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

[Ross Dolan]

At the moment He does fit all the criteria for being a myth.

With a capital "H?"

Are you kidding?

What is going on here?

 

[Darth Omar]

You clueless morons keep saying there is no evidence for the existence of God. There is plenty of evidence. You simply dismiss it. Perhaps that's why you're a moron.

The best evidence for God is design in nature.

An intelligent designer that’s responsible for DNA [for example] may be a step removed from ‘naming names’, as it were, but the best candidate is the God atheists—like Richard Dawkins, spend most of their energy trying to disprove lol.

But a deism sort of creator can’t be ruled out. But you’re right, they will go to any length to dismiss it.

 

[Rob Larrikin]

You are a retard. I can very easily state I cannot disprove the existence of God in magic land. I can also assert for the tenth time
I can disprove his existence in the natural world. That you think your candyland faith has equal persuasive heft as rational and scientific
belief makes you and idiot. Sorry. You are an idiot. Or delusional. Your pick.

You are the recalcitrant one, I gave up the farm you wanted, but you won't take that yes for an answer.
Your puny little inferior ego demands that you get me to say that I think theism is on equal intellectual footing.
As a more intelligent mammal than you, with a higher moral compass and need for honesty I cannot supply you with your
fraud reinforcement. Sorry.

Something beats nothing ten throws out of ten.

He is the quintessential troll, and will take that as a compliment, along with all your criticisms, because he’s amazed anyone is talking to him at all.

 

[Rob Larrikin]

If we only knew what would comprise evidence of God lol.

If you are God you should be able to read my mind, right? Tell me what memory I'm recalling from my youth? That'll do. I don't require you to move mountains.

 

[Rob Larrikin]

You clueless morons keep saying there is no evidence for the existence of God. There is plenty of evidence. You simply dismiss it. Perhaps that's why you're a moron.

It's easy to say there's evidence. The hard part is producing it.

 

[Micawber]

Grugore, it is exactly the opposite. If you believe in a creator YOU do not believe in cause and effect, because you just carved out an exception for your first cause.
It must be the effect of something else. The only solution that maintains the principle of cause and effect backward in perpetuity is the idea of infinity. No first cause.

 

[Rob Larrikin]

How do you explain the universe without a Creator? It didn't create itself. Nothing physical can create itself. It's a scientific fact. It violates the law of causality. So. Tell us how we can have a universe without a Creator.

Where does a circle start?

 

[Rob Larrikin]

With a capital "H?"

Are you kidding?

When you battle someone you can still be polite. All the best warriors remember that.

 

[Micawber]

Most of the so-called proofs of the existence of gods...are pure bullshit. The rest are just...well...bull shit.

BUT...IF THERE IS A GOD...AND IF THE GOD IS A CREATOR GOD...then EVERYTHING...is evidence of the god.

So what?

There is no way to show that there is a GOD...and there is no way to show that everything or anything is evidence of gods.

The assertion "There is a GOD" IS NOTHING BUT A BLIND GUESS. It is an assertion that ought not even to be made.

The same thing, though, is true of the assertion "There are no gods." It is a meaningless assertion...at best, a blind guess. It also is an assertion that ought not even to be made.



I agree. NONE WHATSOEVER. NIL. ZIP. ZERO.

The assertion "There is a GOD" is a joke...nothing but a blind guess gone amok.





We fucking agree. There is no evidence whatsoever that there are any gods.

The assertion "There is a GOD" makes no sense whatsoever. It is, at very best, a blind guess. At worst, a willful calumny used to enslave people.

So...with that out of the way...

...the assertion "There are no gods"...is at best, a blind guess gone amok.

There is absolutely no proof whatsoever that no gods exist in the REALITY of existence. \

NONE, ZERO, ZIP, NIL.

Neither of those assertions ought ever to be made.




It is, indeed, idiotic for either of those assertions to be made.

The idea of reality is an assertion that ought be made because it it supported by evidence.
The idea of an unnatural for lack of a better word, alterverse is an assertion that ought never be made because there is no evidence.
As to things we do not yet know all evidence heretofore is that it is natural.
I find god a silly nothing, and a natural universe sans god fully supported. They are not on equal footing.
Only empiricism matters. Even superstring theory passes the smell test. It is mathematically supported.
A magical explanation or existence or god is a non starter, an unfathomable delusion from the get go.

I very much doubt you are agnostic, by the way. You are a theist, am I correct with this speculation? Yes or no.
You needn't balance like an Adonis on razor wire between atheism and theism. Just admit it. You are trying to give aid and succor to suckers, right?

 

[Rob Larrikin]

The best evidence for God is design in nature.

An intelligent designer that’s responsible for DNA [for example] may be a step removed from ‘naming names’, as it were, but the best candidate is the God atheists—like Richard Dawkins, spend most of their energy trying to disprove lol.

But a deism sort of creator can’t be ruled out. But you’re right, they will go to any length to dismiss it.

It is possible that an intelligent life form created our universe. Let’s say it was a scientist in a much larger world. That wouldn’t make Him God necessarily. He might just be a very large scientist in a vast unknown cosmos. You would still need to provide evidence of a God who created the very large scientist.

A fantasy world is a fantasy world. What defines it is that it is made up. It’s okay to make up a realm or a God to believe in if that is what you wish to do and it makes you happy.

The problem comes when you tell others that it is real and that it is worth killing for. Then we will demand evidence.

 

[Darth Omar]

Grugore, it is exactly the opposite. If you believe in a creator YOU do not believe in cause and effect, because you just carved out an exception for your first cause.
It must be the effect of something else. The only solution that maintains the principle of cause and effect backward in perpetuity is the idea of infinity. No first cause.

Not necessarily.

Cause and effect may be limited to the universe in the same sense space and time are. Also, by exempting the universe from requiring a cause you are, ironically, assigning to it an attribute shared by God.

God requires no cause.

 

[Darth Omar]

It is possible that an intelligent life form created our universe. Let’s say it was a scientist in a much larger world. That wouldn’t make Him God necessarily. He might just be a very large scientist in a vast unknown cosmos. You would still need to provide evidence of a God who created the very large scientist.

A fantasy world is a fantasy world. What defines it is that it is made up. It’s okay to make up a realm or a God to believe in if that is what you wish to do and it makes you happy.

The problem comes when you tell others that it is real and that it is worth killing for. Then we will demand evidence.

Right, a designer could be a super intelligent alien—except when it’s comes to cosmology. It’s in explicable that an alien would create a universe that it’s an apparent product of. Makes zero sense.

But theists have no reason feel threatened by the current state of scientific knowledge. Just the opposite, in fact.

 

[Ross Dolan]

The idea of reality is an assertion that ought be made because it it supported by evidence.
The idea of an unnatural for lack of a better word, alterverse is an assertion that ought never be made because there is no evidence.
As to things we do not yet know all evidence heretofore is that it is natural.
I find god a silly nothing, and a natural universe sans god fully supported. They are not on equal footing.
Only empiricism matters. Even superstring theory passes the smell test. It is mathematically supported.
A magical explanation or existence or god is a non starter, an unfathomable delusion from the get go.

If you want to think the notions of gods are silly...fine with me. Some of the gods are silly to me also...especially the god of the Bible. So I have no problem with you on that account.

If, however, you assert that there are no gods...I am going to call your attention to the fact that you are blindly guessing on that.

I very much doubt you are agnostic, by the way. You are a theist, am I correct with this speculation? Yes or no.

ABSOLUTELY NO TO THE QUESTION AND SPECULATION.

(Was that firm enough for you?)

I'm not into labels, although I often use "agnostic" as a short cut to my position.

Here it is again:

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.

You needn't balance like an Adonis on razor wire between atheism and theism.

I would not be a theist or an atheist if a gun were held to my head.

Both are pretensions...and both are home to some of the most hard-headed knuckle heads ever.

Just admit it. You are trying to give aid and succor to suckers, right?

No. I am doing exactly what I have said I am doing...consistently throughout this conversation.

I am calling attention to the fact that both "there is a GOD" and "there are no gods"...are assertions that are merely blind guesses about what does or does not exist in the REALITY of existence.

 

[Rob Larrikin]

Right, a designer could be a super intelligent alien—except when it’s comes to cosmology. It’s in explicable that an alien would create a universe that it’s an apparent product of. Makes zero sense.

The alien could be making universes as a matter of course, according to some other activity. Simply put, he might make some soup for lunch, and our world would be in one of the molecules in his soup. The time it took him to have his soup is the time it would take us to evolve, travel the universe, and escape to other universes, hopefully before we end up in his stomach. You wouldn’t call him God, right? He’d just be some fat guy in another world. The same would apply even if he turned out to be a scientist who somehow did create us using his fantastic technology. He’d still be some fat slob in another world, not a ‘God’ per se. On the other hand, if an African tribe would call us Gods for flying a plane past them, perhaps the fat guy who made us should be called God.

Regardless, until there is hard evidence that any God exists, a logic-fearing scientist will not “believe” in one.

 

[Ross Dolan]

He is the quintessential troll, and will take that as a compliment, along with all your criticisms, because he’s amazed anyone is talking to him at all.

I missed this.

You are a punk, Rob.

You've got the right avatar, though.

A jerk-off of cosmic proportions.

 

[Micawber]

I am calling attention to the fact that both "there is a GOD" and "there are no gods"...are assertions that are merely blind guesses about what does or does not exist in the REALITY of existence.

In so doing you dignify equally that which is apparent to the senses, measured and scientifically evaluated with that which is made up and hallucinated and never credibly perceived by the senses of sane humans or any instruments the
most intelligent humans standing on the shoulders of giants ever used to aid in perception. That's my problem with you.

Here is what you are doing more or less.

Rationality may be true.
Fantasy may be true.
Therefore they are of equal logical verity.

Hey I can do it too.

Which of the following is true and real:

a platonic form horse
the dog sitting on your hearth
a rat with a 25 foot dick flying over the moon
all of the above

You are an all of the above guy.

I put more weight on the dog answer. What you are doing is pure sophistry and you do a disservice to rationality.
Stop giving retards the warm fuzzy.

 

[Cancel 2020.1]

Not necessarily.

Cause and effect may be limited to the universe in the same sense space and time are. Also, by exempting the universe from requiring a cause you are, ironically, assigning to it an attribute shared by God.

God requires no cause.

I believe in god - but I don't think you can just get away w/ that last part. Why not?

Can't we say that the universe required no cause?

 

[Darth Omar]

I believe in god - but I don't think you can just get away w/ that last part. Why not?

Can't we say that the universe required no cause?

You can, but that means assigning an attribute of God [causeless, eternal being] to creation.

That, and if you want to go with current knowledge the universe had a beginning and is probably finite. Some say it’s cyclical with periods of expansion and contraction but that still begs the question of First Cause.

 

[Cancel 2020.1]

You can, but that means assigning an attribute of God [causeless, eternal being] to creation.

That, and if you want to go with current knowledge the universe had a beginning and is probably finite. Some say it’s cyclical with periods of expansion and contraction but that still begs the question of First Cause.

To me, it's too much of an escape clause. The whole "god just always was - we don't need a cause" thing. That MAY be, but there has to be some sort of logic to it. We can't demand explanation for the universe, and then immediately abandon it when it comes to god.

 

[Into the Night]

Yep thousands of years ago primitive people explained events by some outside source they called a god.

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

They did not have the scientific knowledge or vocabulary to understand it. Now we do.Science has burned all those bridges to religion.

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?

Good, because religion makes man stupider and it is dangerous resulting in wars and abuse of non believers. been pretty cruel to believers too.

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

It is true there can be no proof shown for a fictional being. I cannot show you absolute solid proof that there is no Sanata Claus. Not even an Easter Bunny, but we know they are not real.

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

Neither is god.

You believe, simply supply proof and we will all believe.

None needed.

If god existed he would have made a worldwide announcement saying so.

He already has, quite a few times.

it would stop all the thousands of religions and end religious wars and abuse.

No, it wouldn't. That is evident.

Seems like something a god would do. But thousands of years later, nope. Silence. That is the sound of no god.

You haven't been paying attention then!