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

Micawber said:
False, any theory is a theory of science if it is based upon observation and recording of events. 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.. It is science. All the science appears consistent with an initial singularity
of all known matter and energy in the universe. It is a scientific theory, not a hunch, or religion or goofy astral projection of man.
Click to expand...

The problem, Mic, is that science does not have all the answers; does not know for sure that all the answers it supposedly has, are correct, and has no idea of how far away from all the correct answers it is.

Keep this in mind...the knowledge that there are any other galaxies (other than our collection of stars) in this universe of ours...IS ALMOST BRAND NEW. It was a "fact" discovered only 10 years before I was born. In fact, in some of the "science" books that were still in use when I was in school...referred to some galaxies as nebulae...and were thought to be phenomena WITHIN OUR GALAXY.

It is more than adequate to say, "The notion of gods seems to be a product of fear of the unknown...and the notion of a god like the god of Abraham seems closer to Alice in Wonderland than to any current science book."

That further step to "There are no gods" is not only unnecessary, but is transformative. It takes the non-theist narrative from reasonable...to "just another guess...one in the opposite direction from that of the theists."

Really!
 
Frank Apisa said:
The problem, Mic, is that science does not have all the answers; does not know for sure that all the answers it supposedly has, are correct, and has no idea of how far away from all the correct answers it is.

Keep this in mind...the knowledge that there are any other galaxies (other than our collection of stars) in this universe of ours...IS ALMOST BRAND NEW. It was a "fact" discovered only 10 years before I was born. In fact, in some of the "science" books that were still in use when I was in school...referred to some galaxies as nebulae...and were thought to be phenomena WITHIN OUR GALAXY.

It is more than adequate to say, "The notion of gods seems to be a product of fear of the unknown...and the notion of a god like the god of Abraham seems closer to Alice in Wonderland than to any current science book."

That further step to "There are no gods" is not only unnecessary, but is transformative. It takes the non-theist narrative from reasonable...to "just another guess...one in the opposite direction from that of the theists."

Really!
Click to expand...

I have no quarrel with what you just said at all except for the very last sentence. I didn't need the recency of 99.9999999 percent of human knowledge in astronomy to persuade me that science is malleable.
Sadly some US Christians want to put Alice in Wonderland in the science books, and do so for their hapless children who visit their creationist museums. I will never stop resisting the idea that
the God versus no god debate as to proof is on equal and polar opposite intellectual footing. For the one thousandth time, yes, they are semantic opposites, logical opposites as one is athe negation of the other.

But just because a person can mouth the words God is the opposite of No god and your English teacher will nod in approval, doesn't eliminate from existence the natural world that we all see every day and
no god is anywhere to be seen. I refuse to take all that I kn ow and eliminate that from consideration in my mental accounting ledger in favor of a thought experiment that the odds are 50/50 based on the inherent
lack of probity of a naked syllogism.

Lift up the throw pillow to your right hand right now. Was god under it? Score another point for me. That's a googol plex points to zero. That's no tie.
 
Micawber said:
I have no quarrel with what you just said at all except for the very last sentence. I didn't need the recency of 99.9999999 percent of human knowledge in astronomy to persuade me that science is malleable.
Sadly some US Christians want to put Alice in Wonderland in the science books, and do so for their hapless children who visit their creationist museums. I will never stop resisting the idea that
the God versus no god debate as to proof is on equal and polar opposite intellectual footing. For the one thousandth time, yes, they are semantic opposites, logical opposites as one is athe negation of the other.

But just because a person can mouth the words God is the opposite of No god and your English teacher will nod in approval, doesn't eliminate from existence the natural world that we all see every day and
no god is anywhere to be seen. I refuse to take all that I kn ow and eliminate that from consideration in my mental accounting ledger in favor of a thought experiment that the odds are 50/50 based on the inherent
lack of probity of a naked syllogism.

Lift up the throw pillow to your right hand right now. Was god under it? Score another point for me. That's a googol plex points to zero. That's no tie.
Click to expand...

The moment you add the thoughts:

1) There are no gods

2) It is more likely that there are no gods than that there is at least one...

...you have taken a very reasonable position and turned it into abject nonsense, Mic.

Sorry, but that is the way it is.

The assertion "there are no gods" is a blind guess about the REALITY...just as the assertion "there is a GOD" is a blind guess. The former is YOUR blind guess...so you want to think it is more logical...more scientific...more reasonable.

BUT IT ISN'T.

The assertion "it is more likely that there are no gods than that there is at least one" is a blind guess about the REALITY...just as the assertion "it is more likely that there is a GOD than that there are none" is a blind guess. The latter is the opposite of your blind guess...so you want to think it is less logical...less scientific...less reasonable.

BUT IT ISN'T.

Neither is reasonable, neither is logical, neither is scientific.

Both are nothing but blind guesses.
 
Frank Apisa said:
The moment you add the thoughts:

1) There are no gods

2) It is more likely that there are no gods than that there is at least one...

...you have taken a very reasonable position and turned it into abject nonsense, Mic.

Sorry, but that is the way it is.

The assertion "there are no gods" is a blind guess about the REALITY...just as the assertion "there is a GOD" is a blind guess. The former is YOUR blind guess...so you want to think it is more logical...more scientific...more reasonable.

BUT IT ISN'T.

The assertion "it is more likely that there are no gods than that there is at least one" is a blind guess about the REALITY...just as the assertion "it is more likely that there is a GOD than that there are none" is a blind guess. The latter is the opposite of your blind guess...so you want to think it is less logical...less scientific...less reasonable.

BUT IT ISN'T.

Neither is reasonable, neither is logical, neither is scientific.

Both are nothing but blind guesses.
Click to expand...

No nope nopers nyet nein non and nooooo.
 
Rob Larrikin said:
That's because you believed the Fake News liberals created about Hitler being right winged. He was a socialist, and very left winged. In order to figure this all out you need to throw out everything you've been taught and start again - an unlikely event.
Click to expand...

No. That is completely incorrect. No surprise you would post it. It is proven history. Once again, no surprise you would not know it.
 
Frank Apisa said:
Micawber, BOTH are nothing but blind guesses.

Don't dig any deeper.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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".

b) The dictionary supports the minor premise.

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.
"No, it's a logical refutation."
"You gave no proof." IN #697
Click to expand...
The syllogism proves itself.
If you presume to disprove, you must undermine either one premise, or both.
You've refuted neither, dismissing it as "circular" which by the way is NOT a synonym for false.
 
Micawber said:
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.
Click to expand...

You do not know if gods exist or not.

Not seeing gods is no measure of whether they exist or not.

YOU cannot see any sentient beings that come from any planet circling the nearest 15 stars to Sol...NOT A ONE. (That you can identify as such!)

That is NOT cause to say there are no sentient beings on any of those planets.

At best...one can say, "We do not know if there are sentient beings on any of those planets or not."

You cannot logically say "It is more likely that there are none than that there are some" nor "It is more likely that there are some than that there are none." (Not that that will stop you!)

STOP DIGGING. You are deep enough.
 
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.
 
Nordberg said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
sear said:
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".

b) The dictionary supports the minor premise.

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.

The syllogism proves itself.
If you presume to disprove, you must undermine either one premise, or both.
You've refuted neither, dismissing it as "circular" which by the way is NOT a synonym for false.
Click to expand...

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
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top