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

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...

Really? does that look like that is a post enjoying the fact that Hawking is in Hell. Don't believe fine just do it more quietly. I amazes me the amount of time spent by people on something they do not believe exists. The fact is you do know God exists, and would rather live in sin.
 
Cypress said:
Steven Hawking contributed in ways to humanity that no one on this board even comes close to. Including you. Including me.

His contributions to human knowledge, the inspiration he provided to countless people, his charity work on behalf of the disabled, and his service as a role model for the handicapped all did more for humanity that every message board poster here collectively have ever done.

It doesn't surprise me that so-called Christians find fault with him, or are giggling that he is burning in hell.
Click to expand...

Who giggled? It does not please us that he is in Hell. We simply stand for what we believe in, just like you do! I have proof of God, he changed my life.
 
Guille said:
It's too bad he died, I would have liked to hear what he had to say as a follow up. All you can prove is God exists but you can't prove God doesn't exist. I think his follow ups would have been very interesting.
Click to expand...

Indeed.

But if you’re looking for a purely scientific answer from Hawking you’d probably be disappointed: Hawking has to put his philosophers hat on just like the rest of us.

There’s no proving either way on the God question.
 
domer76 said:
“The Bible is the word of God"
"How can you be sure it's the word of God?"
"Because the Bible tells us so"
"Why believe the Bible?
"The Bible is infallible"
"How do you know it's infallible?"...

(Return to top)
Click to expand...

https://carm.org/manuscript-evidence

The New Testament is constantly under attack, and its reliability and accuracy are often contested by critics. If the critics want to disregard the New Testament, then they must also disregard other ancient writings by Plato, Aristotle, and Homer. This is because the New Testament documents are better-preserved and more numerous than any other ancient writings. Because they are so numerous, they can be cross checked for accuracy . . . and they are very consistent.
 
Thing1 said:
Oh, stop.

There is such an arrogance to the whole "if you don't believe as I do, you will spend eternity in hell" thing. Get over it.

I don't believe as he did. He's fine, I'll be fine.
Click to expand...

Has nothing to do with if you believe as I do! I am simply the messenger, as is the Bible.
 
Frank Apisa said:
No.

But calling a blind guess a "belief"...and then demanding that people give your blind guess respect because you call your blind guess a "belief"...sucks.
Click to expand...

Blind Guess? look around you if you do nothing else! Look in the mirror! You ask for respect for your non belief, and disparage those who do believe, incredible. Don't believe more quietly.
 
I thought all this stuff had been dealt with in the middle of the Nineteenth Century, back in Darwin's time. The kind of 'God' described in the Bible, indeed the very notion of such a Force, Person or whatever, seems very hard to reconcile with our current knowledge of the Universe(s). All we can say is that the kind of behaviour recommended by Jesus of Nazareth seems more compatible with the survival of Humanity than capitalism, but you could probably say the same about Gautama Buddha. It doesn't seem sensible to play re-enactment games about Nineteenth Century Theology versus Nineteenth Century Science at this late date though, does it?
 
Wolverine said:
https://carm.org/manuscript-evidence

The New Testament is constantly under attack, and its reliability and accuracy are often contested by critics. If the critics want to disregard the New Testament, then they must also disregard other ancient writings by Plato, Aristotle, and Homer. This is because the New Testament documents are better-preserved and more numerous than any other ancient writings. Because they are so numerous, they can be cross checked for accuracy . . . and they are very consistent.
Click to expand...

It’s called a circular argument. Very popular among thumpers.

I can disregard a virgin birth. I can disregard a person walking on water, bringing back the dead, and a resurrection. I can disregard those children’s stories and still give credibility to Plato and Aristotle
 
Darth Omar said:
Indeed.

But if you’re looking for a purely scientific answer from Hawking you’d probably be disappointed: Hawking has to put his philosophers hat on just like the rest of us.

There’s no proving either way on the God question.
Click to expand...

I'm not saying he was going to have a hard-core scientific reason but I do think he probably made an educated guess instead of just a blind guess.
 
Guille said:
I'm not saying he was going to have a hard-core scientific reason but I do think he probably made an educated guess instead of just a blind guess.
Click to expand...

And insodoing, wonder into the realm of philosophers lol.

Hawking gave a clue in the OP: the ‘simplest’ explanation is there is no God. He fell back on Occam’s Razor. That’s a philosophical tool. Granted, he could appeal to the multiverse hypothesis [and get way over our heads with the math and physics behind it] to get around the implications of a universe with a beginning—but he’s still in the same boat as the rest of when it comes back to the fundamental question of God.
 
Darth Omar said:
And insodoing, wonder into the realm of philosophers lol.

Hawking gave a clue in the OP: the ‘simplest’ explanation is there is no God. He fell back on Occam’s Razor. That’s a philosophical tool. Granted, he could appeal to the multiverse hypothesis [and get way over our heads with the math and physics behind it] to get around the implications of a universe with a beginning—but he’s still in the same boat as the rest of when it comes back to the fundamental question of God.
Click to expand...

I suspect this is close to what he was intending to do after the hook pulled everyone in but unfortunately he didn't make it that far.
 
Guille said:
I suspect this is close to what he was intending to do after the hook pulled everyone in but unfortunately he didn't make it that far.
Click to expand...

Probably.

Problem is the multiverse hypothesis just kicks the philosophical can down the road [the origin of the multiverse is contingent on what?] and it has the annoying side effect of having to believe in something that exists outside of the observable universe.

Which puts one right back at blind faith.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top