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

**Frank Apisa** · 10-19-2018, 07:03 AM

Originally Posted by Micawber

False....

I repeat: Anyone supposing that someone asserting "there are no gods"...is using reason and science to arrive there...does not understand reason or science.

And anyone who thinks that to be false...does not understand reason, science, or logic.

**Frank Apisa** · 10-19-2018, 07:09 AM

Originally Posted by Micawber

If you and I can agree on what the attributes are of a god, then I can produce mountains of evidence there is no god. Until then we simply must disagree.

I have no idea of what a god would be like; neither do you; neither does anyone else.

So...give me the proof that there are no gods.

I'm pretty sure you will not be forthcoming. I assume for the sake of discussion it includes the typical attributes in western civilization attributed to one including: omniscience, omnipotence,
actions demonstrating magical ability, nonconformance with Newtonian physics, a giant turtle with the universe on its back, people living in clouds tampering with
the goings on on mortals,commandments written in stone of impossible provenance sitting on Mount Nebo, burning bushes talking to people, demonstration
of the power to turn mortals to salt if gazed upon, little partly goat partly manchild perverts hopping around playing pipes... That is how the fables identify one.
If you are of the type who, if I present to you an ordinary apple you will not exclude from its characteristics godliness, then again, there is nothing to discuss.

If there are gods...I have absolutely no idea of what they are like...or what attributes they might have.

NONE WHATSOEVER.

So...please produce the proof that gods do not exist.

So, upon your assent that a god is defined by the historical endowments such as these, I will produce 5 trillion molecules of evidence that there is no god.
It would be unreasonable and unscientific for you to discard all the evidence. The assertion that there is no god is therefore neither unreasonable nor unscientific.
It is a matter of weighing the physical evidence and probability that one exists. I can not prove there is no god anymore than I can prove there is no an exit 1 mile down the road
until I get there. But if I have traveled 1000 miles down the road and there have been no exit, I don't bet against that streak in the next mile.

If you want to produce stuff that calls the god of Abraham, for instance, into question...and then PRETEND that is proof that gods do not exist...

...do so.

There might be someone here as absurd as you who might buy into it.

Otherwise...produce proof that gods do not exist...or shut the fuck up, because you obviously are not ethically suited to acknowledge you are full of shit.

**Lightbringer** · 10-19-2018, 07:12 AM

Originally Posted by Frank Apisa

I repeat: Anyone supposing that someone asserting "there are no gods"...is using reason and science to arrive there...does not understand reason or science.

And anyone who thinks that to be false...does not understand reason, science, or logic.

Oh God are you guys still on this?

1. I'm pretty sure Hawking understood science and logic a wee bit better than you.
2. Re-read what Hawking said.

**sear** · 10-19-2018, 07:12 AM

"Anyone supposing that someone asserting "there are no gods"...is using reason and science to arrive there...does not understand reason or science.
And anyone who thinks that to be false...does not understand reason, science, or logic." FA

Intentionally or not, you're splitting rhetorical hairs.

I agree it would be more technically correct to say there is no verifying evidence of supernatural deity.

But in casual speech, I wouldn't exaggerate the technical semantic infraction.

**Micawber** · 10-19-2018, 07:13 AM

Originally Posted by Frank Apisa

I have no idea of what a god would be like; neither do you; neither does anyone else.

So...give me the proof that there are no gods.

If there are gods...I have absolutely no idea of what they are like...or what attributes they might have.

NONE WHATSOEVER.

So...please produce the proof that gods do not exist.

If you want to produce stuff that calls the god of Abraham, for instance, into question...and then PRETEND that is proof that gods do not exist...

...do so.

There might be someone here as absurd as you who might buy into it.

Otherwise...produce proof that gods do not exist...or shut the fuck up, because you obviously are not ethically suited to acknowledge you are full of shit.

"Shut the fuck up?" Running away, as I anticipated. ^^^^^

**Darth Omar** · 10-19-2018, 07:14 AM

Originally Posted by Frank Apisa

I repeat: Anyone supposing that someone asserting "there are no gods"...is using reason and science to arrive there...does not understand reason or science.

And anyone who thinks that to be false...does not understand reason, science, or logic.

Yup.

Hawking put it right: it was his *opinion* that science provides no evidence of God. He didn’t say the logic behind it was unassailable. The logic behind it is pretty flimsy, actually; since science, by definition, can’t prove or disprove the existence of a being that existed since before time began.

**Micawber** · 10-19-2018, 07:15 AM

]If you and I can agree on what the attributes are of a god, then I can produce mountains of evidence there is no god. Until then we simply must disagree.
I'm pretty sure you will not be forthcoming. I assume for the sake of discussion it includes the typical attributes in western civilization attributed to one including: omniscience, omnipotence,
actions demonstrating magical ability, nonconformance with Newtonian physics, a giant turtle with the universe on its back, people living in clouds tampering with
the goings on on mortals,commandments written in stone of impossible provenance sitting on Mount Nebo, burning bushes talking to people, demonstration
of the power to turn mortals to salt if gazed upon, little partly goat partly manchild perverts hopping around playing pipes... That is how the fables identify one.
If you are of the type who, if I present to you an ordinary apple you will not exclude from its characteristics godliness, then again, there is nothing to discuss.

So, upon your assent that a god is defined by the historical endowments such as these, I will produce 5 trillion molecules of evidence that there is no god.
It would be unreasonable and unscientific for you to discard all the evidence. The assertion that there is no god is therefore neither unreasonable nor unscientific.
It is a matter of weighing the physical evidence and probability that one exists. I can not prove there is no god anymore than I can prove there is no an exit 1 mile down the road
until I get there. But if I have traveled 1000 miles down the road and there have been no exit, I don't bet against that streak in the next mile.

Since you are unwilling to have an agreed upon definition of what we are talking about, I must infer you have no idea what your have been talking about.
Why am I not surprised?

**Darth Omar** · 10-19-2018, 07:24 AM

Originally Posted by Micawber

]If you and I can agree on what the attributes are of a god, then I can produce mountains of evidence there is no god. Until then we simply must disagree.
I'm pretty sure you will not be forthcoming. I assume for the sake of discussion it includes the typical attributes in western civilization attributed to one including: omniscience, omnipotence,
actions demonstrating magical ability, nonconformance with Newtonian physics, a giant turtle with the universe on its back, people living in clouds tampering with
the goings on on mortals,commandments written in stone of impossible provenance sitting on Mount Nebo, burning bushes talking to people, demonstration
of the power to turn mortals to salt if gazed upon, little partly goat partly manchild perverts hopping around playing pipes... That is how the fables identify one.
If you are of the type who, if I present to you an ordinary apple you will not exclude from its characteristics godliness, then again, there is nothing to discuss.

So, upon your assent that a god is defined by the historical endowments such as these, I will produce 5 trillion molecules of evidence that there is no god.
It would be unreasonable and unscientific for you to discard all the evidence. The assertion that there is no god is therefore neither unreasonable nor unscientific.
It is a matter of weighing the physical evidence and probability that one exists. I can not prove there is no god anymore than I can prove there is no an exit 1 mile down the road
until I get there. But if I have traveled 1000 miles down the road and there have been no exit, I don't bet against that streak in the next mile.

Since you are unwilling to have an agreed upon definition of what we are talking about, I must infer you have no idea what your have been talking about.
Why am I not surprised?

Define the evidence that would be required to change your opinion.

**sear** · 10-19-2018, 07:50 AM

"I have no idea of what a god would be like; neither do you; neither does anyone else." FA #452

The religionist defines his own god.

Is Buddhism a religion? History reports Buddha, "the enlightened one" was a real life, flesh and blood human being. No supernatural anything.

Perhaps we can meet half-way in agreeing that the term "god" has rather plastic definitions.

**Micawber** · 10-19-2018, 08:35 AM

Originally Posted by sear

The religionist defines his own god.

Is Buddhism a religion? History reports Buddha, "the enlightened one" was a real life, flesh and blood human being. No supernatural anything.

Perhaps we can meet half-way in agreeing that the term "god" has rather plastic definitions.

Sure a pliable concept that hardens at room temp.

Frank Apisa uses the symbol "gods" and states they are something he can't define, then goes on to assert no proof can be offered as to its existence or not. Well that's very convenient.
Also, I think he was making a more integral claim, that logic itself is constructed to immunize itself from matters of nature and empiricism. They can work together, else logic and philosophy
serve no function. He is making a simplistic binary assertion. Gods, a thing he has no idea about by his own confession,
are As and the natural world is B, and neither can touch the other. On this basis he claims that B cannot prove the existence of A or disprove it. Circular.
I know this is his assertion because he will not admit evidence of lack of A within B is meaningful.
He has chickened out of the debate. He has created a protective wall. That is a wall he has erected, not one that necessarily exists.
If you won't define what you are talking about it's probably not wise to make any assertions, though he has.
It isn't that there is no evidence, it is that he refuses to accept any evidence.

**NiftyNiblick** · 10-19-2018, 09:21 AM

The origin of empty space and sub-atomic particles has not been convincingly identified.
If we're to attribute anything to a god, largely because we can't imagine backwards-infinity,
then these would be that god's likely creations.

Attributing any influence of a god over the protons, electrons, neutrons, and vacuum would be
a much, much harder thing to do.

We have beautiful sunrises over mountain lakes.
We have malignant tumors and debilitating defects in innocent newborns.
That's the beginning of a convincing argument for random confluence.

**Frank Apisa** · 10-19-2018, 10:33 AM

Originally Posted by Guille

Oh God are you guys still on this?

1. I'm pretty sure Hawking understood science and logic a wee bit better than you.
2. Re-read what Hawking said.

If what Hawkin said is "there are no gods" (I SERIOUSLY DOUBT HE EVER SAID THAT)...but if he did, he was just blindly guessing.

**Lightbringer** · 10-19-2018, 10:34 AM

Originally Posted by Frank Apisa

If what Hawkin said is "there are no gods" (I SERIOUSLY DOUBT HE EVER SAID THAT)...but if he did, he was just blindly guessing.

You just read it in this thread.

And his name was Hawking.

**Frank Apisa** · 10-19-2018, 10:34 AM

Originally Posted by sear

Intentionally or not, you're splitting rhetorical hairs.

I agree it would be more technically correct to say there is no verifying evidence of supernatural deity.

But in casual speech, I wouldn't exaggerate the technical semantic infraction.

I am NOT splitting rhetorical hairs.

Anyone asserting "there is a god(s)" or "there are no gods"...is merely sharing a blind guess about the REALITY of existence.

That seems to be a problem with the atheists here.

Tough!

**Lightbringer** · 10-19-2018, 10:36 AM

Originally Posted by Frank Apisa

I am NOT splitting rhetorical hairs.

Anyone asserting "there is a god(s)" or "there are no gods"...is merely sharing a blind guess about the REALITY of existence.

That seems to be a problem with the atheists here.

Tough!

Yes. you are splitting hairs. In fact, you're guilty of far worse than that in this thread.