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

rjhenn said:
The accompaniment to my earlier post would be that if God wanted us to believe in Him, there'd be plenty of evidence that He really did exist. Instead, all we've got is a bunch of bad logic and wishful thinking.
Click to expand...

I despise that term "believe in" whether applied to gods or to things like "democracy" or "freedom."

In any case...

...if there were a personal GOD that wanted humans to KNOW of ITS existence...

...IT certainly could do so unambiguously.
 
"...IT certainly could do so unambiguously." FA #921
Click to expand...
But need not necessarily be.

"To one who has faith, no explanation is necessary. To one without faith, no explanation is possible." - Saint Thomas Aquinas
 
sear said:
But need not necessarily be.

"To one who has faith, no explanation is necessary. To one without faith, no explanation is possible." - Saint Thomas Aquinas
Click to expand...

Another way to say that is: To one who is going to insist a GOD exists despite no unambiguous evidence...no explanation is necessary. To someone who wants to remain open minded on the question...no silly arguments are going to work.

Aquinas was convince there was a GOD (not just any GOD, but the GOD mentioned in the Bible)...and realized there was no proof or unambiguous evidence...so he advocated for simply accepting "the existence of that GOD" blindly.

And he made the blind acceptance a virtue...rather than consider it the insult to logic it actually is.

So...I agree with him.

If one wants to blindly guess there is a GOD...fine. (And no explanation is necessary.)

If one wants to blindly guess there are no gods...fine. (And no explanation is necessary.)

There may be a GOD (may be gods) and there may be no gods.

Blind guesses in either direction do not change that.
 
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...
The fact that you call it "creation" doesn't make it so. It's only your choice of terminology that requires a creator.
 
Frank Apisa said:
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.
Click to expand...
Any such sentient beings are light years away. Gods are supposedly right here with us all the time. Unless they are deliberately hiding from us and have been for hundreds of years. If so, the question becomes, what are they afraid of?
 
sear said:
This post addresses the following syllogism:

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

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

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

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

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.
If you want a refund, you'll have to fill in a form at the office. I don't define reality. I report it.
Any that wish to deny this reality are invited to REFUTE it. So far NO BODY has. No surprise to me! It's inerrant, in premise, logic AND conclusion.

"A logical form does not have any bearing on the truth of the facts asserted" UNLESS for example both major and minor premise of the syllogism are true, AND the logic is valid.
All you need do is quote one syllogism whose major and minor premise are both valid / true, whose logic is unassailably true / valid, BUT!! whose conclusion is false; and I'll withdraw my assertion with apology.

Don't hold your breath.

NO BODY has refuted the major premise.
NO BODY has refuted the minor premise.
NO BODY has revealed ANY logical error in this proof. Therefore, according to all my training, all my study, and over a half-century of my own experience, I can attest that the conclusion is UNASSAILABLY true.
You don't have to like it.
You don't have to accept it.
You don't have to agree with it.
BUT !!
Until you disprove it, I'll continue to call it a "PROOF". For that is in fact the correct name. If you disagree, take it up with American Heritage®.

Please don't squabble. R E A S O N !!

I sincerely appreciate both your candor, and your succinct clarity.

My meager reward to you is to relate to you the utility of this proof.

An ill-equipped dying man might wonder whether or not there is a god. Armed with this unassailable thinking tool, that dying man can know AS A CERTITUDE that there is indeed a god.
Thus, in the question: is there? Yes? Or no?
we COMPLETELY ELIMINATE the "no" answer. That revelation can provide some solace to a dying man. And appreciated or not, it informs the rest of us.

PS
On a personal note:
I've ALREADY proved there is a god. But I consider myself an agnostic.
Click to expand...
that you insist on calling it "creation" doesn't make it true. And that's your circular argument.
 
If the Bible God existed, it certainly has shown a huge disdain for its creation and an unfairness when meeting out justice and pettiness when exacting revenge.

No need to believe nor worship such a callous and shallow being.
 
rjhenn said:
The accompaniment to my earlier post would be that if God wanted us to believe in Him, there'd be plenty of evidence that He really did exist. Instead, all we've got is a bunch of bad logic and wishful thinking.
Click to expand...

Not at all God is evident in Creation! How the earth sit's perfectly for life to exist. Even consider the human body and how complex it is, if you truly believe that it is all because of evolution, and chance, well I pity you.
 
Quote Originally Posted by rjhenn View Post
The accompaniment to my earlier post would be that if God wanted us to believe in Him, there'd be plenty of evidence that He really did exist.
Click to expand...
dude, he wrote it all down for you......what more do you want.....
 
rjhenn said:
Any such sentient beings are light years away. Gods are supposedly right here with us all the time. Unless they are deliberately hiding from us and have been for hundreds of years. If so, the question becomes, what are they afraid of?
Click to expand...

The question actually is: Why do people want to assert "there is at least one GOD" or "there are no gods" rather than "we do not know the true nature of REALITY and do not know if there are gods or if there are no gods?"

So...why is that for you? What is your answer to that question?

Your questions are absurd. Why did bacteria "hide from us for millions of years?" Why did other galaxies "hide from us for millions of years?" Why did dinosaurs "hide from us for millions of years?" And why, oh why, are bacteria, other galaxies, and dinosaurs so afraid of us?
 
Wolverine said:
Not at all God is evident in Creation! How the earth sit's perfectly for life to exist. Even consider the human body and how complex it is, if you truly believe that it is all because of evolution, and chance, well I pity you.
Click to expand...

There is nothing "evident" about any gods...and if you cannot see that, I pity you.
 
guno said:
How idiotic is that?

why do christers get angry when people reject their mythology and then come up with revenge fantasies that they hope their god carry's out
Click to expand...

Don't confuse hoping it happens when telling the truth about it. That's your problem, boy. Your mind operates on such a low level, you can't tell the difference.

Maybe you and Hawking can be roommates.
 
"There is nothing "evident" about any gods...and if you cannot see that, I pity you." FA #932
Click to expand...
a) Point taken.

b) It's evident to me Odin doesn't wear bluejeans when he rummages through my kitchen drawers.
 
CFM said:
Don't confuse hoping it happens when telling the truth about it. That's your problem, boy. Your mind operates on such a low level, you can't tell the difference.

Maybe you and Hawking can be roommates.
Click to expand...

poor lower IQ hillbilly white trash goyim
 
Wolverine said:
Well right, because there is only One, but the God of the Bible is very evident.
Click to expand...

There is nothing "obvious" about the god of the Bible...except that either the god is a demon god...or the people describing the god got almost everything wrong.

Sorry you are not able to see that.

You don't have to believe for him to be real.
Click to expand...

By that, I suppose you mean, "You do not have to blindly guess that the god exists. If it exists, it exists; if it does not exist, it does not."

I agree with that.

If there is a god (or gods)...no matter what anyone guesses about it...it (or they) exist anyway.

If there are no gods...no matter how many people blindly guess that at least one does exist...there still are no gods.
 
2000 years and not a scrap of evidence showing god, any god exists. Religious people were just unable to resist their training by their parents, schools, churches and community. Those who need proof to jump on board are gone. Religion is an insult . Eventually, if you can think logically, you ask"what am I doing here', this makes no sense". Then you leave.
 
Nordberg said:
2000 years and not a scrap of evidence showing god, any god exists. Religious people were just unable to resist their training by their parents, schools, churches and community. Those who need proof to jump on board are gone. Religion is an insult . Eventually, if you can think logically, you ask"what am I doing here', this makes no sense". Then you leave.
Click to expand...

If you think "logically"...you come to, "I do not know if gods exist or not."

The REALITY of existence may include gods; the REALITY of existence may have no gods involved.

We simply do not know. At present, our knowledge of the REALITY of existence may be about where "knowledge of the observable universe" was during the Stone Age.

Let it be.

Stop trying to make the "logical" answer be something that is as illogical as "there is a GOD"...by pretending the "logical" answer is that there are no gods.

We have all sorts of things for which there was no evidence at one time...but which existed nonetheless.

This may be one of those things.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top