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

[Ross Dolan]

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

He is making what seems to be the fundamental argument of (a strong) atheist.

I've seen the assertion (from many who make the argument) that they are NOT atheists.

I dislike labels in this area. Theist, atheist, and agnostic are time-saving short cuts...but (especially with atheists) the music and lyrics often clash.

I describe my agnosticism in an attempt to make it as clear as I can.

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.

I'll take him at his word that he does not describe himself as an atheist. IF he uses "agnostic" as a descriptor, it is my opinion that he is abusing the word.

 

[Into the Night]

100% agreed!

BUT !!

Unless s/he is in the conversation, the "god" being ADDRESSED may or may not be the "god" you address. Thanks PP. Right again.

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

 

[Into the Night]

And the Jesus story is particularly laughable. Hey god revealed himself as a homo sapien to only some Jews and local Romans. Then went missing like Khashoggi.
"He's come back from the dead!" Then he vanished and eons of jerks exploited his memory to control people.

The story would be more compelling if he came today as a talking moose and he didn't leave and he laid down some serious science on us.

According to this logic, you must not believe that Jews or Romans existed at the time either.

 

[Rob Larrikin]

You do not get nearer an explanation of the universe with god, but get farther away.

Yes. The first witch doctor said, "God did it," and today the Pope still says the same thing. They haven't changed one inch from their original idea. They just pass the baton from one to the next, moving sideways. Meanwhile, scientists stand on one another's shoulders to see further away. When they are three high witchdoctors would knock them down.

Eventually, witchdoctors evolved into organized religions.

Finally, despite organized religions, scientists were able to climb very high, and the world went through a breathtaking change in just a couple of centuries. Today witchdoctors drive around in Jaguars, enjoying air conditioning, TV, the internet, modern medicine, safe sex, dental hygiene, long lives, planes, jets, vacations overseas, vaccinations, smartphones, the internet and a billion other luxuries, thanks to science.

Meanwhile, on another ‘Goldilocks’ planet somewhere, elements are combining in certain ways, in particular, environments, under special conditions, and random chance is creating rudimentary life. From there competition will take over, and the race will be on. Billions of years later witchdoctors will evolve, who will say, “God did it!”

 

[Into the Night]

“My position concerning God is that of an agnostic. I am convinced that a vivid consciousness of the primary importance of moral principles for the betterment and ennoblement of life does not need the idea of a law-giver, especially a law-giver who works on the basis of reward and punishment.”

Albert Einstein in a letter to M. Berkowitz, October 25, 1950; Einstein Archive 59-215; from Alice Calaprice, ed., The Expanded Quotable Einstein, Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 2000, p. 216.

Unfortunately, any law has associated with it a punishment. Otherwise the law is impotent. It might as well not exist. Therefore, any lawgiver must be based on punishment at least. Rewards may be the result of following a law. A lawgiver can also be based on rewards as well as punishment.

Here I think Einstein is wrong. As an agnostic, however, he has simply taken the position of no position. He does not need a law giver at all, other than the laws of the land.

 

[Into the Night]

Regarding astronomer, Carl Sagan:

"My view is that if there is no evidence for it, then forget about it," he said. "An agnostic is somebody who doesn't believe in something until there is evidence for it, so I'm agnostic."

March 1996 profile by Jim Dawson in the Minneapolis Star-Tribune

Here Sagan denies logic itself. He is making an argument of ignorance fallacy.

 

[Into the Night]

Now, lest anyone be confused, let me state that Hawking strenuously denies charges that he is an atheist. When he is accused of that he really gets angry and says that such assertions are not true at all. He is an agnostic or deist or something more along those lines. He's certainly not an atheist and not even very sympathetic to atheism.


Stephen Hawking, the Big Bang, and God, Henry F. Schaefer III.

If Hawking changed at the time of his death, so be it.

This quote is simply stating that his position is no position. It is the only position that does not form a circular argument, for there is no argument to begin with.

 

[Micawber]

According to this logic, you must not believe that Jews or Romans existed at the time either.

Illogical.

 

[Into the Night]

Smart guys said what? By the way, Sagan was a fraud, ask any real scientist. He doesn't help the argument by ethos fallacy work.

True Scotsman fallacy. Science is not a person. Science is a set of falsifiable theories. He did create various theories about atmospheres and their effect on planets. His theories never became scientific ones, since they failed the test of external consistency (no theory of science may conflict with any other theory of science). As far as I am aware, Carl Sagan never created any theory of science that was ever published. He may have made a few private ones, though.

 

[Into the Night]

You are wrong. You failed and lost. Keep going though.

You do not win simply by saying you won.

 

[Ross Dolan]

Unfortunately, any law has associated with it a punishment. Otherwise the law is impotent. It might as well not exist. Therefore, any lawgiver must be based on punishment at least. Rewards may be the result of following a law. A lawgiver can also be based on rewards as well as punishment.

Here I think Einstein is wrong. As an agnostic, however, he has simply taken the position of no position. He does not need a law giver at all, other than the laws of the land.

I'm a huge fan of Einstein...I often walk past his house in Princeton...just for the sake of being near it.

I suspect...I SUSPECT...he used that phrasing more as a rapier...taking a stab at the god of Abraham...rather than as a true intellectual position on the question.

In fact, here's a picture of me taking that issue up with him.

 

[Ross Dolan]

Here Sagan denies logic itself. He is making an argument of ignorance fallacy.

Could be.

I have concerns about the phrasing...an other phrasing that accompanies this quote.

The operative phrase however is: "I'm agnostic."


(Not even, I'm AN agnostic.)

 

[Micawber]

He is making what seems to be the fundamental argument of (a strong) atheist.

I've seen the assertion (from many who make the argument) that they are NOT atheists.

I dislike labels in this area. Theist, atheist, and agnostic are time-saving short cuts...but (especially with atheists) the music and lyrics often clash.

I describe my agnosticism in an attempt to make it as clear as I can.

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.

I'll take him at his word that he does not describe himself as an atheist. IF he uses "agnostic" as a descriptor, it is my opinion that he is abusing the word.

If you are referring to moi, wrong again. But if you want to create create a label for me, allow me to define some necessary terms as I see fit and use them in creating your label.

For the sake of arguments regarding god I like to keep it pretty strict. Arguendo only, god will be any magical creature endowed with superior and inexplicable powers assuming
some sort of anthropomorphic identity and if it chose to, could communicate with us. By exclusion, and again arguendo god is not to be considered some amorphous indescribable
ethereal presence or gloss over all things natural, or any thing in particular, nor will it be some natural phenomenon that our puny brains are simply at present unable to apprehend.
In short, god has to be an animal vegetable or mineral that kicks some major ass, flies like superman, is immortal, doesn't get sick, does magic tricks without faking but really can create magic.

Atheist is someone who is dead certain there is no god and asserts that.
Agnostic is anyone who states that she cannot prove there is no god.

This in mind

1. I do not believe in god.
2. I have seen millions of things personally in my life
3 I have spoken with many people in my life.
4 I have never seen anything in my life that resembles god
5 I have heard no credible account or showing of proof that anyone else has seen god.
6 Nothing I have ever seen appears to require a god to have been created
7 I do not put any weight into the idea that the enormousness of the universe or the marvelousness of an aesthetic object implies a god.
8 I put great weight in the value of all that I have seen as having some bearing on what comes next
9 I put great adjudicatory weight on the fact that things which once were ascribed godly attributes are now known to have banal natural explanations.


Therefore in my opinion the notion that god exists fails for want of evidence.

Call that what you want. I don't discard all that I see, hear read and think for a loaded syllogism. I input all these inputs into a larger and more sophisticated calculus, if you will, per above, which really only scratches the surface.

 

[sear]

"Whether such a god is being addressed or not is irrelevant. Such a god can define themselves by proof of Identity." IN #782

It seems IN #782 won't accept yes for an answer.

 

[Into the Night]

I appreciate the suggested reading and research,...

To give you a short summary of it:

The branch of philosophy known as phenomenology is all about observations and our perception. Any observation is more than just a sensory stimulus. That stimulus must also be interpreted to give it any kind of meaning. That interpretation is done according to our own personal model of the Universe and how it works. That model is different for everyone. It is as unique to each of us as a fingerprint. There are common patterns, due to common experiences and education, but there are still differences even among those.

To demonstrate, let us take the simple event of a sunrise, observed by different people:
* to one, it is a god, bringing light and warmth to the world which He created.
* to another, it is a vehicle for a god, carrying him across the sky as He watches over His world.
* to another, it is the sounds and warmth of a new day. He is blind, and cannot see the Sun itself.
* to another, it is the Sun orbiting a stationary Earth, the center of the Universe.
* to another, it is the effect of a spinning Earth against a relatively stationary Sun.
* to another, it is the inspiration of a new theory concerning fusion.
* to another, it is simply beauty...an art in and of itself.
* to another, it is the return of a source of energy that will be trapped on Earth forever (such as the Church of Global Warming argues).

Different people, different observations, each uniquely tailored to their personal view of the Universe, each stemming from the same event.

It is phenomenology that describes how optical illusions work and why, the reason we are entertained by stage magicians, and even allows a place for magick (the kind of magick that is not a stage act. I use the 'k' to differentiate it, similar to the way Aliester Crowley used it in his book 'Thelema'.)

Because all observations are subject to the problems of phenomenology, they are evidence only. So is any data (the recording of an observation). Because of this, these observations (what a lot of people consider 'real') defines what 'real' actually is to each of us. Reality to each and every one of us is different, just as our interpretation of any observation is. 'Real' to each of us is what we describe as that unique model of the Universe that we each carry within us. It is as unique as that model of the universe itself is.

Therefore, there is no Universal 'reality'. There can't be, since what most people describe as 'real' is based on those observations. 'Real' is quite literally what we each make it.

This may sound Zen like, and it is. Zen as a religion is strongly affected by this branch of philosophy.

Hopefully, I have given you enough reasoning here for you to more efficiently research this stuff on your own, or to even accept my earlier statement outright.

 

[Into the Night]

He is making what seems to be the fundamental argument of (a strong) atheist.

I've seen the assertion (from many who make the argument) that they are NOT atheists.

I dislike labels in this area. Theist, atheist, and agnostic are time-saving short cuts...but (especially with atheists) the music and lyrics often clash.

I describe my agnosticism in an attempt to make it as clear as I can.

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.

I'll take him at his word that he does not describe himself as an atheist. IF he uses "agnostic" as a descriptor, it is my opinion that he is abusing the word.

Like Einstein, your position is simply no position. You cannot make a circular argument with agnosticism, because there is no argument to begin with. There is absolutely nothing wrong with this view, speaking logically, scientifically, mathematically, or philosophically.

Personally, I happen to be Christian. I make the agnostic argument, however, simply because I fully recognize the circular nature of my belief. It do not try to prove it. It is simply my belief. It is based on faith. It can be based on nothing else. Again, there is nothing wrong with THAT view either, speaking logically, scientifically, mathematically, or philosophically. I am not a fundamentalist. I do not try to prove my religion.

 

[Into the Night]

Illogical.

Argument of the Stone.What applies to one applies to the other.

 

[Into the Night]

I'm a huge fan of Einstein...I often walk past his house in Princeton...just for the sake of being near it.

I suspect...I SUSPECT...he used that phrasing more as a rapier...taking a stab at the god of Abraham...rather than as a true intellectual position on the question.

In fact, here's a picture of me taking that issue up with him.

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

 

[Into the Night]

Could be.

I have concerns about the phrasing...an other phrasing that accompanies this quote.

The operative phrase however is: "I'm agnostic."


(Not even, I'm AN agnostic.)

He is actually making an atheist argument here. An agnostic wouldn't do that, since the position of an agnostic does allow for a god or gods to possibly exist.

 

[Into the Night]

If you are referring to moi, wrong again. But if you want to create create a label for me, allow me to define some necessary terms as I see fit and use them in creating your label.

For the sake of arguments regarding god I like to keep it pretty strict. Arguendo only, god will be any magical creature endowed with superior and inexplicable powers assuming
some sort of anthropomorphic identity and if it chose to, could communicate with us. By exclusion, and again arguendo god is not to be considered some amorphous indescribable
ethereal presence or gloss over all things natural, or any thing in particular, nor will it be some natural phenomenon that our puny brains are simply at present unable to apprehend.
In short, god has to be an animal vegetable or mineral that kicks some major ass, flies like superman, is immortal, doesn't get sick, does magic tricks without faking but really can create magic.

Atheist is someone who is dead certain there is no god and asserts that.

Circular argument fallacy (fundamentalism).

Agnostic is anyone who states that she cannot prove there is no god.

Incomplete definition, but this characteristic is part of agnostic belief.

This in mind

1. I do not believe in god.

Fine I have no problem with this part.

2. I have seen millions of things personally in my life
3 I have spoken with many people in my life.
4 I have never seen anything in my life that resembles god
5 I have heard no credible account or showing of proof that anyone else has seen god.
6 Nothing I have ever seen appears to require a god to have been created
7 I do not put any weight into the idea that the enormousness of the universe or the marvelousness of an aesthetic object implies a god.
8 I put great weight in the value of all that I have seen as having some bearing on what comes next
9 I put great adjudicatory weight on the fact that things which once were ascribed godly attributes are now known to have banal natural explanations.

Therefore in my opinion the notion that god exists fails for want of evidence.

This is the argument of ignorance fallacy.

Call that what you want.

I just did.

I don't discard all that I see, hear read and think for a loaded syllogism.

There is no such thing as a 'loaded' syllogism.

I input all these inputs into a larger and more sophisticated calculus,

Calculus is a branch of mathematics, not logic. Redefinition fallacy. Your logic is also flawed, due to the argument of ignorance fallacy in your argument.

if you will, per above, which really only scratches the surface.

No doubt!