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

[Into the Night]

There's no error. Lefties are by far more religious than conservatives.

Bigotry. You are making a compositional error involving people as the class. Religion exists on all sides of the political spectrum. No one has 'the most'.

 

[Into the Night]

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.

Argument of ignorance. Argument of the Stone.

 

[Into the Night]

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.

Argument of ignorance fallacy. Argument of the Stone fallacy.

 

[Into the Night]

No it is not.

Bigfoot doesn't exist, neither does the Yeti.
There is no Loch Ness Monster.
We are not being visited by little gray aliens or any other aliens.
There isn't one single T-Rex walking the Earth right now, not anywhere.
God doesn't exist.

All arguments of ignorance.

It is only the last statement about God where you see people making the claim that because non-believers can't prove that God doesn't exist the believers belief in a fairy tale is just as strong an opinion. It is only with God that proving a negative is expected, if this thread were about anything but God it would be in the Conspiracy forum along with the Bigfoot and Alien talk..or my personal favorite, Bigfoot IS an Alien.

Claims require proof. Someone who due to lack of evidence chooses to believe something doesn't exist is not the same as someone who chooses to ignore the lack of evidence and believe anyway.

There is supporting evidence for the existence of God. There is also supporting evidence that there is no god or gods.
It is not possible to prove a god or gods exist. It is not possible to prove a god or gods don't exist.

 

[Into the Night]

The point I was making is it is impossible to prove something does not exist, only that it does. The burden of proof is on the person making the claim that something does exist.

It is not possible to prove any god or gods exist. It is not possible prove a god or gods don't exist. No proof is possible either way.

 

[Into the Night]

OK, keep ignoring the point Frank. Given a lack of evidence the person who believes is not equivalent to the person who doesn't believe. If we substitute Bigfoot for God you wouldn't be making this claim.

If you substitute Bigfoot for God it makes no difference. It is not possible to prove either one exists. It is not possible to prove either one does not exist.

 

[Into the Night]

1. The logician would tell you that you can't prove a negative.

Correct. He will also tell you that you can't force someone else to prove a negative.

 

[Into the Night]

You don’t believe in the Big Bang theory?

You’re practicing radical skepticism, Frankie lol. My claim is that God is a plausible candidate for the Beginner.

Hence, my faith is based in logic and reason.

No, it is based on faith. It can be based on nothing else.

The Theory of the Big Bang is not a theory of science. It is a nonscientific theory, and a religion. Science has no theories about past unobserved events. They are not falsifiable. A religion is an initial circular argument with arguments extending from it.

 

[Into the Night]

No logician on the planet would tell you that.

You can prove a negative...providing the negative is not exceedingly universal in nature.



Okay...I guess you have got to do that kind of shit. I laughed, for it is worth.

HERE IS MY POSITION LAID OUT (I've previously offered it many times in this forum)

I do not know if gods exist or not;
I see no reason to suspect gods CANNOT EXIST...that the existence of gods is impossible;
I see no reason to suspect that gods MUST EXIST...that gods are needed to explain existence;
I do not see enough unambiguous evidence upon which to base a meaningful guess in either direction...

...so I don't.

You cannot prove a negative.

As far as your position is concerned, that is fine. You are free to believe what you will. The mistake is made in trying to prove it.

 

[Into the Night]

I did not change what you said. You have been arguing from the beginning that given no evidence of something existing non-belief and belief are equally logical. They are not.

'Non-belief' is itself a belief.

 

[Rob Larrikin]

Bigotry. You are making a compositional error involving people as the class. Religion exists on all sides of the political spectrum. No one has 'the most'.

Although the Left refer to conservatives as “the Religious Right,” the Left is far more religious, both in the United States and the world. With their comrades in arms, Fake News, the Democrats have created a myth on this subject over the decades, and it is another example of their hypocrisy.

Of the world’s 4.5 billion Asians most are religious, and the majority is left winged. Of Africa’s 1.3 billion blacks, most are religious, and again, the vast majority is left winged. South America has half a billion people. Nearly all are religious, and once more, most are left winged. There is a population of 220 million in the Middle East. The majority is God-fearing and left winged. This applies to Mexico’s population of 123 million. Altogether it adds up to 6.643 billion, which is nearly the whole population of Earth, and again, most are left winged.

Yet Lefties love saying conservatives are religious! “The religious right!” they howl, like jumpy wolves under a full moon. When you point out that most of the world’s Lefties are deeply religious they run away like burn victims from a fire. Try it out. Watch them flee. If you can get any to stay still and address the subject, most shrug and say that Arabs or Asians are not left winged, or whine about them being religiously conservative.

In other words, they confuse the noun ‘conservative’ with the adjective ‘conservative.’ The noun refers to politics while the adjective can apply to religion and politics. When you call a Republican ‘conservative’, it’s a noun, not an adjective.

More...​

 

[Rob Larrikin]

Argument of ignorance fallacy. Argument of the Stone fallacy.

You're waving placards. When describing someone's argument as a logical fallacy you need to explain why it is that fallacy. Just naming a fallacy is waving a placard. It's not a debate; it's name calling, which makes it ad Hominem. Notice I explained why it was ad Hominem.

 

[Micawber]

No, it is based on faith. It can be based on nothing else.

The Theory of the Big Bang is not a theory of science. It is a nonscientific theory, and a religion. Science has no theories about past unobserved events. They are not falsifiable. A religion is an initial circular argument with arguments extending from it.

Faith is stupidity. Anyone who says otherwise is irrational. The big bang is a scientific theory, anyone who says otherwise is ignorant. It is supported by observation and known scientific laws
and consistency those laws have with observed effects on matter and electromagnetic radiation. Gravity, wave propagation, cosmic background radiation and expansion all observed.

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

 

[Micawber]

'Non-belief' is itself a belief.

Fuck yourself eman. Leave immediately before you ruin yet another forum.

 

[Rob Larrikin]

There is supporting evidence for the existence of God.

Another placard. When saying, "There is evidence!" the idea is that you provide said evidence. Put your placard down and provide it, Brainiac.

 

[Micawber]

Then by your view, man is still primitive. Most people believe in some sort of god or gods.

Science doesn't address it at all. It does not prove any god or gods do not exist. Science is agnostic. Have you any idea how many scientists are religious?

No, MAN uses religion to wage his wars. He takes the name of God in vain by doing so.

Argument of ignorance. You cannot know they are not real.

Neither is god.

None needed.

He already has, quite a few times.

No, it wouldn't. That is evident.

You haven't been paying attention then!

Most scientists are not religious. Google that.

 

[Rob Larrikin]

The Theory of the Big Bang is not a theory of science. It is a nonscientific theory, and a religion.

Wrong. It is indeed a scientific theory.

Big Bang Theory

In astronomy, a theory according to which the universe began billions of years ago in a single event, similar to an explosion. There is evidence for the Big Bang theory in the observed red shift of distant galaxies, which indicates that they are moving away from the Earth, in the existence of cosmic microwave background, and from other data. The Big Bang theory of the origin of the universe is accepted by most astronomers today.

Source


Theory

2. a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural and subject to experimentation, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact.

Source

 

[sear]

"In other words, they confuse the noun ‘conservative’ with the adjective ‘conservative.’ The noun refers to politics while the adjective can apply to religion and politics. When you call a Republican ‘conservative’, it’s a noun, not an adjective." RL #391

Please post the dictionary definition which makes those distinctions.

conservative (ken-sûr´ve-tîv) adjective
1. Favoring traditional views and values; tending to oppose change.
2. Traditional or restrained in style: a conservative dark suit.
3. Moderate; cautious: a conservative estimate.
4. a. Of or relating to the political philosophy of conservatism. b. Belonging to a conservative party, group, or movement.
5. Conservative. Of or belonging to the Conservative Party in the United Kingdom or the Progressive Conservative Party in Canada.
6. Conservative. Of or adhering to Conservative Judaism.
7. Tending to conserve; preservative: the conservative use of natural resources.

noun
1. One favoring traditional views and values.
2. A supporter of political conservatism.
3. ConservativeAbbr. C. A member or supporter of the Conservative Party in the United Kingdom or the Progressive Conservative Party in Canada.
4. Archaic. A preservative agent or principle.
- conser´vatively adverb
- conser´vativeness noun

Excerpted from The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Third Edition © 1996 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Electronic version licensed from INSO Corporation; further reproduction and distribution in accordance with the Copyright Law of the United States. All rights reserved.

Yours is at best an oversimplification.

 

[Micawber]

In fact all my neuroscientist friends some of whom are national academy of science members think being religious is disqualifying.
They know brains, and think you people are stupid. Most scientists are irreligious. Because it's dumb to believe in ghosts.

 

[PostmodernProphet]

I believe in god - but I don't think you can just get away w/ that last part. Why not?

Can't we say that the universe required no cause?

not logically.....if there is no cause there is no reason for a big bang to have happened and we would still be unbanged......