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

[Darth Omar]

Whatever.

BOTTOM LINE: Anyone asserting there are no gods...is pushing a blind guess.

Atheists and others who assert there are no gods don't like to face up to that.

But it is so.

And anyone who think that "it is more likely that no gods exist than that at least one does" is more logical or reasonable...than "it is more likely that at least one god exists than that no gods exist"..

...is full of shit.

One cannot get to either of those assertions using reason, logic, math, or science.

Lol Frankie.

Let’s say it’s determined that the DNA molecule isn’t explainable apart from an intelligent agent. Would it then be reasonable or logical to infer the existence of a creator god?

If not, what is Frankie’s standard of evidence before that claim can be made?

[Into the Night]

[QUOTE=Micawber;2667285]

Then by your view, man is still primitive. Most people believe in some sort of god or gods.

Science doesn't address it at all. It does not prove any god or gods do not exist. Science is agnostic. Have you any idea how many scientists are religious?

No, MAN uses religion to wage his wars. He takes the name of God in vain by doing so.

Argument of ignorance. You cannot know they are not real.


Most scientists are not religious. Google that.

Google is not a valid source. It does not track the religion of every scientist.

Since you feel that science requires belief in the religion of atheism, I should point out notable scientists that are theists.

Descarte (Christian). Galileo (Christian). Kepler (Christian). Faraday (Christian). Maxwell (Christian). Heisenberg (Christian). Cumrum Vafa (String theory, Islam). Karim Kerimov (founder of Russian space program, Islam). Schrodinger (Hindu). Oppenheimer (Hindu). Joseph Murray (Invented the transplant procedure, Christian). Rod Davies (cosmic radiation physics, Christian).

[Into the Night]

Wrong. It is indeed a scientific theory.

Big Bang Theory

In astronomy, a theory according to which the universe began billions of years ago in a single event, similar to an explosion. There is evidence for the Big Bang theory in the observed red shift of distant galaxies, which indicates that they are moving away from the Earth, in the existence of cosmic microwave background, and from other data. The Big Bang theory of the origin of the universe is accepted by most astronomers today.

Source


Theory

2. a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural and subject to experimentation, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact.

Source

Dictionaries do not define words. A theory is defined by philosophy and logic. A theory is an explanatory argument. That's all.
A theory of science must be falsifiable. There is no way to test the Theory of the Big Bang. The only possible test for the null hypothesis of that theory is to go back in time to see what actually happened. That test is not available.

Science does not use supporting evidence. It is only interested in conflicting evidence. Only religions use supporting evidence.
Consensus is not used in science. Only religion and politics uses consensus.

[Into the Night]

In fact all my neuroscientist friends some of whom are national academy of science members think being religious is disqualifying.
They know brains, and think you people are stupid. Most scientists are irreligious. Because it's dumb to believe in ghosts.

There ARE Christian neuroscientists. They even have their own forum.

[Darth Omar]

[QUOTE=Into the Night;2668388]

Google is not a valid source. It does not track the religion of every scientist.

Since you feel that science requires belief in the religion of atheism, I should point out notable scientists that are theists.

Descarte (Christian). Galileo (Christian). Kepler (Christian). Faraday (Christian). Maxwell (Christian). Heisenberg (Christian). Cumrum Vafa (String theory, Islam). Karim Kerimov (founder of Russian space program, Islam). Schrodinger (Hindu). Oppenheimer (Hindu). Joseph Murray (Invented the transplant procedure, Christian). Rod Davies (cosmic radiation physics, Christian).

That’s the short list lol.

The atheist-scientist is a relatively recent development in the history of science. It’s probably a reflection of the state of academia [over run with atheists and non-believers] more than anything.

[Frank Apisa]

Lol Frankie.

Let’s say it’s determined that the DNA molecule isn’t explainable apart from an intelligent agent. Would it then be reasonable or logical to infer the existence of a creator god?

No, Darth...it would not be.

First of all...who the fuck is going to determine that the DNA molecule isn't explainable apart from an intelligent agent...EXCEPT FOR SOMEONE DETERMINED TO ASSERT THAT AN INTELLIGENT AGENT HAS TO EXIST.

No one with a brain...and any sense of reason or logic would do it. No one free from the absolute certainty that "an intelligent agent" MUST EXIST IN ORDER FOR WHAT IS...TO BE.

The proper "inference"...the one a sane, intelligent individual would make, Darath, is that we do not know the exact genesis of the dna molecule...and we do not know if we will ever know. It may be the result of "natural forces" we do not even suspect exist yet...or it may be the result of a god of some sort.

Wake the hell up.

If not, what is Frankie’s standard of evidence before that claim can be made?

What claim?

If the claim is, "A god exists"...there will never be a time that is appropriate unless the "god" is the kind of god that wants its existence known...and makes it known in an unambiguous way.

Wake the fuck up.

[Into the Night]

There is no God. An individual who believes in a God that actively intervenes in earthly events, keeps an eye on him personally, and listens and responds to his prayers is mistaken. He doesn’t understand basic facts about the world and the provenance of the phone from which he sends text messages, the car that he drives, the antibiotic that cures his bronchitis and the electricity that brightens in his home.

ALL of these inventions are only possible because of physicists and engineers who are Christians. This is just ingratitude.

Belief in such a God is such an ignorant mistake that there’s something mentally disturbed about it. There’s no dispute at all over whether such a God who created the universe exists. There’s no need to assume his existence in order to explain the world, and there’s no objective evidence of his existence.

Circular argument fallacy (fundamentalism). Argument of the Stone. Psychoquackery. The Theory of Creation exists, just as the Theory of Abiogenesis exists. The Theory of the Big Bang exists, just as the Theory of the Continuum exists. NONE of them are theories of science.

We also have to confront orthodox religion with conviction and determination, without the political correctness that emerges from Avineri’s approach. Why should anyone fake hypocritical tolerance and empathy toward a religion that in its essence is against tolerance?

Sounds like the intolerant one is YOU. Inversion fallacy.

We have to speak the truth and stop trying to curry favor. There is no God and belief in him is stupidity.

So anyone not believing your religion is 'stupid'. Riiight.

[Darth Omar]

No, Darth...it would not be.

First of all...who the fuck is going to determine that the DNA molecule isn't explainable apart from an intelligent agent...EXCEPT FOR SOMEONE DETERMINED TO ASSERT THAT AN INTELLIGENT AGENT HAS TO EXIST.

No one with a brain...and any sense of reason or logic would do it. No one free from the absolute certainty that "an intelligent agent" MUST EXIST IN ORDER FOR WHAT IS...TO BE.

The proper "inference"...the one a sane, intelligent individual would make, Darath, is that we do not know the exact genesis of the dna molecule...and we do not know if we will ever know. It may be the result of "natural forces" we do not even suspect exist yet...or it may be the result of a god of some sort.

Wake the hell up.



What claim?

If the claim is, "A god exists"...there will never be a time that is appropriate unless the "god" is the kind of god that wants its existence known...and makes it known in an unambiguous way.

Wake the fuck up.

That’s what I’m trying to get at lol.

If God made himself known in an unambiguous way, how do we know you wouldn’t attribute it to some unknown natural phenomenon?

[Into the Night]

If you are saying that there is any evidence that no gods exist...

...produce it.

There is none.

I have already provided you a list of supporting evidence that no god or gods exist, including:

* life itself
* seeming conflicts in the Bible
* fossils
* age of the Sun and the Earth
* observations supporting the Theory of the Big Bang.
* observations supporting the Theory of Evolution.

NONE of these are a proof.

There is also evidence a god or gods exist:
* life itself
* the Bible, the Book of the Dead, the Koran, etc.
* fossils
* the Sun
* the Earth
* the stars that we can see
* the structure required for life to exist

Again, NONE of these are a proof.

Simply saying there is no evidence is wrong. Remember, evidence is not a proof.

[Frank Apisa]

That’s what I’m trying to get at lol.

If God made himself known in an unambiguous way, how do we know you wouldn’t attribute it to some unknown natural phenomenon?

If there is GOD...and the GOD wanted to make itself known in an unambiguous way...

...considering the GOD managed to make Sol, the Earth, its companion planets, the other 200+ billion stars in our galaxy...and the hundreds of billions of other galaxies...and strewed them through space so vast it takes light BILLIONS of years to traverse it...

...I am sure the GOD could do it in a way that would be unambiguous to me.

In any case...if there is a GOD...and if the god did do that...

...THAT WOULD BE A NATURAL PHENOMENON.

Anything that exists...including gods...are a part of what IS.

EVERYTHING is a part of the nature of existence.

Fuck.

How many times does that point have to be made?

As for that "unambiguous" thingy...hell, I'd accept a lot less than many would.

If, for instance, an announcement were made that a "god" was going to remove the planet Jupiter from our solar system at 8:00 pm on March 28, 2019...and return it to its place on March 28, 2020...

...and it fucking happened...

...that would be more than enough for me.

I would not be arguing the finer points of vastly superior beings from the planet Mork possibly having done it or anything like that.

[Frank Apisa]

I have already provided you a list of supporting evidence that no god or gods exist, including:

* life itself
* seeming conflicts in the Bible
* fossils
* age of the Sun and the Earth
* observations supporting the Theory of the Big Bang.
* observations supporting the Theory of Evolution.

NONE of these are a proof.

There is also evidence a god or gods exist:
* life itself
* the Bible, the Book of the Dead, the Koran, etc.
* fossils
* the Sun
* the Earth
* the stars that we can see
* the structure required for life to exist

Again, NONE of these are a proof.

Simply saying there is no evidence is wrong. Remember, evidence is not a proof.

None of those things are evidence that no gods exist...or that gods do exist.

Are you delusional?

[Into the Night]

One CAN prove a negative. The statement "you cannot prove a negative" is incorrect.

It is not possible to prove a negative. Attempting to do so is a formal fallacy in logic. You are probably confusing a conclusion of False with a negative proof.

Nothing wrong with anyone blindly guessing that there are gods. But attempting to prove there are gods is doomed to failure. It cannot be done. (If there is a god and if the god wants to "reveal" itself in an unambiguous way, it should be able to do so. But no human can prove that a god exists.)

Nothing wrong with anyone blindly guessing that there are no gods. But attempting to prove there are no gods IS IMPOSSIBLE. And supposing that guessing there are no gods is somehow superior or more logical than guessing there is a GOD...is laughable.

This part is correct.

[Into the Night]

So-called "non-belief"...IS ITSELF A "BELIEF."

Yup.

[Into the Night]

I have three scopes...two refractors and one reflector. The reflector is the most powerful.

For me...Saturn is the most beautiful planet...although I never tire of looking at the moon.

I use binoculars rather than a telescope to look at the Andromeda galaxy. Just seems to be easier to see.

Here in the Pacific Northwest astronomers are a frustrated bunch. It's cloudy most of the time!

[Into the Night]

There’s good evidence for the BB.

Yes there is. There is also good evidence for the Theory of the Continuum (that the Universe never had a beginning and cannot have an end). The Theory of the Big Bang and the Theory of the Continuum are mutually exclusive. They can't both be True. Neither is a theory of science. Evidence is not a proof.

Nonsense about faith being detached from reason and logic.

Faith is in philosophy too. It is part of reason. It takes faith to build an argument and the reasoning behind it. It takes faith to create a new theory and determine if its falsifiable, and construct the tests necessary to test the null hypothesis. Faith is everywhere.