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

[Into the Night]

No. You are free to be wrong. The natural world informs. Billions of eyes observing trillions of things. No gods. Strong evidence that god does not exist. Everything is more than nothing. What did you find under that pillow? Nothing.

Argument of ignorance fallacy.

 

[Into the Night]

Study the fundamentals of the logic of the syllogism IN #697.

a) You haven't disputed my major premise.
All in the cosmos not man-made is "creation".

Negative predicate. Also disputed.

b) The dictionary supports the minor premise.

Void predicate.

And as you should know, according to the logic of the syllogism,:
- if the major premise is correct, AND !!
- the minor premise is correct, THEN !!
- a logically valid conclusion based on them must be true.

You cannot form a positive conclusion using a negative predicate. You cannot form any conclusion using void predicates.

The syllogism proves itself.

No syllogism proves itself.

If you presume to disprove, you must undermine either one premise, or both.

The form of the syllogism is invalid. The use of a void predicate in any syllogism is invalid. A syllogism without a conclusion is invalid.

You've refuted neither, dismissing it as "circular" which by the way is NOT a synonym for false.

This is not a circular argument. It is a void argument fallacy.

 

[Into the Night]

When you have 2 competing theories, the simplest one is most likely correct. Adding needless complications to explain existence, like god, is an Occam razor example. You do not get nearer an explanation of the universe with god, but get farther away. You get into extraneous arguments about god and religion that add nothing. They arrive at no conclusions because there can be ,and is, no evidence of god. It is a wasetful argument. Keep it simple. There is zero evidence of any god ever. It is a waste of time to fight about what is a belief. You accepted your training. Not impressive. I feel sorry for you.

Occam's Razor is not a proof.
Argument of ignorance fallacy.

 

[Into the Night]

This is why faith, the purposeful suspension of critical thought, it required to buy in. People have to be mindfucked into that, usually brutally over generations. Hence the Inquisition for example.

Nobody ever beat me into submission to cause my beliefs. Compositional error fallacy involving people as the class...bigotry.

 

[Into the Night]

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

Facts are necessary to present a valid argument
Atheists have all the facts
Deists have no facts

Facts are not necessary to present a valid argument. A 'fact' is not a Universal Truth. Learn what a 'fact' is. A 'fact' is just an assumed predicate, like a pronoun, it shortens arguments as a convenience. The moment a fact is disputed, it is no longer a fact.

 

[Into the Night]

Says WHO??

Not who. What. The theory itself says that.

 

[Into the Night]

No, you are wrong. Everything we know contains no evidence of a deity. Nothing shows that fingerprint.
Only a fool would discard all we know, meditate in a cave and decide something that doesn't exist created everything yet hides from us all.

Argument of ignorance fallacy.

I will cede nothing to magic.

You don't like magic shows? Did you know that magic is based on physics? They are also based on phenomenology.

Even your use of Morpheus is a character from a movie based on phenomenology.

 

[Into the Night]

The chance that everything we don't know includes a magical creature that has magic powers and perhaps controls everything and created everything from nothing
is as likely as not, even considering all that we know includes trillions of things we have dissected and taxonomized, and not a single thing has been so identified.

Argument of ignorance fallacy.

 

[Into the Night]

This post addresses the following syllogism:

Okay. Let's examine it.

a) All in the cosmos can be divided into one of two categories: those things which are man-made, and everything else.

A positive predicate. Okay so far.

b) It is our cultural tradition, and factually correct to call that specific "everything else" CREATION.

This statement is itself in question. It cannot be used as a predicate.

c) If there is a creaTION then there must be a creaTOR, by definition.

A positive predicate. You now have your two predicates.This is now b), since your original b) was rejected as a circular argument fallacy.

And it has been the multi-cultural tradition for millennia to call that creaTOR "god".

This is now predicate c). It is a negative predicate since not all cultures do so. Only some cultures do.
No further predicates allowed. Rejected. You are no longer using the form of a syllogism.

Those that think it's Jehovah, or the flying spaghetti monster, FANTASTIC !!
Those that subscribe to the scientific consensus, that the Big Bang produced the cosmos, then BY DEFINITION the Big Bang is the creator, and thus by millennia of multi-cultural tradition the Big Bang is god.

Science does not use consensus. However since the Theory of the Big Bang describes a beginning of the cosmos, you do not need to specify this predicate at all. The theory exists. That's enough. The conclusion here, however, is making a false equivalence based on a contextomy of the word 'god'. You are not using the form of a syllogism. The conclusion is invalid.

If you want a refund, you'll have to fill in a form at the office. I don't define reality. I report it.

Actually, you DO define reality. See the branch of philosophy known as 'phenomenology'. It also defines what 'reality' actually is and why.

Any that wish to deny this reality are invited to REFUTE it. So far NO BODY has.

I just did. The form of your 'syllogism' is invalid due to the use of more than two predicates, disputed predicates and a contextomy.

No surprise to me! It's inerrant, in premise, logic AND conclusion.

No, it is an invalid conclusion. You changed the meaning of 'god' in the middle of the syllogism. The Big Bang is not an 'intelligence'. The Theory of Creation makes use of an 'intelligence' (it also does not require a god, but I am willing to accept your further limits you place on that for this case). It is also not a syllogism in the first place.

PS
On a personal note:
I've ALREADY proved there is a god. But I consider myself an agnostic.

No, you are not. Agnostics don't try to prove a god.

 

[Into the Night]

There are people who also have "faith" that there are no gods.

What people ought to do is to suspend all that "believing"...all that blind guessing...

...and simply acknowledge that there is much we do not know about the true nature of the REALITY of existence.

The question, "What is reality?" has been answered by philosophy. There is a certain similarity to this statement and what philosophy came up with. See the branch of philosophy called 'phenomenology', which defines 'reality' and why.

 

[Ross Dolan]

The question, "What is reality?" has been answered by philosophy. There is a certain similarity to this statement and what philosophy came up with. See the branch of philosophy called 'phenomenology', which defines 'reality' and why.

I appreciate the suggested reading and research, I.

I tend to be dismissive of anything as structured or self-contained as, "The question, 'What is reality?' has been answered by philosophy. "

At best, I would accept something like, "Philosophers have considered the question 'what is REALITY' from various perspectives and have suggested insights that may be nibbling at an answer."

More than that requires, in my opinion, a kind of human chauvinism that is so off-putting to me that I essentially tune out.

Consideration of the REALITY of "WHAT IS" is as close as I will ever come to re-approaching religion. I was there once...I am happy I am not there now...I do not look negatively on those who are.

Looking at our galaxy (and a few of our neighboring galaxies) through a telescope (a thing I've done often) is something marvelous and I get goose-bumps even speaking of it. I can become entranced when viewing.

BUT...contemplating REALITY beats that...and by a considerable margin. Considering all the many permutations available to me while "contemplating REALITY"...is about as close to orgiastic as I can get without having my dick involved.

Anyone suggesting "I've got the answers"...or even "I'm close to the answers and know a way to deal with the search properly" turns me off. What you have mentioned about phenomenology sorta hits me that way.

Not sure how much time I will devote to investigating it...but we'll see.

 

[Into the Night]

Ockham's Razor is a statistically rational standard routinely taught in medical schools around the globe.

Neither Occam's Razor nor statistics is a proof.

DOCTOR Joy Browne expresses it as follows:
When camping in North America, if you're inside the tent, and outside the tent you hear hoof-beats, assume it's deer, elk, moose, or horses, not zebras.

The most likely explanation is the most likely explanation.

It COULD be escaped zebras. It could be your buddy making hoof-beat noises. It could be anything.

Assuming the unlikely, assuming the absurd is a fool's errand.

Oh! My car keys aren't in my pocket where I expected them to be. Therefore obviously Martians from a parallel cosmos stole them!

Lunacy.

The word 'lunacy' itself means an insanity caused by the Moon. Mars is not in a parallel universe. It is in our own. We now know that no Martian life (if any) has developed space flight.

What a spectacularly foolish, ignorant assertion!

Only because of probability.

Study statistics, including applied statistics. Then spew that ignorance.

Statistical mathematics does not support Occam's Razor. Probability math does, though. That does not form a proof of any kind.

 

[Into the Night]

PS

Ockham's Razor is the statistically most likely, most plausible refutation of the:
- uh, well we're here, we're not smart enough to figure out why / how we're here, therefore it must have been a spirit in the sky that created the cosmos in 6 days, and then took a day off for golf. -
notion.

That's what you're defending ?1

Neither statistical math nor Occam's Razor is a proof. Neither is probability math, which Occam's Razor is actually based on (not statistical math).

 

[Into the Night]

I am saying that Occam's Razor is a useless philosophical tool.

Quite true. Occam's Razor stems from probability math. It has nothing to do with philosophy itself.

I also am saying that the assertion "there are no gods" like the assertion "there is a GOD" IS NOTHING BUT A BLIND GUESS.

Essentially the result of his misuse of probability math, and of his misuse of categorical syllogisms in logic. He apparently doesn't know either the mathematics or the logic. He is not making a philosophical argument here. He is attempting to make a logical one (and doing very badly at it).

 

[Into the Night]

Ockham's Razor (please note the spelling) is logical, based upon mathematical fundamentals.

Logic is not mathematics. Mathematics is not logic. Occam's Razor is based on probability math. That branch of mathematics does not have the power of extended proof or the power of prediction normally inherent in mathematics, due to the use of random numbers. The mathematics of random numbers themselves depend on crossing N boundaries and are imported from another math Domain, which render them incapable of prediction of extension of proof.

Pascal's Wager is ABSOLUTELY just as you assert, worse than a joke. It's a ruse. A fiction.

It is a fallacy. It has been extended in logic to all religions, not just Christianity (the way Pascal used it). A fallacy is simply an error in logic, just as an arithmetic mistake is an error in mathematics. Both logic and mathematics are closed functional systems. They are separate closed functional systems. They each use a different set of axioms to define them.

I had it before you posted.
Your cognitive prospects are in very serious doubt.

And if you think defining terms is extraneous in such dialogue, you're woefully if not invincibly ignorant.

Know it or not
believe it or not
like it or not
admit it or not
whether there is a god or not
depends on how god is defined !!

- get over it -

Nothing about the definition of any god or gods changes whether it is possible to prove whether any such god or gods exist or do not exist. It is not possible to prove the existence of any god or gods. It is not possible to prove that any god or gods do not exist.

 

[Into the Night]

PS

Right! Thank you for your candid confession.
And that's why you're wrong.

Ockham's Razor (please please note the spelling) is a reasoning tool virtually all sentients use daily.

Correct.
That is PRECISELY what you're asserting.
And you continue to be wrong.

Just because human history includes the mythopeic tradition of supernatural superstition doesn't mean supernatural deities are a manifest reality.

Speak for yourself. Be careful of the use of the word 'reality'. You must first define a word to use it. Philosophy has. Can you guess what it is? Remember, in a philosophical argument, you must provide your reasoning with it. You cannot use outside sources. You must provide that reasoning yourself.

 

[Into the Night]

You think so?

I don't. But it can be more fun.

Occam's Razor is most often spelled "Occam's Razor"...although that piece of philosophical crap IS spelled many different ways.

Occam's (or Ockham's) razor is a principle attributed to the 14th century logician and Franciscan friar William of Ockham. Ockham was the village in the English county of Surrey where he was born.
Despite the name of the village being a proper noun, both spellings are considered correct. The United States generally uses the spelling 'Occam'. It doesn't stem from philosophy. It stems from probability mathematics. Due to the dependency of that branch of mathematics on random numbers, no extended proof using Occam's Razor is possible. The principle never was part of philosophy.

Yeah, Assholes married to a blind guess often go through this kind of shit.

Happy swimming.

BOTTOM LINE:

Anyone asserting "there is a god" or "there are no gods" ARE DOING NOTHING MORE THAN SHARING BLIND GUESSES ABOUT THE REALITY OF EXISTENCE.

Atheistic blind guessing is especially humorous, because atheists like to suppose their blind guesses are the product of reason, logic, science and math.

They are a laughable bunch of clowns.

Atheism has a lot of fundamentalists. Watching them try to twist and redefine what mathematics, logic, science, and even philosophy are can be a hoot.

 

[Into the Night]

I'm not an atheist.

You're not merely wrong. You're tenaciously wrong.

You are making a fundamentalist argument of an atheist, though.

 

[Into the Night]

Wrong again. Atheists don't think "it is more likely there are no gods than that there are"

There is no evidence of god. There is much evidence of no god. Therefore it is more likely there is no god.

Welcome to your new paradox. Which is it, dude?

 

[Into the Night]

it would seem logical that if there is a god, he gets to define himself......

It is. Proof by Identity.