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

[gfm7175]

You said everyone prays to God at least once and will do so again. I said that if God doesn't exist then you'd be talking to yourself, as with an imaginary dragon in your backyard.

Okay.

A) You imagine a dragon in the backyard.

Okay.

B) You pray to that dragon, which only exists in your mind.

Circular Argument Fallacy.

C) Since it only exists in your mind, you are praying to yourself.

Circular Argument Fallacy.

What is the benefit?

That would help me to better organize my thoughts and feelings and to "get a grip" on the situation. It will help calm me down and what not.

Some people believe that talking to yourself is a sign of madness.

Yeah, so?

That may be true some of the time.

It very well might be...

Other times sane people talk to themselves.

Correct.

Nonetheless, for all those who genuinely believe that talking to yourself if a sign of madness, praying gives them an excuse. If anyone catches them praying (talking to themselves) they can say, "I was praying to the Dragon."

Sure... So?

Here are some translations of prayers:

Dear Dragon, please let it rain so I can grow more corn. [Man oh man, I hope it rains soon, 'cos I am way behind in my bank payments...]

Dear Dragon, please let my wife get better soon. We need her [sob]. [Don't worry, she'll get better soon. She'll pull through, surely. If she goes how will I run the farm?]

Sure... So?

 

[gfm7175]

A logical form does not have any bearing on the truth of the facts asserted.

Facts are not universal truths, nor are they proofs. Facts are shorthand predicate accepted by all parties. Facts don't even have to be true in order to be facts. They are used to speed up conversation. That's all facts are.

You are heavy on form and light on substance. I think its great you endeavor to have a grip
on things that can show an argument is invalid, but you don't show any interest in the fun part,
wrestling with the truth of facts.

Learn what a fact is.

Facts are necessary to present a valid argument

Wrong. All that is necessary is a conclusion that logically follows from its predicate(s).

Atheists have all the facts
Deists have no facts

Both of them may or may not have facts. Neither one of them has proof of anything.

 

[gfm7175]

False, any theory is a theory of science if it is based upon observation and recording of events.

Wrong. A theory only becomes a theory of science if it is falsifiable and it survives at least one test against its null hypothesis. If at any point it fails a null hypothesis test, it becomes utterly destroyed and is no longer a theory of science.

The big bang is based upon cosmic background radiation, expanding mass, redshifting of electromagnetic radiation, mathematics,
and the observed expansion as well as laws of gravity all utilizing computers, long baseline interferometry observing deep space objects that emit radio waves etc etc..

No it isn't. Science does not make use of supporting evidence... Religion makes use of that. The BBT is a religion because it is based on an initial circular argument that is non-falsifiable and it has arguments stemming from that initial circular argument.

It is science.

No it isn't. Science is a set of falsifiable theories. The BBT is NOT falsifiable, therefore it is not science. It is instead a religion.

All the science appears consistent with an initial singularity of all known matter and energy in the universe.

Science does not make use of supporting evidence.

It is a scientific theory, not a hunch, or religion or goofy astral projection of man.

False. It is a religion.

 

[USFREEDOM911]

hell is an eternity of square wheels......

I remember a Twilight Zone movie, where a guy died and was placed in a room with an older couple who watched an endless run of their old reel to reel videos.

The bottom line was; one mans Heaven, is a another man's hell.

 

[USFREEDOM911]

WRONG. Science does not use supporting evidence at all. Supporting evidence proves nothing. Observations themselves are not proofs. All observations are subject to the problems of phenomenology. They are evidence only.
The only difference between a theory and a theory of science is the test of falsifiability. That means a null hypothesis of that theory must be constructed, a test developed it, and conducted. That test must be available, practical, specific, and produce a specific result. Science has no theories about past unobserved events. You can't go back in time to test the null hypothesis of such a theory.

Science does not use supporting evidence. Religion does, though.

No, it is not. It is not a falsifiable theory.

Supporting evidence is not used in science.

No, it is not. It is not falsifiable.

Essentially yes, it is a hunch. It is a circular argument.
It is a religion. A religion is any circular argument with arguments extending from it. The other word for the circular argument is 'faith'.

Religions do not require astral projection of anything. They do not even require a god or gods. ALL religions are based on some initial circular argument, then make extended arguments from that initial argument. The circular argument by itself is not a fallacy. Failure to recognize it is, however. That is what a fundamentalist does. They are people that make circular argument fallacies by trying to prove their religion.

What happened to that "scientific theory" that the world was flat??

 

[USFREEDOM911]

Not who. What. The theory itself says that.

How so??

 

[USFREEDOM911]

Whether such a god is being addressed or not is irrelevant. Such a god can define themselves by proof of Identity.

And maybe mankind is HIS proof of identity.

 

[USFREEDOM911]

Yup. That's exactly why his phrasing is the way it is. Nice picture.

 

[sear]

"What happened to that "scientific theory" that the world was flat??" U9 #825

It was never scientific.
There are some simple assumptions that to the uneducated layman might seem "obvious".

You've already mentioned flat Earth.

That the sun revolves around the Earth *, there are others.

But as Dr. Italo Benin observed, truth is not determined by majority opinion.

* ANYone can see that plain as day!

 

[USFREEDOM911]

I'm still so stupid, that I am unable to use the quote feature properly; but then it's because I feel entitled to make others look back on what I'm talking about.

 

[Ross Dolan]

I am hopeful there enough nevertrump deep state people thwarting him that we survive.

This election will tell us a great deal.

If sufficient people have been captured by Trump to prevent a significant victory in the House by the Dems...we are doomed.

I know, I know...that is extreme, but I feel so strongly this way that it seems an obvious position to me.

Anyone voting Republican this election is voting, accidentally or on purpose, for a potential dictatorship. The Republicans in congress do NOT have the spine to stand up to the abomination's excesses.

 

[sear]

"s...we are doomed.
I know, I know...that is extreme, but ..." FA #831

No excuse necessary.
President Trump's well-honed penchant for truthlessness is merely a part of it.
Trump pulling U.S. out of such international agreements not only on climate change, but on nuclear weapons.
- First Trump unilaterally pulled the U.S. out of the multi-nation Iran nuclear agreement. And now
- Trump has reportedly pulled U.S. out of the nuclear agreement Reagan made with Gorbachev on nuclear missiles.

Trump simply isn't stable enough to have been trusted with "the button".

"s...we are doomed.
I know, I know...that is extreme, but ..." FA #831

In context of previous presidents, so it seems.
In context of President Trump, it may not be extreme enough.

 

[Micawber]

.

False. It is a religion.

Well the NCBI has hundreds of titles in science books discussing religion.

I didn't read any of the additional crap you wrote. You are religious, you are a moron or delusional or both.

 

[gfm7175]

Well the NCBI has hundreds of titles in science books discussing religion.

False Authority Fallacy. The NCBI doesn't define religion, nor science.

I didn't read any of the additional crap you wrote.

At least you admit that you wish to remain a complete ignoramus. Wallow in your ignorance...

You are religious, you are a moron or delusional or both.

You are also religious (a fundamentalist atheist), so you're also calling yourself a delusional moron. Smart move, buddy...

Once you're ready to have a real discussion beyond slinging ad hominems around, let me know...

 

[Micawber]

I'm wearing a help ascot in my wingback chair in California while ignoring you. Multitasking.

 

[Micawber]

gnore List
Русский агент (o,o) anatta anonymoose anonymous201 Anthem Assoc Justice Kavanaugh Bigdog BillyB BodyDouble BoomShaka Booyah! Boris The Animal Cancel 2018.1 Cancel 2018.2 Celticguy CFM chink countryboy Dark Soul Darth Omar Dropbear1 Emwu Evmetro Flash Getin the ring gfm7175 Granule Grugore Grumpy GuilleX Havana Moon hvilleherb iewitness Irish J Craft j-mac J.kennedy Jack jmotivator Kacper Legion liberalsAREracists Loving91390 MAGAt mak2 noise philly rabbit PostmodernProphet PraiseKek Q-Tip Ralph RB 60 Red Crow Reverend_Hellh0und Rob Larrikin Silver Buzzard Sirthinksalot SmarterthanYou Southern Music Stretch Superfreak Teflon Don Text Drivers are Killers The Great Trumpkin The Ugly Truth TheDanold TheDonald tinfoil Tomas Fabregas Tommatthews TOP Truth Detector tsuke USFREEDOM911 volsrock Waternark WinterBorn Wolverine Yurty zymurgy
Check / Uncheck

 

[Micawber]

I'd say that's been well established. I think dietary laws are about the only religious customs that the swine subscribes to.

I, on the other hand, love bacon.

 

[Nordberg]

It was never scientific.
There are some simple assumptions that to the uneducated layman might seem "obvious".

You've already mentioned flat Earth.

That the sun revolves around the Earth *, there are others.

But as Dr. Italo Benin observed, truth is not determined by majority opinion.

* ANYone can see that plain as day!

If the earth was flat, by now, cats would have shoved everything over the edge.

 

[Into the Night]

Once again. That is completely incorrect. Wrong. The Nazi's were far right.

The term 'NAZI', when translated into English, means National Socialist German Workers. It is SOCIALISM, dude. Fascism is one of two forms of socialism, the other being communism.
Socialism can only exist by stealing wealth from others. Hitler did it too. Capitalism is the only system that creates wealth out of nothing.

 

[Into the Night]

nothing to do with proof.....if there is no god it doesn't need a definition....if there is, you don't get to.....

In logic, there is a proof for that, called the Proof of Identity.