". Perhaps this article my help: IN SEARCH OF FIRST CAUSE
Unless a theory is "absolute" it can at best be only an assumption regardless of how successful the theory predicts behavior/effects. A true scientist knows the limitation of the validity of theories. Today's theories are tomorrow's conjectures because they are not absolute. They are no more...
A "theory or belief" are fundamentally an assumption. This is what makes them the same. The Final Selection Thought Experiment does not require "theory or belief" since it is base on the nature of our reality not opinions, theory, or beliefs. See pgs. 88-89 of the article that is written in English.
Christianity, Jewish and Muslim faiths are all based on one assumption, i.e., the God theory. If God is truly a supreme being then God cannot be, without exception, subservient to anything else. This means that if our existence is indeed "God Given" then everyone can conduct the Final Selection...
You're right the Giants Super Bowl victory won't cure cancer, etc. It is how the research began. The findings are what will help lead to finding cures by advancing science as a complete study of nature.
The God theory is indeed an assumption that is why it is called a "belief".
The article...
There is only one assumption being contested and that is since our existence is dependent upon being able to select what does a God have to do with our existence?
When Jesus hung on the cross, he was prohibited from conducting a direct selection in order to continue his existence. Does his death confirm the outcome of the Final Selection Thought Experiment (see link) was predetermined?
In order to believe, it is necessary to be ignorant of unambiguous information otherwise known as fact. Information is derived from either ambiguous or unambiguous sources. If the source of the information is unambiguous then belief is prohibited. If the source of the information is ambiguous...
As unambiguous empirical evidence has shown the God theory is a belief not based on the Nature of our reality. Perhaps it is time to say goodbye to theocracy to America instead of welcoming false beliefs?
What you have repeatedly failed to comprehend is that no one, including myself, is entitled to their beliefs (alternative facts) as a substitute for facts. The Nature of our reality is not a "bold and irrational assertion", just our beliefs.
If its nonsense them prove it by using your own existence since you are the one who contesting the findings. Mere words alone in contradiction to our reality is nothing less than delusion. Failing to support your convictions when you have the opportunity to do so exhibits a lack of integrity and...
You are confusing effect (thought) with its cause (selection). As the thought experiment illustrates, the two mutually exclusive and jointly exhaustive acts of selection, what we think of as choice, are not effects of cognition. They are the origin mechanisms of our existence. In other words...