S. Hawking's Final Book: There is NO God.

[Veritas Aequitas]

London (CNN)There is no God -- that's the conclusion of the celebrated physicist Stephen Hawking, whose final book is published Tuesday.

The book, which was completed by his family after his death, presents answers to the questions that Hawking said he received most during his time on Earth.

...
"There is no God. No one directs the universe," he writes in "Brief Answers to the Big Questions."
"For centuries, it was believed that disabled people like me were living under a curse that was inflicted by God," he adds. "I prefer to think that everything can be explained another way, by the laws of nature."

https://edition.cnn.com/2018/10/16/heal ... index.html

Re Kant's argument, the 'laws of nature' are imposed upon ourselves by our own selves together with the collective of selves past and present.

Views?

[Age]

Did hawking define what this thing called 'God' is?

Prior to any real consensus on what THE 'thing' itself actually is, is there any real point in trying to affirm that there is NO 'such thing', a God? (This also applies to trying to affirm there IS such 'a thing', a God.

NO one has a clue what hawking is referring to when, and if, hawking said, "There is NO God".

Veritas aequitas, you want to keep insisting that there is NO God. So, what exactly is this thing called God, which you believe wholeheartedly does NOT exist?

[vegetariantaxidermy]

Did hawking define what this thing called 'God' is?

Prior to any real consensus on what THE 'thing' itself actually is, is there any real point in trying to affirm that there is NO 'such thing', a God? (This also applies to trying to affirm there IS such 'a thing', a God.

NO one has a clue what hawking is referring to when, and if, hawking said, "There is NO God".

Veritas aequitas, you want to keep insisting that there is NO God. So, what exactly is this thing called God, which you believe wholeheartedly does NOT exist?

Shouldn't you be defining it since you are the one who apparently believes in it? If you won't define it then everyone else can only assume it's that rather unlikeable character in the bible who's always smiting and smoting people.

If Hawking meant 'nature' I am sure he would have said 'nature'. And if 'God' is 'nature' by your definition then why not just call it 'nature'? Surely there has to be some kind of consensus on what this 'God' thing is that people are always banging on about and saying they 'believe' in? Are you saying they all believe in something but none of them know what that something is?
I always find it hilarious when religios expect atheists to define God as if that's somehow a brilliant counter-argument to .....what?....
I think we can all agree that 'God', no matter how you 'define' it/him/GBT etc. etc. is something supernatural--otherwise there's not much point to it is there?

[Age]

Did hawking define what this thing called 'God' is?

Prior to any real consensus on what THE 'thing' itself actually is, is there any real point in trying to affirm that there is NO 'such thing', a God? (This also applies to trying to affirm there IS such 'a thing', a God.

NO one has a clue what hawking is referring to when, and if, hawking said, "There is NO God".

Veritas aequitas, you want to keep insisting that there is NO God. So, what exactly is this thing called God, which you believe wholeheartedly does NOT exist?

Shouldn't you be defining it since you are the one who apparently believes in it?

Can you provide what quote I said that led you to the conclusion that I believe in God? And, if in that quote it states that I believe in God, then I will define God. Otherwise you might have just misinterpreted what I actually wrote, AND meant.

If you won't define it then everyone else can only assume it's that rather unlikeable character in the bible who's always smiting and smoting people.

If he meant 'nature' I am sure he would have said 'nature'.

If you believe God is a he, then why?

Have you not yet noticed how human beings can and do misinterpret things, and then pass on that wrongly interpreted knowledge?

Did the word 'nature' actually exist when the bible was written? And, if it did, then did the word 'nature' mean what it means now?

Why do you believe that God in the bible is a "character", and why do you believe that that "character" was always smiting and smoting people?

Remember, can human beings make mistakes and misinterpret things, and in doing so cause more confusion in others?

[Veritas Aequitas]

Did hawking define what this thing called 'God' is?

Prior to any real consensus on what THE 'thing' itself actually is, is there any real point in trying to affirm that there is NO 'such thing', a God? (This also applies to trying to affirm there IS such 'a thing', a God.

NO one has a clue what hawking is referring to when, and if, hawking said, "There is NO God".

Veritas aequitas, you want to keep insisting that there is NO God. So, what exactly is this thing called God, which you believe wholeheartedly does NOT exist?

I believe Hawking's and my understanding [not agree with] the general definition is represented here;
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God

The ultimate God is 'The Absolute' along the following higher and more sophisticated definitions of God. [=mine]

St. Anselm's approach was to define God as, "that than which nothing greater can be conceived". [the Ontological God].

Famed pantheist philosopher Baruch Spinoza would later carry this idea to its extreme: "By God I understand a being absolutely infinite, i.e., a substance consisting of infinite attributes, of which each one expresses an eternal and infinite essence." ... His proof for the existence of God was a variation of the Ontological argument.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God

[Age]

Did hawking define what this thing called 'God' is?

Prior to any real consensus on what THE 'thing' itself actually is, is there any real point in trying to affirm that there is NO 'such thing', a God? (This also applies to trying to affirm there IS such 'a thing', a God.

NO one has a clue what hawking is referring to when, and if, hawking said, "There is NO God".

Veritas aequitas, you want to keep insisting that there is NO God. So, what exactly is this thing called God, which you believe wholeheartedly does NOT exist?

I believe Hawking's and my understanding [not agree with] the general definition is represented here;
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God

Why do you believe hawking's understanding of what the definition of God is is the same as what is written in wikipedia? Do you have some incredible insight into what hawking was actually thinking?

The ultimate God is 'The Absolute' along the following higher and more sophisticated definitions of God. [=mine]

How can there be God, and then be an ultimate God?

St. Anselm's approach was to define God as, "that than which nothing greater can be conceived". [the Ontological God].

Famed pantheist philosopher Baruch Spinoza would later carry this idea to its extreme: "By God I understand a being absolutely infinite, i.e., a substance consisting of infinite attributes, of which each one expresses an eternal and infinite essence." ... His proof for the existence of God was a variation of the Ontological argument.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God

You say God is an impossibility. I would suggest to you that if you believe some thing is impossible that you would then have at least some idea of what the definition is for that thing, which you say is an impossibility.

Are you at all able to just write in your own words what the definition of God is?

If we are going to go on giving links of how other people define God, then we could, at this rate, literally go on for as long as human beings exist for.

[TimeSeeker]

Did hawking define what this thing called 'God' is?

Prior to any real consensus on what THE 'thing' itself actually is, is there any real point in trying to affirm that there is NO 'such thing', a God? (This also applies to trying to affirm there IS such 'a thing', a God.

NO one has a clue what hawking is referring to when, and if, hawking said, "There is NO God".

Veritas aequitas, you want to keep insisting that there is NO God. So, what exactly is this thing called God, which you believe wholeheartedly does NOT exist?

Shouldn't you be defining it since you are the one who apparently believes in it? If you won't define it then everyone else can only assume it's that rather unlikeable character in the bible who's always smiting and smoting people.

If Hawking meant 'nature' I am sure he would have said 'nature'. And if 'God' is 'nature' by your definition then why not just call it 'nature'? Surely there has to be some kind of consensus on what this 'God' thing is that people are always banging on about and saying they 'believe' in? Are you saying they all believe in something but none of them know what that something is?
I always find it hilarious when religios expect atheists to define God as if that's somehow a brilliant counter-argument to .....what?....
I think we can all agree that 'God', no matter how you 'define' it/him/GBT etc. etc. is something supernatural--otherwise there's not much point to it is there?

No. I shouldn’t be defining it.

My beliefs are useful to me as determined by me. Just as the word ‘nature’ was useful to the the first person who came up with that word.

Why would they need to define it?

[TimeSeeker]

Did hawking define what this thing called 'God' is?

Prior to any real consensus on what THE 'thing' itself actually is, is there any real point in trying to affirm that there is NO 'such thing', a God? (This also applies to trying to affirm there IS such 'a thing', a God.

NO one has a clue what hawking is referring to when, and if, hawking said, "There is NO God".

Veritas aequitas, you want to keep insisting that there is NO God. So, what exactly is this thing called God, which you believe wholeheartedly does NOT exist?

Pretty much this a billion times.

The scientific method demands TESTABILITY and FALSIFIABILITY in that exact order. Before you can TEST for something, first you need to figure out what you are TESTING FOR.

In the language of Mathematics, first you need a conjecture, before you can try to prove OR disprove it. I've seen no God conjecture.

In constructivie logic proof-by-contradiction ONLY applies to NEGATIVE claims. e.g if you start with a statement 'Suppose that God does NOT exist' and that leads to a contradiction THEN you can say 'the assumption was false, therefore God exists!'
That is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double-ne ... ranslation

The opposite approach is NOT valid.

Which is why Aristotelian/Classical logic has no place in any serious debate in 2018! It's just another stupid religion! Lets kill the law of excluded middle already - it is harmful to rational thought!

Hawking is wrong.

[TimeSeeker]

Did hawking define what this thing called 'God' is?

Prior to any real consensus on what THE 'thing' itself actually is, is there any real point in trying to affirm that there is NO 'such thing', a God? (This also applies to trying to affirm there IS such 'a thing', a God.

NO one has a clue what hawking is referring to when, and if, hawking said, "There is NO God".

Veritas aequitas, you want to keep insisting that there is NO God. So, what exactly is this thing called God, which you believe wholeheartedly does NOT exist?

I believe Hawking's and my understanding [not agree with] the general definition is represented here;
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God

The ultimate God is 'The Absolute' along the following higher and more sophisticated definitions of God. [=mine]

St. Anselm's approach was to define God as, "that than which nothing greater can be conceived". [the Ontological God].

Famed pantheist philosopher Baruch Spinoza would later carry this idea to its extreme: "By God I understand a being absolutely infinite, i.e., a substance consisting of infinite attributes, of which each one expresses an eternal and infinite essence." ... His proof for the existence of God was a variation of the Ontological argument.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God

So by Anslem’s argument then God is this thing we call The Universe?

So let’s take an atheistic (antagonisric?) point of view and ask: Do you believe the universe exists? Do you believe in the universe?

Ooooh! You do?

Do you have any evidence to justify this belief?

[TimeSeeker]

I think we can all agree that 'God' is something supernatural--otherwise there's not much point to it is there?

I don't even know how to parse this sentence.

Can you define the word 'supernatural' or give me an example? Because the way I understand THAT word is that it is unmeasurable/undetectable in our universe. And so there is not much point discussing THAT kind of thing, is there?

[Age]

Did hawking define what this thing called 'God' is?

Prior to any real consensus on what THE 'thing' itself actually is, is there any real point in trying to affirm that there is NO 'such thing', a God? (This also applies to trying to affirm there IS such 'a thing', a God.

NO one has a clue what hawking is referring to when, and if, hawking said, "There is NO God".

Veritas aequitas, you want to keep insisting that there is NO God. So, what exactly is this thing called God, which you believe wholeheartedly does NOT exist?

Shouldn't you be defining it since you are the one who apparently believes in it? If you won't define it then everyone else can only assume it's that rather unlikeable character in the bible who's always smiting and smoting people.

If Hawking meant 'nature' I am sure he would have said 'nature'. And if 'God' is 'nature' by your definition then why not just call it 'nature'?

Have I said 'God' is 'nature' previously for you to make an assumption like this?

Surely there has to be some kind of consensus on what this 'God' thing is that people are always banging on about and saying they 'believe' in?

If there surely has to be some kind of consensus, then what is that consensus?

Are you saying they all believe in something but none of them know what that something is?

I have not said that, but that is just about right.

Human beings can be the most stupid creature on the planet. They, at times, believe in things that they have absolutely no evidence for support. They also, at times, believe in things that are completely and utterly false, untrue, and incorrect. Just maybe you, yourself, have believed in things from time to time, that you do not know what that thing is?

Have you ever believed in something that you do not know what that something is?

If you are going to answer this question, then be very careful with your answer. I can already see the outcome.

I always find it hilarious when religios expect atheists to define God as if that's somehow a brilliant counter-argument to .....what?....

Do you believe that i am in any way, shape or form religious, in the sense that you are proposing here? If so, then please explain WHY you believe this to be so.

In case you missed it, I also asked, Prior to any real consensus on what THE 'thing' itself actually is, is there any real point in trying to affirm there IS such 'a thing', a God, ALSO. I think that would have been enough evidence for most people that I am NOT religious, in the sense that I believe a God exists from the perspective of how you see what God is.

I have NEVER expect either side, of the most ridiculous debate in history, to define God. I have alluded to the fact that prior to any real consensus on what 'God' IS, BY ALL PEOPLE, what is the actual point of discussing if God exists or not.

Find out what God actually IS first, then you will KNOW, for sure, if It exists or not.

I find it extremely humorous how people on either side of this most stupid of human debates actually BELIEVE that I am on the other side of what they are. Either side can and do this, equally. Talk about being truly blinded by their own beliefs.

I will state it once, and for ALL; I do NOT take sides. I do NOT see nor have a side to take on this matter. There is NO side to truth.

I think we can all agree that 'God', no matter how you 'define' it/him/GBT etc. etc. is something supernatural--otherwise there's not much point to it is there?

Well you thought WRONG. I, for one, certainly do NOT agree that 'God' is supernatural. By definition 'supernatural' could NOT even exist. Now that is what is an impossibility.

Why do you believe that if God is not supernatural then there is not much point to it?

[TimeSeeker]

Human beings can be the most stupid creature on the planet. They, at times, believe in things that they have absolutely no evidence for support.

We are also the smartest creatures on the planet. And some times we need to give our epistemic uncertainty labels. So that we can talk about it.

So we have words like 'entropy', 'chaos', ' randomness', 'luck' and 'chance' to speak ABOUT gaps in our knowledge/understanding...

The very fact we give it a name is a good sign! It means we recognize our own ignorance!

[Age]

Human beings can be the most stupid creature on the planet. They, at times, believe in things that they have absolutely no evidence for support.

We are also the smartest creatures on the planet. And some times we need to give our epistemic uncertainty labels. So that we can talk about it.

So we have words like 'entropy', 'chaos', ' randomness', 'luck' and 'chance' to speak ABOUT gaps in our knowledge/understanding...

The very fact we give it a name is a good sign! It means we recognize our own ignorance!

Recognizing, and, accepting and admitting can be two very distinct things. Obviously human beings are the smartest creatures on this planet, that goes without saying. Most human beings, over a certain age, would wholeheartedly agree with you without question on that. But how many think about, accept and will admit that they are part of, and thus they are, the actual ones who also are the most stupid creature on this planet?

Recognizing one's own ignorance is one thing. How many people, especially in a philosophy forum, are even able to admit their own ignorance? The reason most people are here, in this forum, is to show that they are not ignorant of things and to the contrary that they KNOW things.

People also very easily complicate things and can create gaps in knowledge/understanding, which is truly unnecessary. The only reason adults complicate things and make gaps is because of the way they look at things. There are NO gaps in knowledge/understanding. As I suggested earlier, human beings can believe in things that they have absolutely no evidence to support.

[vegetariantaxidermy]

Did hawking define what this thing called 'God' is?

Prior to any real consensus on what THE 'thing' itself actually is, is there any real point in trying to affirm that there is NO 'such thing', a God? (This also applies to trying to affirm there IS such 'a thing', a God.

NO one has a clue what hawking is referring to when, and if, hawking said, "There is NO God".

Veritas aequitas, you want to keep insisting that there is NO God. So, what exactly is this thing called God, which you believe wholeheartedly does NOT exist?

Shouldn't you be defining it since you are the one who apparently believes in it? If you won't define it then everyone else can only assume it's that rather unlikeable character in the bible who's always smiting and smoting people.

If Hawking meant 'nature' I am sure he would have said 'nature'. And if 'God' is 'nature' by your definition then why not just call it 'nature'?

Have I said 'God' is 'nature' previously for you to make an assumption like this?

Surely there has to be some kind of consensus on what this 'God' thing is that people are always banging on about and saying they 'believe' in?

If there surely has to be some kind of consensus, then what is that consensus?

Are you saying they all believe in something but none of them know what that something is?

I have not said that, but that is just about right.

Human beings can be the most stupid creature on the planet. They, at times, believe in things that they have absolutely no evidence for support. They also, at times, believe in things that are completely and utterly false, untrue, and incorrect. Just maybe you, yourself, have believed in things from time to time, that you do not know what that thing is?

Have you ever believed in something that you do not know what that something is?

If you are going to answer this question, then be very careful with your answer. I can already see the outcome.

I always find it hilarious when religios expect atheists to define God as if that's somehow a brilliant counter-argument to .....what?....

Do you believe that i am in any way, shape or form religious, in the sense that you are proposing here? If so, then please explain WHY you believe this to be so.

In case you missed it, I also asked, Prior to any real consensus on what THE 'thing' itself actually is, is there any real point in trying to affirm there IS such 'a thing', a God, ALSO. I think that would have been enough evidence for most people that I am NOT religious, in the sense that I believe a God exists from the perspective of how you see what God is.

I have NEVER expect either side, of the most ridiculous debate in history, to define God. I have alluded to the fact that prior to any real consensus on what 'God' IS, BY ALL PEOPLE, what is the actual point of discussing if God exists or not.

Find out what God actually IS first, then you will KNOW, for sure, if It exists or not.

I find it extremely humorous how people on either side of this most stupid of human debates actually BELIEVE that I am on the other side of what they are. Either side can and do this, equally. Talk about being truly blinded by their own beliefs.

I will state it once, and for ALL; I do NOT take sides. I do NOT see nor have a side to take on this matter. There is NO side to truth.

I think we can all agree that 'God', no matter how you 'define' it/him/GBT etc. etc. is something supernatural--otherwise there's not much point to it is there?

Well you thought WRONG. I, for one, certainly do NOT agree that 'God' is supernatural. By definition 'supernatural' could NOT even exist. Now that is what is an impossibility.

Why do you believe that if God is not supernatural then there is not much point to it?

Exactly. 'Supernatual' can't exist by definiton (I wonder where you got that from?). What the fuck else would a 'God' be then?
Or are you another illiterate yank nuisance who 'think's that word meanings are entirely subjective?

[TimeSeeker]

Shouldn't you be defining it since you are the one who apparently believes in it? If you won't define it then everyone else can only assume it's that rather unlikeable character in the bible who's always smiting and smoting people.

If Hawking meant 'nature' I am sure he would have said 'nature'. And if 'God' is 'nature' by your definition then why not just call it 'nature'?

Have I said 'God' is 'nature' previously for you to make an assumption like this?

Surely there has to be some kind of consensus on what this 'God' thing is that people are always banging on about and saying they 'believe' in?

If there surely has to be some kind of consensus, then what is that consensus?

Are you saying they all believe in something but none of them know what that something is?

I have not said that, but that is just about right.

Human beings can be the most stupid creature on the planet. They, at times, believe in things that they have absolutely no evidence for support. They also, at times, believe in things that are completely and utterly false, untrue, and incorrect. Just maybe you, yourself, have believed in things from time to time, that you do not know what that thing is?

Have you ever believed in something that you do not know what that something is?

If you are going to answer this question, then be very careful with your answer. I can already see the outcome.

I always find it hilarious when religios expect atheists to define God as if that's somehow a brilliant counter-argument to .....what?....

Do you believe that i am in any way, shape or form religious, in the sense that you are proposing here? If so, then please explain WHY you believe this to be so.

In case you missed it, I also asked, Prior to any real consensus on what THE 'thing' itself actually is, is there any real point in trying to affirm there IS such 'a thing', a God, ALSO. I think that would have been enough evidence for most people that I am NOT religious, in the sense that I believe a God exists from the perspective of how you see what God is.

I have NEVER expect either side, of the most ridiculous debate in history, to define God. I have alluded to the fact that prior to any real consensus on what 'God' IS, BY ALL PEOPLE, what is the actual point of discussing if God exists or not.

Find out what God actually IS first, then you will KNOW, for sure, if It exists or not.

I find it extremely humorous how people on either side of this most stupid of human debates actually BELIEVE that I am on the other side of what they are. Either side can and do this, equally. Talk about being truly blinded by their own beliefs.

I will state it once, and for ALL; I do NOT take sides. I do NOT see nor have a side to take on this matter. There is NO side to truth.

I think we can all agree that 'God', no matter how you 'define' it/him/GBT etc. etc. is something supernatural--otherwise there's not much point to it is there?

Well you thought WRONG. I, for one, certainly do NOT agree that 'God' is supernatural. By definition 'supernatural' could NOT even exist. Now that is what is an impossibility.

Why do you believe that if God is not supernatural then there is not much point to it?

Exactly. 'Supernatual' can't exist by definiton. (I wonder where you got that from?). What the fuck else would a 'God' be then?
Or are you another illiterate yank nuisance who 'think's that word meanings are entirely subjective?

Then why define something that doesn’t exist?

Why even invent the world ‘supernatural’?

The very phrase “supernatural phenomena” is an oxymoron!