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

[NiftyNiblick]

The origin of empty space and sub-atomic particles has not been convincingly identified.
If we're to attribute anything to a god, largely because we can't imagine backwards-infinity,
then these would be that god's likely creations.

Attributing any influence of a god over the protons, electrons, neutrons, and vacuum would be
a much, much harder thing to do.

We have beautiful sunrises over mountain lakes.
We have malignant tumors and debilitating defects in innocent newborns.
That's the beginning of a convincing argument for random confluence.

 

[Ross Dolan]

Oh God are you guys still on this?

1. I'm pretty sure Hawking understood science and logic a wee bit better than you.
2. Re-read what Hawking said.

If what Hawkin said is "there are no gods" (I SERIOUSLY DOUBT HE EVER SAID THAT)...but if he did, he was just blindly guessing.

 

[Lightbringer]

If what Hawkin said is "there are no gods" (I SERIOUSLY DOUBT HE EVER SAID THAT)...but if he did, he was just blindly guessing.

You just read it in this thread.

And his name was Hawking.

 

[Ross Dolan]

Intentionally or not, you're splitting rhetorical hairs.

I agree it would be more technically correct to say there is no verifying evidence of supernatural deity.

But in casual speech, I wouldn't exaggerate the technical semantic infraction.

I am NOT splitting rhetorical hairs.

Anyone asserting "there is a god(s)" or "there are no gods"...is merely sharing a blind guess about the REALITY of existence.

That seems to be a problem with the atheists here.

Tough!

 

[Lightbringer]

I am NOT splitting rhetorical hairs.

Anyone asserting "there is a god(s)" or "there are no gods"...is merely sharing a blind guess about the REALITY of existence.

That seems to be a problem with the atheists here.

Tough!

Yes. you are splitting hairs. In fact, you're guilty of far worse than that in this thread.

 

[Ross Dolan]

"Shut the fuck up?" Running away, as I anticipated. ^^^^^

Fuck you.

I have never run away...and will not here.

I guarantee I will outlast you if there is someone who runs.

YOU apparently claim there are no gods.

I am saying that is a blind guess.

Put up with proof or shut the fuck up.

 

[Ross Dolan]

Yup.

Hawking put it right: it was his *opinion* that science provides no evidence of God. He didn’t say the logic behind it was unassailable. The logic behind it is pretty flimsy, actually; since science, by definition, can’t prove or disprove the existence of a being that existed since before time began.

Whatever.

BOTTOM LINE: Anyone asserting there are no gods...is pushing a blind guess.

Atheists and others who assert there are no gods don't like to face up to that.

But it is so.

And anyone who think that "it is more likely that no gods exist than that at least one does" is more logical or reasonable...than "it is more likely that at least one god exists than that no gods exist"..

...is full of shit.

One cannot get to either of those assertions using reason, logic, math, or science.

 

[Ross Dolan]

]If you and I can agree on what the attributes are of a god, then I can produce mountains of evidence there is no god. Until then we simply must disagree.
I'm pretty sure you will not be forthcoming. I assume for the sake of discussion it includes the typical attributes in western civilization attributed to one including: omniscience, omnipotence,
actions demonstrating magical ability, nonconformance with Newtonian physics, a giant turtle with the universe on its back, people living in clouds tampering with
the goings on on mortals,commandments written in stone of impossible provenance sitting on Mount Nebo, burning bushes talking to people, demonstration
of the power to turn mortals to salt if gazed upon, little partly goat partly manchild perverts hopping around playing pipes... That is how the fables identify one.
If you are of the type who, if I present to you an ordinary apple you will not exclude from its characteristics godliness, then again, there is nothing to discuss.

So, upon your assent that a god is defined by the historical endowments such as these, I will produce 5 trillion molecules of evidence that there is no god.
It would be unreasonable and unscientific for you to discard all the evidence. The assertion that there is no god is therefore neither unreasonable nor unscientific.
It is a matter of weighing the physical evidence and probability that one exists. I can not prove there is no god anymore than I can prove there is no an exit 1 mile down the road
until I get there. But if I have traveled 1000 miles down the road and there have been no exit, I don't bet against that streak in the next mile.

Since you are unwilling to have an agreed upon definition of what we are talking about, I must infer you have no idea what your have been talking about.
Why am I not surprised?

YOU are the one saying NO GODS exist. Now you are weaseling out...because you realize your assertion is nothing more than a guess.

Deal with it. You cannot offer all the "proof" you bragged you had...because there is no proof that gods do not exist.

 

[Ross Dolan]

The religionist defines his own god.

Is Buddhism a religion? History reports Buddha, "the enlightened one" was a real life, flesh and blood human being. No supernatural anything.

Perhaps we can meet half-way in agreeing that the term "god" has rather plastic definitions.

Sear...I have absolutely no idea of what a god would be like.

NONE whatsoever.

But gods may exist without my being able to define what they must be. They can exist without you being able...or Mic.

I certainly am willing to agree that the term "god" has "rather plastic definitions."

The term "atheist" has incredibly plastic definitions also.

But when I hear someone say, "There are no gods"...i laugh, because those people almost always suppose their blind guess about the REALITY of existence...what exists and what does not...is so much better than someone else's blind guess that a creator god exists. They also presume to suppose that their blind guess is the result of science, logic and reason...WHEN IT IS NOT.

I have been discussing this for fifty years...more than twenty on the Internet.

I love the subject...and will stick with this discussions for as long as I am alive.

 

[Ross Dolan]

Sure a pliable concept that hardens at room temp.

Frank Apisa uses the symbol "gods" and states they are something he can't define, then goes on to assert no proof can be offered as to its existence or not. Well that's very convenient.
Also, I think he was making a more integral claim, that logic itself is constructed to immunize itself from matters of nature and empiricism. They can work together, else logic and philosophy
serve no function. He is making a simplistic binary assertion. Gods, a thing he has no idea about by his own confession,
are As and the natural world is B, and neither can touch the other. On this basis he claims that B cannot prove the existence of A or disprove it. Circular.
I know this is his assertion because he will not admit evidence of lack of A within B is meaningful.
He has chickened out of the debate. He has created a protective wall. That is a wall he has erected, not one that necessarily exists.
If you won't define what you are talking about it's probably not wise to make any assertions, though he has.
It isn't that there is no evidence, it is that he refuses to accept any evidence.

So far you have offered absolutely NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER that gods do not exist.

NONE.

So stop the bullshit about me refusing to accept it.

 

[NiftyNiblick]

It's pretty hard to prove with Aristotelian logic that a hypothetical doesn't exist.

The burden of proof is on those who would insist that it does exist,

It is more easy to defend the principle
that reasonable evidence of the existence of a god or gods
does not exist
than it is to say definitively that gods don't exist.

The former is good enough for me, however.

 

[Ross Dolan]

You just read it in this thread.

I did not read that he said "there are no gods."

"And his name was Hawking.

I fucked up, Guille. I wrote in haste...and I was wrong.

I thank you for calling my error to my attention. You are correct that I spelled his name wrong.

Shoulda been more careful. I apologize.

 

[Nordberg]

Whatever.

BOTTOM LINE: Anyone asserting there are no gods...is pushing a blind guess.

Atheists and others who assert there are no gods don't like to face up to that.

But it is so.

And anyone who think that "it is more likely that no gods exist than that at least one does" is more logical or reasonable...than "it is more likely that at least one god exists than that no gods exist"..

...is full of shit.

One cannot get to either of those assertions using reason, logic, math, or science.

There are no gods. Zero. that is why it takes a belief, which is inculcated in children when they do not have the knowledge base to fend off the oppressive training. All religions get the kids and start propagandizing them early. It is borderline child cruelty. It makes them more stupid and scaring kids with hell and eternal fire is ruthless. They do not wait until you are older because that know you will laugh at the crap they are feeding you. Religion is for kids.
2000 years and not a scrap of evidence for any god. Muslims have nothing. Christians have nothing. Mormons have nothing. They are all on the same level as scientology, just a webb of absurd lies and ever changing fabrications.
If a god, any god, existed he could change the world to a better and more peaceful place with one big show. The fact that he does not suggests he does not exist. If he does, he enjoys watching war and religious hate. That is a sick god. Certainly not one to worship.

 

[Ross Dolan]

Yes. you are splitting hairs. In fact, you're guilty of far worse than that in this thread.

No...I am not splitting hairs...and what I am doing in this thread is to call attention to bullshit from the people who assert "there are no gods."

You seem to be all riled up.

That happens to atheists a lot.

 

[Ross Dolan]

It's pretty hard to prove with Aristotelian logic that a hypothetical doesn't exist.

The burden of proof is on those who would insist that it does exist,

It is more easy to defend the principle
that reasonable evidence of the existence of a god or gods
does not exist
than it is to say definitively that gods don't exist.

The former is good enough for me, however.

I agree, Nifty, that the burden of proof for the assertion, "There is a GOD" is on those people making that assertion.

Demanding that the burden be met...is logical and reasonable.

HOWEVER...counterasserting that "no gods exist"...SHIFTS THE BURDEN OF PROOF.

That assertion itself creates a burden of proof on the individual making it.

Neither one can meet that burden...

...because both assertions are nothing more than blind guesses.

 

[NiftyNiblick]

I'm an atheist, Frank, and I'm riled up....

but not about being an atheist.

By now, the forum knows about what I'm riled.

 

[Ross Dolan]

I'm an atheist, Frank, and I'm riled up....

but not about being an athiest.

By now, the forum knows about what I'm riled.

Ummm...some of us don't.

I for one.

You seem a reasonable poster, NIfty.

Wanna share with me the reason you are riled?

 

[NiftyNiblick]

I am riled that the United States of America,
at its very worst,
could allow a cretinous reprobate like Donald Trump
to assume the Ova Office.

It's not a small thing.
It's a catastrophic thing that can and might
precipitate the total collapse of the republic.

I'm also riled that too many people who recognize that Trump is a malignant cancer on our society
aren't swarming to the polls to support the most effective anti-Trump candidates

I'm also riled at the belief that Trumpanzees can be civilized and called to reason
when they lack the genetic capability to be civilized and must be neutralized instead.

 

[Ross Dolan]

I am riled that the United States of America,
at its very worst,
could allow a cretinous reprobate like Donald Trump
to assume the Ova Office.

It's not a small thing.
It's a catastrophic thing that can and might
precipitate the total collapse of the republic.

I'm also riled that too many people who recognize that Trump is a malignant cancer on our society
aren't swarming to the polls to support the most effective anti-Trump candidates

I'm also riled at the belief that Trumpanzees can be civilized and called to reason
when they lack the genetic capability to be civilized and must be neutralized instead.

Oh...well...all sane people are riled about that.

Anyone not as riled up about those things as we are, Nifty...

...is certifiable.

They should be institutionalized.

 

[Into the Night]

Faith is stupidity. Anyone who says otherwise is irrational.

The only irrational argument is arguing both sides of a paradox. Even making repeated fallacies is not irrational.
Faith is just another word for the circular argument. That itself is not a fallacy. All theories, both scientific and nonscientific begin as circular arguments. They begin as arguments of faith. It is the test of falsifiability, and ONLY the test of falsifiability that takes a theory past a simple circular argument.

The big bang is a scientific theory, anyone who says otherwise is ignorant.

The Theory of the Big Bang is not falsifiable. Science has no theories about past unobserved events. You can't go back to see what actually happened.

It is supported by observation

No one has observed the Big Bang.

and known scientific laws

There is no Law of the Big Bang.

and consistency those laws have with observed effects on matter and electromagnetic radiation.

Observation is not proof. All observation is subject to the problems of phenomenology. Observation is evidence only. Science does not use supporting evidence.

Gravity,

Doesn't require the Big Bang to exist.

wave propagation,

Doesn't require the Big Bang to exist.

cosmic background radiation

Doesn't require the Big Bang to exist.

and expansion all observed.

You can't observe the entire universe. All we see is the tiny bit we see. There is no reason the rest of the universe should be doing the same thing that what we see is doing.

These are all observed phenomenon that your Jebus never even thought to ask about. He was too busy doing a conjob on bedouins.

You don't like Christianity, I get that. You don't like Jesus Christ. I get that. You can't prove He never existed or that He wasn't who He said he is.