‘There is NO GOD’ Stephen Hawking’s final revelation of the afterlife REVEALED

Rob Larrikin said:
If you were correct we’d have more people adopting religion instead of less. The truth is that as people learn science they abandon religion, and that means you are wrong – it is not harder to believe that natural law explains life, it’s much easier. A caveman would look at the shining sun and shrug. “It has to be made by a God.” What else could he believe? Today a man can read about exactly what the sun is, and how it was formed, and what keeps it going. He no longer needs a fairytale to explain it.


Hawking was surrounded by religious people, many of whom were in his family. Like millions of atheists he found it hard to express his thoughts on the subject for fear of offending them. In my case many of my family were science teachers, all atheists.
Click to expand...

Fuck those labels.

If by "atheist" you mean someone who asserts there are no gods...

...then any scientist who is an atheist...is probably not much of a scientist.

The assertion "there are no gods" is as much a blind guess as the assertion "there is a GOD."

(Now comes the "atheist doesn't mean that" punk stuff...that only punks try...and get their doors blown off for doing so.)
 
Darth Omar said:
You can’t get to a specific Creator.

But you *can* infer an intelligent agent that lurks behind the apparent design in nature—and you don’t need to break any rules of logic to do it.

Easily, the best candidate is The Abrahamic God.

At least that’s the one atheists spend most of their energy on trying to disprove lol. In fact, that’s the God Hawking was talking about in the OP.
Click to expand...

Okay...

...since you won't even attempt to back up your original assertion...let's work on this one.

I give you the C you seem to want to arrive at:

C: THEREFORE THE BEST CANDIDATE IS THE GOD OF ABRAHAM.

Let's see the P1 and P2 that get you to that.

BIG HINT: Go back to the original one, because this one is ten times as difficult.
 
Rob Larrikin said:
If you were correct we’d have more people adopting religion instead of less. The truth is that as people learn science they abandon religion, and that means you are wrong – it is not harder to believe that natural law explains life, it’s much easier. A caveman would look at the shining sun and shrug. “It has to be made by a God.” What else could he believe? Today a man can read about exactly what the sun is, and how it was formed, and what keeps it going. He no longer needs a fairytale to explain it.


Hawking was surrounded by religious people, many of whom were in his family. Like millions of atheists he found it hard to express his thoughts on the subject for fear of offending them. In my case many of my family were science teachers, all atheists.
Click to expand...

Knowing how the sun works doesn’t budge the needle on the question of God. Primitive religions—even less.

The origin of life would be easier to explain if all they had to do was account for Darwin’s amorphous blobs of protoplasm.

Sadly, that’s not the case. As much as materialist philosophers want to close the book on God—He keeps stubbornly hanging around lol.
 
sear said:
“Is god willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him god?” ― Epicurus (341-270BC)
Click to expand...

Epicurus failed at logic.....
 
Frank Apisa said:
Okay...

...since you won't even attempt to back up your original assertion...let's work on this one.

I give you the C you seem to want to arrive at:

C: THEREFORE THE BEST CANDIDATE IS THE GOD OF ABRAHAM.

Let's see the P1 and P2 that get you to that.

BIG HINT: Go back to the original one, because this one is ten times as difficult.
Click to expand...

I already did the P1 and P2.

Then I conceded it [apparent design] didn’t directly point to God [there are theological reasons why it wouldn’t] and you’ve done nothing but simply assert that I’m wrong.

You can do better than this, Frankie.
 
Frank Apisa said:
If I didn't say it before...fuck you, Jerk-off.

I am not an atheist.

I do not go for the labeling bullshit at all.

There are people who assert there is a GOD.

That assertion essentially is a blind guess...and cannot be substantiated by logic, reason, science, or math.

There are people who assert there are no gods.

That assertion essentially is a blind guess...and cannot be substantiated by logic, reason, science, or math.

There are people who assert it is more likely that there is a GOD...than that there are no gods.

That assertion essentially is a blind guess...and cannot be substantiated by logic, reason, science, or math.

There are people who assert it is more likely that there are no gods...than that there is at least one god.

That assertion essentially is a blind guess...and cannot be substantiated by logic, reason, science, or math.

People who do those things are assholes.

YOU, Rob...are a fucking jerk-off.
Click to expand...

There is no evidence of any god and the fact that there are billions of phones and satellites, and people with eyes and there is no credible evidence ever, anywhere,
at any time, that can be looked at, and substantiated, make the existence of god improbable, unless one entertains the idea that god is a great deceiver hiding his
existence or the fact of existence itself is evidence of god.

So I take exception. There is no empirical evidence of god at all. That means that it is more probable there is no god. In fact it makes the existence of god
statistically impossible as far as measuring. No evidence whatsoever. None. Zip.
 
Frank Apisa said:
The assertion "there are no gods" is as much a blind guess as the assertion "there is a GOD."
Click to expand...

You don't have to say "There are no gods," to be an atheist. All you have to do is say, "I don't believe there are any gods," and you are an atheist. If someone wants me to believe in a god all they have to do is provide real evidence.
 
Darth Omar said:
Knowing how the sun works doesn’t budge the needle on the question of God.
Click to expand...
For you. It doesn’t budge the needle for you. For millions of others, it does budge the needle. Also, the sun is only one object in a universe of jillions. Cavemen had little knowledge of how most things worked or why. Humans today know many answers to the most intricate questions. The sun was merely one example.

As much as materialist philosophers want to close the book on God—He keeps stubbornly hanging around lol.
Click to expand...
Scientists and philosophers are two different camps, though some intermix. As long as a human has no science he will invent a religion.
 
Last edited:
PostmodernProphet said:
dna is too complicated for evolution.......
Click to expand...

I think you mean 'too complicated for me'. Many critics of evolution simply don't understand enough about it. They think an eye is complicated for instance when it is actually quite simple. DNA is 'complicated' because it is small. Life started out small - how could it start big?
 
"Knowing how the sun works doesn’t budge the needle on the question of God." DO #206
"there is nothing covered, that shall not be revealed; neither hid, that shall not be known." St. Luke 12:2
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top