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

News flash: Hitler was an extreme left wing SOCIALIST that despised free market capitalism, the successful wealthy. Not to mention his polices mirror today's progressive (wink, wink) left wing social policies in the USA. Hitler attempted to create jobs through the state, infrastructure SHOVEL READY JOBS (sound familiar?), promising state sponsored day care for women who had to go into the work force, STATE CONTROLLED EDUCATION for the children, Nationalized healthcare for all.....(the similarities are scary with today's democrat party), GUN CONTROL, Eugenics...i.e., state sponsored abortion and rejection of those less desirable children,

…………..MY FAVORITE, blaming the 1%ers, the wealthy JEWS for all of Germany's problems, (again, it sends a shiver up my spine just looking at the mirrored history of NAZISM and PROGRESSIVISM today). And now....just like HITLER'S NAZI PARTY, the left in the US is guilty of turning the Federal police forces into weapons to attack and destroy anyone opposed to their ideology. Moles in the FBI, the CIA, the IRS, etc., have been found guilty of abusing their government office power to target political opponents.


Its clear HITLER WAS A PROPONENT OF "BIG GOVERNMENT" and an open enemy of free market capitalism. What is the difference in National Socialism and Socialism? SEMANTICS. A lying dog is a lying dog however one wishes to describe it. You can spray a pile of shit with perfume.....but in the end it just smells like shit with perfume on it. State controlled banking system. (Fanny Mae, Freddie Mac anyone, the progressive FED anyone?)


You can't rewrite history, you can't revise TRUTH. Truth is documented.....propaganda runs from truth.

Hitler was NOT a socialist.

The war movement of Germany was borne by capitalism.

You do not know what you are talking about.

And you support Donald Trump who is acting more like Adolf Hitler with each passing day.
 
Some crazed religions believe that ' god ' views them as ' chosen ' and born to rule. These crazies do not simply comtain their beliefs harmlessly but create mayhem by attempting to manifest their delusions in the physical world.

Did you know that Stephen Hawking was very popular with the Palestinians- almost revered ? He must have been very unpopular with neoZionists and their Evangelical backers.

How Stephen Hawking supported the Palestinian cause

The renowned scientist, who has passed away, will be remembered not only for his work, but his support for Palestine.

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2018/03/stephen-hawking-supported-palestinian-180314085553648.html

sheikh-ahmed-yassin-founder-of-palestinian-paramilitary-organization-picture-id543913784
 
PP #684

Newton didn't secure a patent on gravity. The apocryphal story is about the apple that fell on Newton's head.

The factual scientific contributions Newton made are far more impressive.
 
Still wouldn't be a proof of a god. It is just proof of someone has frogs raining nearby and can make use of seas that happen to have parted. BTW, Moses was not a god.


POst hoc propter hoc fallacy

cpgito ergo sum

Welcome to your new paradox. Are you trying to disprove God or not? Which is it?
res ipsa
Inversion fallacy.
non curat lex
 
Hitler was NOT a socialist.

The war movement of Germany was borne by capitalism.

You do not know what you are talking about.

And you support Donald Trump who is acting more like Adolf Hitler with each passing day.

Trumptards like to conflate the appropriation by a despot of resources to consolidate power with marxism, which is ostensibly doing something similar
but for a far different purpose, to transfer the means of production out of the hands of the ruling class to the people. They don't actually believe it, they just enjoy trolling
fake history to try and take away from the obvious similarities between other infamous despotic rulers use of propaganda, oppression of outgroups, nationalism, fear and their god, Trump.

The similarities between Hitlers political philosophy and Trump is obvious. Trump treats "good white christian people" as a master race.
 
If you understood the proof I've already posted you wouldn't be telling me that. For if you understood the proof I've already posted, you'd then understand I've already told you that.

We stand corrected, for we stand corrected, then we stand corrected. Drink much?
 
M #688
You buyin'?

M,

I could try to 'splain it again.
But perhaps even more constructive for you in your case, an insight from a wise man:

"Every act of conscious learning requires the willingness to suffer an injury to ones self-esteem." "Pride and vanity can thus be greater obstacle to learning than stupidity." psychiatrist Thomas Szasz MD
 
M #688
You buyin'?

M,

I could try to 'splain it again.
But perhaps even more constructive for you in your case, an insight from a wise man:

"Every act of conscious learning requires the willingness to suffer an injury to ones self-esteem." "Pride and vanity can thus be greater obstacle to learning than stupidity." psychiatrist Thomas Szasz MD

You were drunk. Now you are sober? Reread your sentences. LMAO It's OK, everyone should knock one back now and again.
 
Quote Originally Posted by USFREEDOM911 View Post
Where did this "alien lab" come from and how did those "aliens" come into existence??

"Irrelevant. The Theory of Creation does not require an answer to that question." IN #692
Nor does it answer the issue of the original genesis.

If we came from them, where did they come from.

I share your curiosity about our origin, from selfish perspective.

But I'm equally if not more curious about the very first sentience.

You have the right to declare what is relevant to your own interest.

But you have no authority to decree what is relevant to mine / ours.
 
Please note, for the remainder of this post IN #671 takes both sides of the argument.

That's a dismissal, not a logical refutation.
No, it's a logical refutation. Any attempt to prove whether any god or gods exist or not results in an attempt to use negative predicates to prove a positive conclusion. That is not possible.
And not only is my proof here to fore un-assailed. It, unlike some lesser religious approaches, has utility for skeptics, agnostics, and perhaps even atheists.
You gave no proof. You made a circular argument fallacy (fundamentalism).
Excellent.
You're ruled out the primary two, which means you have in mind the third and factually correct explanation. Please share.
I have not ruled out anything. Both the Theory of Creation and the Theory of Abiogenesis are not theories of science. Neither is falsifiable. They cannot be proven True or False. These two theories are, however, mutually exclusive. Only one of them can be True.
If you understood the proof I've already posted you wouldn't be telling me that.
You gave no proof. You made a circular argument fallacy (fundamentalism). A fallacy is not a proof.

A circular argument by itself is not a fallacy. Failing to recognize one, however, IS. The other word for the circular argument is 'faith'. You cannot prove anything by faith alone. That is just as true for the atheist as it is for any theist.
 
Nor does it answer the issue of the original genesis.

If we came from them, where did they come from.

I share your curiosity about our origin, from selfish perspective.

But I'm equally if not more curious about the very first sentience.

You have the right to declare what is relevant to your own interest.

But you have no authority to decree what is relevant to mine / ours.

The Theory of Creation and the Theory of Abiogenesis only state how life came to Earth. Neither theory discusses anything outside of Earth (other than referencing an 'intelligence' in the Theory of Creation). This is not about authority. It is about what either theory states.

The Theory of Creation states that life arrived on Earth through the action of some kind of intelligent act. It does not address where that 'intelligence' might itself have come from. There are other theories concerning that.
 
Nor does it answer the issue of the original genesis.

If we came from them, where did they come from.

There a couple of competing theories about the Universe itself. Again, neither of these theories are theories of science. Science has no theories about past unobserved events since they are not falsifiable.

The most popular theory is the Theory of the Big Bang, which states that the Universe began at some point in time from some single point that began expanding. It does not address the speed of this initial expansion.
The other theory, which is quite old, is the Theory of the Continuum. This theory states that the Universe simply is, always was, and always will be. It has no beginning or end.

Where any god or alien came from as referenced in the Theory of Creation is itself answered by either the Theory of Creation for that case, or the Theory of Abiogenesis for that case. Nothing says either theory is universal in scope.
 
" Any attempt to prove whether any god or gods exist or not results in an attempt to use negative predicates to prove a positive conclusion. That is not possible."

A man walked into the room and used his middle finger to turn the sun off and on, he used his index finger to move it around in the sky.
Only gods can move the sun and turn it off with their finger gestures.
Therefore god exists.

EZ peazy george and weazy. Feel free to reject my premises if you wish, but I proved god exists in logical form.
 
Last edited:
There a couple of competing theories about the Universe itself. Again, neither of these theories are theories of science. Science has no theories about past unobserved events since they are not falsifiable.

The most popular theory is the Theory of the Big Bang, which states that the Universe began at some point in time from some single point that began expanding. It does not address the speed of this initial expansion.
The other theory, which is quite old, is the Theory of the Continuum. This theory states that the Universe simply is, always was, and always will be. It has no beginning or end.

Where any god or alien came from as referenced in the Theory of Creation is itself answered by either the Theory of Creation for that case, or the Theory of Abiogenesis for that case. Nothing says either theory is universal in scope.

False, any theory is a theory of science if it is based upon observation and recording of events. The big bang is based upon cosmic background radiation, expanding mass, redshifting of electromagnetic radiation, mathematics,
and the observed expansion as well as laws of gravity all utilizing computers, long baseline interferometry observing deep space objects that emit radio waves etc etc.. It is science. All the science appears consistent with an initial singularity
of all known matter and energy in the universe. It is a scientific theory, not a hunch, or religion or goofy astral projection of man.
 
Back
Top