Is God an Alternative Fact?

[Bird123]

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!

You limit your view to only this physical universe. How can you ever hope to understand reality when you exclude so much?

We are all Spiritual beings in our true natures. I have direct experience to this. The parents who generated our physical body had nothing to do with who we really are, Spiritual beings. They supply our transportation in this physical world along with experiences through sharing our lives with them. Could this be their choice ahead of time as well as ours???

As I see it, God works on multiple levels with multiple views and so does existence. Something for you to ponder. The different rates of time mesh perfectly into a smooth running existence. An almost unlimited number of choices also mesh into a smooth running existence. Also look at the evidence at the quantum level. How many dimensions are there? Observance? It's going to take much to straighten it all out for complete understanding. Better start building more computers. Still there will not be enough with such complexity.

When one opens a door to knowledge, it usually leads to more doors needing to be opened. A Hungry student never stops searching for more simply because they made it through a door. As I see it, there is so much more.

 

[TDselector]

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?'

Which came first, the chicken or the egg? The answer is neither. Both the chicken and the egg are nothing more than states of existence. As unambiguous empirical evidence has shown, existence (states) comes from non-existence (acts of selection). When we ask effectual questions base on effects being causal, e.g., chicken or the egg, we have a paradox. If we asked which type of selection caused the egg to be fertilized in order to have a chicken, then we are in alignment with how Nature works. In order to see the word "HELP", you must first select.

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?

 

[TDselector]

You limit your view to only this physical universe. How can you ever hope to understand reality when you exclude so much?

We are all Spiritual beings in our true natures. I have direct experience to this. The parents who generated our physical body had nothing to do with who we really are, Spiritual beings. They supply our transportation in this physical world along with experiences through sharing our lives with them. Could this be their choice ahead of time as well as ours???

As I see it, God works on multiple levels with multiple views and so does existence. Something for you to ponder. The different rates of time mesh perfectly into a smooth running existence. An almost unlimited number of choices also mesh into a smooth running existence. Also look at the evidence at the quantum level. How many dimensions are there? Observance? It's going to take much to straighten it all out for complete understanding. Better start building more computers. Still there will not be enough with such complexity.

When one opens a door to knowledge, it usually leads to more doors needing to be opened. A Hungry student never stops searching for more simply because they made it through a door. As I see it, there is so much more.

Actually, the two acts of selection are not in the true sense of the word, "physical". The God theory served as the effect of a non-physical being (creator) of the universe in order cause the effect of our existence, i.e., effect causing effect, which is a violation of cause preceding effect. Unfortunately, we are still talking about the existence of something (the effect of non-physical being - God) creating the existence of something else (the effect of the physical universe). Such logic is a fundamental violation of the origin of effects.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

You limit your view to only this physical universe. How can you ever hope to understand reality when you exclude so much?

We are all Spiritual beings in our true natures. I have direct experience to this. The parents who generated our physical body had nothing to do with who we really are, Spiritual beings. They supply our transportation in this physical world along with experiences through sharing our lives with them. Could this be their choice ahead of time as well as ours???

As I see it, God works on multiple levels with multiple views and so does existence. Something for you to ponder. The different rates of time mesh perfectly into a smooth running existence. An almost unlimited number of choices also mesh into a smooth running existence. Also look at the evidence at the quantum level. How many dimensions are there? Observance? It's going to take much to straighten it all out for complete understanding. Better start building more computers. Still there will not be enough with such complexity.

When one opens a door to knowledge, it usually leads to more doors needing to be opened. A Hungry student never stops searching for more simply because they made it through a door. As I see it, there is so much more.

It's a good point, the simplest answer is often the most tempting, but one thing we have learned about reality; it doesn't seem to share our fondness for Occam's razor..

And necessarily so; simple rules = simple outcomes, and the deeper we dig, the further we get from any natural self explanation.

Only creative intelligence can ultimately solve the paradox, of an otherwise infinite regression of cause and effect.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Which came first, the chicken or the egg? The answer is neither. Both the chicken and the egg are nothing more than states of existence. As unambiguous empirical evidence has shown, existence (states) comes from non-existence (acts of selection). When we ask effectual questions base on effects being causal, e.g., chicken or the egg, we have a paradox. If we asked which type of selection caused the egg to be fertilized in order to have a chicken, then we are in alignment with how Nature works. In order to see the word "HELP", you must first select.

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?

That would be my point, that without a certain will, purpose, desire, there would be no impetus for the egg being created, that ultimately there has to be a choice, selection, for anything to exist- and choices can only exist in a conscious mind. Otherwise nature alone is powerless to truly create anything

 

[TDselector]

...nature alone is powerless to truly create anything

You are making the same mistake us effectual beings have been making since the cave man days. Thoughts come from a physical brain, not the other way around. So now we are talking about the scale of physical existence which then leads to the mechanics of "how" existence itself is created. I have been talking about the mechanics of "how". As given by your comment, you have been talking about the effects of "what" without addressing how we obtain the existence of what.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

You are making the same mistake us effectual beings have been making since the cave man days. Thoughts come from a physical brain, not the other way around. So now we are talking about the scale of physical existence which then leads to the mechanics of "how" existence itself is created. I have been talking about the mechanics of "how". As given by your comment, you have been talking about the effects of "what" without addressing how we obtain the existence of what.

Before the first religions, cave men accepted everything 'just was' by chance, as we still do when we are very young. In this sense belief in God is a position of skepticism at it's root. Which one is the fallacy..that depends on which is ultimately false, and we don't know that yet,

i.e. there is no 'default' explanation, we have no precedent for how universes 'usually' come to be, do we?

So whether physical brains ultimately came from thought, I think they did, I do not think they could exist otherwise. i.e. creative capacity is the 'how' as well as the 'what'. The 'what' paradox applies to both, but the creative capacity of creative intelligence versus nature... that's not an even contest


We are the only means we know of, by which the universe can literally contemplate it's own existence from within- bizarre coincidence perhaps, but I think there are less improbable explanations.

 

[TDselector]

i.e. there is no 'default' explanation, we have no precedent for how universes 'usually' come to be, do we? ... We are the only means we know of, by which the universe can literally contemplate it's own existence from within- bizarre coincidence perhaps, but I think there are less improbable explanations.

Please review your statement. There is indeed a "default" explanation as revealed by our own existence via the Final Selection Thought Experiment which is based on the Nature of our existence. If you or anyone can indeed violate the two laws that govern our existence in order to confirm opinions in contradiction of these laws, then you and everyone else have the means (your existence) to contest them. If the two acts of selection are not absolute laws of our existence then anyone can violate them. Care to argue your point directly with the source (Nature) to see if you are correct?

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

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."

So, I'm just going to come out and say I have no idea what the hell you are talking about. I searched for the terms "direct selection" and "indirect selection" as they relate to the sciences, because it seems as though you are making a case that these ideas are intrinsically important to the endeavors of scientific research. However, the only branch of sciences in which I could find any usage of the terms was in biology, where they relate to the selection and proliferation of genetic traits.

So, I have to ask - what are these terms "direct selection" and "indirect selection"? I would be looking for a fundamental description, if you're willing to provide it. Honestly, it doesn't seem like anyone else is even using the terminology anyway - so searching papers for these specific terms when no one seems to be using them, and then calling foul because you can't find them seems a little... I don't know... strange. Perhaps this all boils down to use of a particular vernacular? Maybe if you bothered to read the documents instead of searching for your two, specific terms, you'd actually find what you're looking for - just not called out, specifically, as "direct selection" and "indirect selection"?

 

[TDselector]

So, I'm just going to come out and say I have no idea what the hell you are talking about. I searched for the terms "direct selection" and "indirect selection" as they relate to the sciences, because it seems as though you are making a case that these ideas are intrinsically important to the endeavors of scientific research. However, the only branch of sciences in which I could find any usage of the terms was in biology, where they relate to the selection and proliferation of genetic traits.

So, I have to ask - what are these terms "direct selection" and "indirect selection"? I would be looking for a fundamental description, if you're willing to provide it. Honestly, it doesn't seem like anyone else is even using the terminology anyway - so searching papers for these specific terms when no one seems to be using them, and then calling foul because you can't find them seems a little... I don't know... strange. Perhaps this all boils down to use of a particular vernacular? Maybe if you bothered to read the documents instead of searching for your two, specific terms, you'd actually find what you're looking for - just not called out, specifically, as "direct selection" and "indirect selection"?

This is about a discovery that supersedes previous knowledge, a.k.a., a paradigm shift in how we perceive our existence and how everyone can confirm for themselves that effects, i.e., something that exist physically or non-physically, are not casual of existence. As the findings show, the current logic used to perceive the Nature of our reality is effectual, i.e., effect causing effects. However, when we put such logic to task against the source of our existence via the Final Selection Thought Experiment we find we got it (nature) wrong.

The keyword search serves to highlight the extent of this fundamental error. If you are into physics perhaps you will find of interest how this attractive force we call gravity and the attractive forces of a direct or indirect act paired with their potential can be understood to be one and the same E = G^2 -
Spin States of Selection: Predetermined Variables of ‘bit’

 

[Bird123]

It's a good point, the simplest answer is often the most tempting, but one thing we have learned about reality; it doesn't seem to share our fondness for Occam's razor..

And necessarily so; simple rules = simple outcomes, and the deeper we dig, the further we get from any natural self explanation.

Only creative intelligence can ultimately solve the paradox, of an otherwise infinite regression of cause and effect.

Yes, I see your Wisdom.

 

[TDselector]

Yes, I see your Wisdom.

Are you saying you will conduct the thought experiment in real life to see how creative your intelligence is?

 

[Bird123]

Are you saying you will conduct the thought experiment in real life to see how creative your intelligence is?

What is the first thing a wise man realizes once he truly becomes wise??? Anybody?? Anybody??

The first thing a wise man realizes once he truly becomes wise is that there is so much more to learn.

Discovery seems to be a never ending journey. When one opens one door it just leads to more doors needing to be opened.

I see people tend to think of God in terms of emotions and feelings. Let's not forget God has an Intellectual side. That evidence exists all around us.

As a Hungry student of God, my journey to Discover will not end.

I know some Believe God does not exist. As I see it, in time, they are in for a surprise. As I see it, very few really understand God at all. As I see it, religions are lost as well. Logic dictates if God exists then God can be found. I find so many people rely so much on Beliefs then stop, claiming to know it all. As I see it, God is working on multiple levels with multiple views. There is so much more for me to discover. I know that this ant who will always be a hungry student is headed in the right direction. I will always be working on discovery.

 

[TDselector]

What is the first thing a wise man realizes once he truly becomes wise??? Anybody?? Anybody??

The first thing a wise man realizes once he truly becomes wise is that there is so much more to learn.

Discovery seems to be a never ending journey. When one opens one door it just leads to more doors needing to be opened.

I see people tend to think of God in terms of emotions and feelings. Let's not forget God has an Intellectual side. That evidence exists all around us.

As a Hungry student of God, my journey to Discover will not end.

I know some Believe God does not exist. As I see it, in time, they are in for a surprise. As I see it, very few really understand God at all. As I see it, religions are lost as well. Logic dictates if God exists then God can be found. I find so many people rely so much on Beliefs then stop, claiming to know it all. As I see it, God is working on multiple levels with multiple views. There is so much more for me to discover. I know that this ant who will always be a hungry student is headed in the right direction. I will always be working on discovery.

A wise man is a presumptuousness man if he does not take into account how he knows what he thinks he knows. In order to discover anything, Nature dictates a selection must first be made. You cannot "work on discovery" unless the laws of Nature allow you to. Therefore, we as effects of Nature are forbidden to have an opinion in contradiction of the two laws that govern our existence as can be confirmed by all in real life via the thought experiment.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

What is the first thing a wise man realizes once he truly becomes wise??? Anybody?? Anybody??

The first thing a wise man realizes once he truly becomes wise is that there is so much more to learn.

Discovery seems to be a never ending journey. When one opens one door it just leads to more doors needing to be opened.

I see people tend to think of God in terms of emotions and feelings. Let's not forget God has an Intellectual side. That evidence exists all around us.

As a Hungry student of God, my journey to Discover will not end.

I know some Believe God does not exist. As I see it, in time, they are in for a surprise. As I see it, very few really understand God at all. As I see it, religions are lost as well. Logic dictates if God exists then God can be found. I find so many people rely so much on Beliefs then stop, claiming to know it all. As I see it, God is working on multiple levels with multiple views. There is so much more for me to discover. I know that this ant who will always be a hungry student is headed in the right direction. I will always be working on discovery.

Yes, The wise man knows himself a fool!

We all believe, have faith in something, as long as we acknowledge that faith as such, it is not blind faith.

I don't think it's a coincidence that scientists who made great breakthroughs like Lemaitre, Planck, were skeptics of atheism. When you are not bound, to always try to close the door on the simplest, most 'God refuting' explanation for everything, you are free to keep opening doors, investigating beyond mere academic consensus.

 

[Bird123]

Yes, The wise man knows himself a fool!

We all believe, have faith in something, as long as we acknowledge that faith as such, it is not blind faith.

I don't think it's a coincidence that scientists who made great breakthroughs like Lemaitre, Planck, were skeptics of atheism. When you are not bound, to always try to close the door on the simplest, most 'God refuting' explanation for everything, you are free to keep opening doors, investigating beyond mere academic consensus.

Yes, it is surprising how many people place limits on themselves. Perhaps that stems from the controlling nature of mankind.

 

[TDselector]

Yes, it is surprising how many people place limits on themselves. Perhaps that stems from the controlling nature of mankind.

Which came first, your brain or its thoughts? Nature prohibits the existence of thoughts superseding the existence of our physical reality. Understand this and you can understand why the God theory is a false and unnatural belief.

 

[TDselector]

Yes, The wise man knows himself a fool!

We all believe, have faith in something, as long as we acknowledge that faith as such, it is not blind faith.

I don't think it's a coincidence that scientists who made great breakthroughs like Lemaitre, Planck, were skeptics of atheism. When you are not bound, to always try to close the door on the simplest, most 'God refuting' explanation for everything, you are free to keep opening doors, investigating beyond mere academic consensus.

When you ignore reality (fact) then you can make up your own reality (fiction). When you are not bound by reality you can then create your own reality. There is a term for the mental state that uses fiction over fact. We call it delusion.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

When you ignore reality (fact) then you can make up your own reality (fiction). When you are not bound by reality you can then create your own reality. There is a term for the mental state that uses fiction over fact. We call it delusion.

I think that was a quote from Hoyle describing Lemaitre's primeval atom!

few things are more subjective than facts!

 

[TDselector]

...few things are more subjective than facts!

Subjectivity of facts does not make facts subjective.