Is God an Alternative Fact?

[TDselector]

No, then we say we don't know the answer. Not knowing doesn't give us a license to just make something up. The fact that some humans, even most humans, are stupid and irrational is not something to be proud of.

I agree... however, don't tell that to Donald Trump.

 

[Jeremiahcp]

Agreed, science is an effectual study (gather the evidence) of Nature. Now do a keyword search of scientific studies that use both "direct selection and "indirect selection" terms and see how many of the millions of documents use such terms. Then see how such terms were used. You will find that in science, we ignore how we can conduct experiments in the first place which is a fundamental omission error. In science, we ignore the cause of the effects observed in scientific experiments, and since there are two mutually exclusive and jointly exhaustive origin variables that cause all the effects we observe in Nature, the methods used in science are based on omitted-variable bias which in turn leads to false-positive results. This is why "Science is NOT a methodology for establishing truth."

"You will find that in science, we ignore how we can conduct experiments in the first place which is a fundamental omission error."

You are the one ignoring how to conduct an experiment; with that silly null hypothesis and alternative, all tested with nothing but your thought experiment. That is not science; that is make-a-believe. You should give up science and go into creative writing.

"we ignore the cause of the effects observed in scientific experiments"

That is wrong, and if you wrote that article then you are the one ignoring cause and effects. Randomization processes exist for dealing with confounding variables.

 

[Jeremiahcp]

You are just another false prophet who thinks he (or she) is smarter than everyone else everywhere. The only difference is you call your religion "science".

 

[Cephus]

I agree... however, don't tell that to Donald Trump.

Or anyone on the political left since they're just a bunch of emotional idiots.

 

[Jeremiahcp]

Or anyone on the political left since they're just a bunch of emotional idiots.

Yes, because anger is not an emotion.

 

[TDselector]

You do not need to be a scientist to understand that a human being cannot conduct an experiment without first making a selection. Nature forbids this. We think cause and effect is the effect of something that exist (God or elementary particle) causes the effect of something else to exist (universe), i.e., effect causing effect. By placing cause second to effect we are in violation of temporal precedence. Case in point, if existence is causal then such logic can answer the following question:

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?

 

[Jeremiahcp]

You do not need to be a scientist to understand that a human being cannot conduct an experiment without first making a selection. Nature forbids this. We think cause and effect is the effect of something (God or elementary particle) that exist causes the effect of something else (universe), i.e., effect causing effect. By placing cause second to effect we are in violation of temporal precedence. Case in point, if existence is causal then such logic can answer the following questions:

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?

 

[Jeremiahcp]

Subjects in the population are sampled by a random process, using either a random number generator or a random number table, so that each person remaining in the population has the same probability of being selected for the sample.

http://www.ph.ucla.edu/epi/rapidsurveys/RScourse/RSbook_ch3.pdf

Notice how it is a .edu site and not a .com site.

 

[TDselector]

http://www.ph.ucla.edu/epi/rapidsurveys/RScourse/RSbook_ch3.pdf

Notice how it is a .edu site and not a .com site.

NOTICE: Since my findings are based on the Nature of our reality and thus universal, you can easily disprove them by using your own existence. Have at it.

 

[Jeremiahcp]

NOTICE: Since my findings are based on the Nature of our reality and thus universal, you can easily disprove them by using your own existence. Have at it.

You made up bunch of silly stuff; as such, you have no findings to disprove.

• We develop a hypothesis that there are certain natural laws or certain effects of natural laws. These hypotheses must be falsifiable: they must entail predictions which are in principle testable and could be false.
• We predict observations we can make if the hypothesis is true.
• We check to see if these predictions come true; if they do, we know that hypothesis may be true and may continue to believe or use that hypothesis; if the predictions prove false, we reject the hypothesis.
• We continue to try to falsify the view (that is, we continue to make and test predictions).

A schematic example:

• Suppose H is a hypothesis. H entails predictions P1 ... Pn that are testable.
• We look to see whether P1 occurs.
• If this predicted phenomenon P1 is observed to occur, we continue to hold H as a hypothesis. (We should now also continue to test whether any other of the predictions P2 ... Pn are observed.)
• If any of the predicted consequences is observed false, we reject the hypothesis H.

PHL101: Critical Thinking, Theory and Scientific Theory

Once again notice the .edu there is a reason I do that.

 

[Cephus]

Yes, because anger is not an emotion.

Of course it is, but unrestrained anger is not useful and doesn't solve any problems. The inability to step back from one's emotions and evaluate a situation rationally is harmful.

 

[Jeremiahcp]

Of course it is, but unrestrained anger is not useful and doesn't solve any problems. The inability to step back from one's emotions and evaluate a situation rationally is harmful.

"The inability to step back from one's emotions and evaluate a situation rationally is harmful."

Like when the Right elected an orange idiot to the White House out of anger, hate and paranoia.

 

[Cephus]

"The inability to step back from one's emotions and evaluate a situation rationally is harmful."

Like when the Right elected an orange idiot to the White House out of anger, hate and paranoia.

Which has nothing to do with the left putting up a lying idiot in a pantsuit, right? But I guess you can't actually deal with questions without getting partisan.

 

[Jeremiahcp]

Which has nothing to do with the left putting up a lying idiot in a pantsuit, right? But I guess you can't actually deal with questions without getting partisan.

You are the one that thinks the Left is a bunch of "emotional idiots" without acknowledging that the Right is also a bunch of "emotional idiots". They didn't have to pick Trump to run against Clinton. As far as I am concerned both parties failed the people this election.

 

[Cephus]

You are the one that thinks the Left is a bunch of "emotional idiots" without acknowledging that the Right is also a bunch of "emotional idiots". They didn't have to pick Trump to run against Clinton. As far as I am concerned both parties failed the people this election.

And I agree with you completely. Both parties fail in every election. The people running don't care about the people, they care about power and ego. I can't think of the last candidate from any party that actually deserved to win.

But of course, I was initially responding to someone pulling a mindless insult of Trump and I was pointing out that there are just as many idiots on the left. Nowhere did I ever defend Trump.

 

[TDselector]

Interesting, so far 2 votes for "I accept absolute facts over alternative facts." Zero for the rest.

 

[Jeremiahcp]

Interesting, so far 2 votes for "I accept absolute facts over alternative facts." Zero for the rest.

I suppose you consider that scientific evidence.

Hey here is some empirical evidence of intelligent life on the bottom of the ocean:

 

[dianaiad]

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

Please. Dumb this one down for me, someone.

Either I have lost fifty IQ points, or my chemo brain has betrayed me, but....
I don't get it.

I didn't get the article in the link, either.

How does the inability to make a choice of any sort prove that there is no God?
I mean, really; strict Calvinism already posits this.

Or perhaps I'm totally off the wall here?

Someone, please, tell me how a thought experiment imagining oneself as a corpse proves that there is no deity?

 

[Jeremiahcp]

Please. Dumb this one down for me, someone.

Either I have lost fifty IQ points, or my chemo brain has betrayed me, but....
I don't get it.

I didn't get the article in the link, either.

How does the inability to make a choice of any sort prove that there is no God?
I mean, really; strict Calvinism already posits this.

Or perhaps I'm totally off the wall here?

Someone, please, tell me how a thought experiment imagining oneself as a corpse proves that there is no deity?

"Someone, please, tell me how a thought experiment imagining oneself as a corpse proves that there is no deity?"

It proves it the same way it proves that a banana is a pineapple, that is to say not at all. You are not losing any IQ, it is just a really dumb article.

 

[Robert Vincelette]

There is more assumed than whether there is such a thing as God, something we cannot know. Does God micromanage the universe making physical laws unnecessary? Are physical laws perfect cause-and-effect mechanics, notwithstanding Heisenberg and its significance at the scale of individual electron transitions in the brains of sentient creatures where physical laws can only offer probability and not perfect certainty? This limits what I can accept as factual about the invisible.