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

There are no gods. Well, the ones that man created exist in their minds, but a god involved and caring about the world is silly.
Do Christians accept other religions gods? Nope. I am just one less. My feeling about religion and gods is exactly like religious people about other religions.I just have one more on my list of not believing.

It's a good literal and rhetorical device, but I don't buy that the differences between a devout believer in a particular god (who disbelieves all other gods exist and by definition are not atheists) are remotely similar to atheists
or agnostic because you believe in one fewer god. Belief in any god is crossing an intellectual rubicon. Accent on the rube.

When a person is old enough, educated enough and objective enough i.e. (not in the proverbial breachsay of illness or emotional loss-all a shorthand way of saying "not under emotional distress") to make a
rational assessment, one observes a world of good things happening to bad people, bad things happening to good people, life forms consuming all other stupider
sources of protein to survive, reprehensible treatment of other weaker people, wars, pestilence, disease, a tiny planet with only ours containing what we might call
civilization, and a recorded history chock full of supposed intellectual ancients writing about complete absurdities as relates to "gods"

Oh and lest I forget, nary a molecule of "religious evidence"

No sane, intelligent human not in duress would think the likelihood of a deity equals
the likelihood that one does not exist. And that is even before we consider the atrocious ridiculousness of
Jesus as god.
 
That’s the short list lol.

The atheist-scientist is a relatively recent development in the history of science. It’s probably a reflection of the state of academia [over run with atheists and non-believers] more than anything.

I've noticed that the atheist scientist desire censorship of all other scientists. They don't understand that science isn't scientists. It is a set of falsifiable theories. It requires no credentials, no membership in any club, no blessing from any elite group, no consensus. Literally anyone can create a theory of science...just as they have in the past.
 
Thank you for sharing that blind guess.

I would have bet you were one of the people who could see the truth on this...but I was wrong.

I acknowledge that it disappoints me.





As I said, I thank you for sharing your blind guess that no gods exist.

Nothing wrong with that...just as there is nothing wrong with someone who blindly guesses there is at least one GOD. (Granted, in cumulative, that can go ape-shit.)

Blind? based on all the evidence. There has not one time been a scrap of evidence backing a god, any god at all. It is a logical conclusion, not a guess at all.
 
One can prove a negative.

Proving a negative false...OFTEN IS PROVING THE NEGATIVE. Often, that is the nature of the thing.






Thank you. I'm glad you agree.

A conclusion that is False is not proving a negative. Proving a negative using negative predicates is not possible. You are attempting to do just that. Only one negative predicate is allowed, else the conclusion is invalid.
 
Last edited:
I've noticed that the atheist scientist desire censorship of all other scientists. They don't understand that science isn't scientists. It is a set of falsifiable theories. It requires no credentials, no membership in any club, no blessing from any elite group, no consensus. Literally anyone can create a theory of science...just as they have in the past.

That resentment with a mask on is as absurd as you are stupid. The logic eats itself. If science were a priesthood of gatekeepers
keeping you rubes out all you would need to do is invent something that works to break down the walls.

How many patents are pending with religious components. None.
 
Who said they did? “A lexicographer studies words and compiles the results into a dictionary. This is one of several words for a certain type of writer or editor. Just as a playwright writes plays and a poet writes poems, a lexicographer puts together dictionaries.”

Vocabulary.com

When someone tells me that elephants are yellow reptiles living in Antarctica, I provide them this:

Elephant

A very large plant-eating mammal with a prehensile trunk, long curved ivory tusks, and large ears, native to Africa and southern Asia. It is the largest living land animal.

Oxford Dictionary

The lexicographer studies words and compiles the results so I don’t have to argue about what words mean.


When people say ‘the Big Bang theory is not a theory’ I first point them at a simple dictionary. That fixes the problem for most. Some keep making noises, so I have to give them a better source. It's a shame they didn't pay attention to the dictionary, but, what can you do?



In the following definition of ‘Scientific Theory’, I have bolded the word ‘falsifiable’. If you then scroll down you’ll see that the Big Bang Theory is listed as an example of ‘Scientific Theory’ on the same page.

A scientific theory is an explanation of an aspect of the natural world that can be repeatedly tested and verified in accordance with scientific method, using accepted protocols of observation, measurement, and evaluation of results. Where possible, theories are tested under controlled conditions in an experiment. In circumstances not amenable to experimental testing, theories are evaluated through principles of abductive reasoning. Established scientific theories have withstood rigorous scrutiny and embody scientific knowledge.

The meaning of the term scientific theory (often contracted to theory for brevity) as used in the disciplines of science is significantly different from the common vernacular usage of theory.[4][Note 1] In everyday speech, theory can imply an explanation that represents an unsubstantiated and speculative guess,[4] whereas in science it describes an explanation that has been tested and widely accepted as valid. These different usages are comparable to the opposing usages of prediction in science versus common speech, where it denotes a mere hope.

The strength of a scientific theory is related to the diversity of phenomena it can explain and its simplicity. As additional scientific evidence is gathered, a scientific theory may be modified and ultimately rejected if it cannot be made to fit the new findings; in such circumstances, a more accurate theory is then required. That doesn’t mean that all theories can be fundamentally changed (for example, well established foundational scientific theories such as evolution, heliocentric theory, cell theory, theory of plate tectonics etc). In certain cases, the less-accurate unmodified scientific theory can still be treated as a theory if it is useful (due to its sheer simplicity) as an approximation under specific conditions. A case in point is Newton's laws of motion, which can serve as an approximation to special relativity at velocities that are small relative to the speed of light.

Scientific theories are testable and make falsifiable predictions. They describe the causes of a particular natural phenomenon and are used to explain and predict aspects of the physical universe or specific areas of inquiry (for example, electricity, chemistry, and astronomy). Scientists use theories to further scientific knowledge, as well as to facilitate advances in technology or medicine.

As with other forms of scientific knowledge, scientific theories are both deductive and inductive,[6] aiming for predictive and explanatory power.​

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory

Scrolling down the same page we see this:

Examples

Biology: cell theory, theory of evolution (modern evolutionary synthesis), germ theory, particulate inheritance theory, dual inheritance theory
Chemistry: collision theory, kinetic theory of gases, Lewis theory, molecular theory, molecular orbital theory, transition state theory, valence bond theory
Physics: atomic theory, Big Bang theory, Dynamo theory, perturbation theory, theory of relativity (successor to classical mechanics), quantum field theory​




This shows you haven’t read the Big Bang Theory. See details about it here.

Quote [emphasis mine]:

Features of the model

The Big Bang theory depends on two major assumptions: the universality of physical laws and the cosmological principle. The cosmological principle states that on large scales the universe is homogeneous and isotropic.

These ideas were initially taken as postulates, but today there are efforts to test each of them. For example, the first assumption has been tested by observations showing that largest possible deviation of the fine structure constant over much of the age of the universe is of order 10−5.[35] Also, general relativity has passed stringent tests on the scale of the Solar System and binary stars.​

So is The Big Bang Theory a Scientific theory? You bet your ass it is.

For a scientific theory to be thrown out, all you need is one example that disproves it. Just one. It also has to be predictive. Scientic theory is very rigorous.
 
"One cannot prove a negative" predates the term "meme." You are like a 17 year old kid who took his first logic or philosophy class and comes home for Thanksgiving to annoy his wizened father.

You resentment for atheists betrays your theism.

To do is to be: Aristotle
To be is to do: Sartre
Do be do be do: Sinatra

Bottom line: ONE CAN PROVE A NEGATIVE.

Meme may be new....but it was used appropriately.

Have fun bullshitting yourself.
 
Blind? based on all the evidence. There has not one time been a scrap of evidence backing a god, any god at all. It is a logical conclusion, not a guess at all.

What of all the miracles so designated by the Roman Catholic church? We can argue about that if you want
 
It's a good literal and rhetorical device, but I don't buy that the differences between a devout believer in a particular god (who disbelieves all other gods exist and by definition are not atheists) are remotely similar to atheists
or agnostic because you believe in one fewer god. Belief in any god is crossing an intellectual rubicon. Accent on the rube.

When a person is old enough, educated enough and objective enough i.e. (not in the proverbial breachsay of illness or emotional loss-all a shorthand way of saying "not under emotional distress") to make a
rational assessment, one observes a world of good things happening to bad people, bad things happening to good people, life forms consuming all other stupider
sources of protein to survive, reprehensible treatment of other weaker people, wars, pestilence, disease, a tiny planet with only ours containing what we might call
civilization, and a recorded history chock full of supposed intellectual ancients writing about complete absurdities as relates to "gods"

Oh and lest I forget, nary a molecule of "religious evidence"

No sane, intelligent human not in duress would think the likelihood of a deity equals
the likelihood that one does not exist. And that is even before we consider the atrocious ridiculousness of
Jesus as god.

Any sane, intelligent human looking at this discussion with an open mind...would realize that the assertion "There is a GOD" is nothing but a blind guess...and that the assertion "There are no gods" is every bit as much a blind guess.

You, like many theists, just cannot see through your own bullshit.

Okay...that doesn't make you a bad person.
 
Trump may be an atheist. He sure as hell isn't religious. He does not attend a church. The one he claimed in the campaign had parishioners who said they never saw him there. Not once. He plays golf on Sunday and Sat. He looks uncomfortable when he has to play a religious person. When he was at Liberty School he blew the bible reading and showed no understanding of it. Trump is an actor playing a role for the evangelicals, who do not care. They are about money, just money Like any other group they sell religion for lots and lots of money.
Trump was pro choice most of his life. now he plays the role of a pro birther. Trumps religion is Trump.

Religion does not need to be organized. It does not even require a god or gods. Trump is a Christian.
 
Blind? based on all the evidence. There has not one time been a scrap of evidence backing a god, any god at all. It is a logical conclusion, not a guess at all.

The assertion "There are no gods" IS NOTHING BUT A BLIND GUESS.

There is no logic involved. In fact, logic would require that you withdraw the assertion.
 
Bottom line: ONE CAN PROVE A NEGATIVE.

Meme may be new....but it was used appropriately.

Have fun bullshitting yourself.

I agree, but it didn't forward your case. Telling me an elephant is not in a drawer does not support
your argument that one cannot prove god does not exist or that god does exist. The analogy is inapt.
It helps my point that we must take what we observe everywhere, everyday and by common experience
when deciding whether or not to believe in god (the elephant in the drawer)

Have you ever noticed that every next thing humans discover is always the next natural thing and never a God?
In fact, every next thing discovered that makes a former god disappear is never a new god, but just a natural phenomenon understood.
Why is Jesus on the run? Hmmmm
 
A conclusion that is False is not proving a negative. Proving a negative using negative predicates is not possible. You are attempting to do just that. Only one negative predicate is allowed, else the conclusion is invalid.

One can prove a negative.

Obviously one cannot prove a negative of universal scope...just as one cannot prove a positive of universal scope.

Let me ask you this:

Is "There are no gods" a negative? If I could prove that there are no gods...would I be proving a negative?
 
I agree, but it didn't forward your case. Telling me an elephant is not in a drawer does not support
your argument that one cannot prove god does not exist or that god does exist. The analogy is inapt.
It helps my point that we must take what we observe everywhere, everyday and by common experience
when deciding whether or not to believe in god (the elephant in the drawer)

A negative can be proven, Mic.

Stop with the bullshit.

By now, you know a negative can be proven.

Be man enough to acknowledge it...unless you are a female, in which case, be adult enough to acknowledge it.
 
I live within a few miles of New York City...the city always lit to the max.
Sux. Seattle is always lit too, that light reflects off and is scattered by the clouds. That only adds to the problem. Astronomers around here arrange trips to Eastern Washington to get some kind of viewing in!
Light pollution is an abomination here.
Yup. Worse than 'Vegas.
Anyway...I had a minor stroke a few years back which left my dominant eye impaired. I have not been able to indulge in what was one of my favorite pastimes in earlier years...viewing.
There may be hope, but it will require a bit of training.

The brain will map one eye or the other (usually the superior eye) for aiming and focus. It's easy to determine which eye is dominant. Use both eyes to point at a narrow object (a telephone pole works great). Without moving the arm, close one eye at a time. The one that keeps the finger pointing at the pole is the dominant eye.

If that eye is damaged, the brain can remap which eye is dominant. It takes time. It can be treated similarly to a lazy eye. To a certain extent, this is already happening for you (if the eyesight in that eye is damaged). For most people, this retraining will make the sinister eye dominant. Again, it takes time.
 
Religion does not need to be organized. It does not even require a god or gods. Trump is a Christian.

Did you read what Nordberg said, dolt? He didn't say Trump didn't fit into organized religion, he said he was not a real christian
because he is immoral and capricious and that organized christian is a sham anyway.

God damn, why would god make so many stupid fucks who can't follow a train of through out of the depot.
 
A negative can be proven, Mic.

Stop with the bullshit.

By now, you know a negative can be proven.

Be man enough to acknowledge it...unless you are a female, in which case, be adult enough to acknowledge it.

I see you are in troll mode. I am, as always, in god mode.

Can't anyone ever beat me in an argument? I'm still waiting.
Patience of job have I.
 
Stop with the "fallacies"
Stop making them.
nonsense.
A fallacy is nonsense. A fallacy is an error in logic, just like an error in mathematics. Both logic and mathematics are closed functional systems.
Anyone who was going to be impressed...is already impressed...and anyone who is going to laugh at the excess...is already laughing.
Very few have been taught logic, unfortunately.
But if you want to be a pain...I will change it to...none are unambiguous pieces of evidence in either direction.
Correct. They are evidence...supporting evidence. Supporting evidence can prove nothing. In science, literally mountains of supporting evidence mean absolutely nothing in the face of a single piece of conflicting evidence.
If you take objection to that also...things will go south quickly.
I don't. We can head north again! (although south is warmer right now!)
 
Back
Top