"There is no God"

[space otter]

sounds interesting

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/technology/stephen-hawking-there-is-no-god-says-physicist-in-final-book/ar-BBOsJel?li=BBnbfcL

Stephen Hawking: 'There is no God,' says physicist in final book
By Rob Picheta, CNN  10 hrs ago 

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.

Other bombshells the British scientist left his readers with include the belief that alien life is out there, artificial intelligence could outsmart humans and time travel can't be ruled out.

Hawking, considered one of the most brilliant scientists of his generation, died in March at the age of 76.

"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."

Hawking suffered from amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS), a neurodegenerative disorder also known as Lou Gehrig's Disease, for most of his adult life.

The scientist died while still working on the book, which his family and colleagues finished with the help of his vast personal archives.

'Increasingly looking inward'

While Hawking spoke of his lack of belief in God during his life, several of his other answers are more surprising.

"There are forms of intelligent life out there," he writes. "We need to be wary of answering back until we have developed a bit further."

And he leaves open the possibility of other phenomena.

"Travel back in time can't be ruled out according to our present understanding," he says. He also predicts that "within the next hundred years we will be able to travel to anywhere in the Solar System."

"He realized that people specifically wanted his answers to these questions," the scientist's daughter, Lucy Hawking, who helped complete the book, told CNN.

Hawking saw the world on the brink of a "vast transformative change" when he died, she noted, adding: "He's asking us not to go into the future blindly. How good is the track record of the human race in using advances in technology for the good of ordinary people?"

In remarks prepared by Hawking and played at the launch of the book in London on Monday, the scientist also turned his attention to the world he was leaving behind.

"With Brexit and Trump now exerting new forces in relation to immigration and the development of education, we are witnessing a global revolt against experts, and that includes scientists," Hawking said.

Hawking had been a critic of the United Kingdom's decision to leave the European Union, and called Donald Trump a "demagogue" in 2016.

His greatest concern, his daughter said, "is how divided we've become," adding: "He makes this comment about how we seem to have lost the ability to look outward, and we are increasingly looking inward to ourselves."

Hawking's final message to readers, though, is a hopeful one.

Attempting to answer the question "How do we shape the future?" in the book's final chapter, the scientist writes: "Remember to look up at the stars and not down at your feet."

[petrus4]

In Excalibur, a film set around five centuries into the Age of Pisces, Merlin said that, "the One God comes to drive out the many."

My experience with psychedelics while at Nimbin, strongly implied to me that during the Age of Aquarius, the focus is once more on plurality.  Yahweh is not there as a singular, monolithic God on his own any more.  If you take LSD or magic mushrooms today, you won't hear the voice of a single supreme being, but a vast cacophony or orchestra of voices; a community.

So in a sense, Hawking and the atheists are correct.

[Sgt.Rocknroll]

Well he probably knows now doesn't he. Dying has a way of enlightening you.

[The Seeker]

Well he probably knows now doesn't he. Dying has a way of enlightening you.

Yes, it does, Sarge; I know it really changed my outlook on things when I died in 1980...

[Pimander]

My experience with psychedelics while at Nimbin, strongly implied to me that during the Age of Aquarius, the focus is once more on plurality. 

The age of Aquarius hasn't started yet.

Yahweh is not there as a singular, monolithic God on his own any more.

Yahweh is NOT God!

So in a sense, Hawking and the atheists are correct.

Scientists who try to present Atheism as scientific irritate the shit out of me!

Firstly, If the question is to be approached scientifically then there has to be a way to test the hypothesis.  There is not one.  Think about it...

Secondly, in the absence of any scientific evidence (i.e. not just the subjective experience of God existing) for or against a hypothesis (the hypothesis being that "God" exists) then the ONLY scientific position is that we don't know - possibly that we can't know - with any certainty.

Ergo, the only scientific position is Agnosticism.  Atheism is an entirely faith-based position.  In that sense Atheists are exactly the same as Theists.  Atheism is a faith.  Agnosticism is the only position that can be defended scientifically.

That does not mean I don't think Atheism/Theism are perfectly reasonable things to believe.  I just hate it when scientists try to present Theism as an irrational faith when Atheism is too.  There is no evidence whatsoever to back up the Atheist perspective and it is a Materialist lie to pretend otherwise.  And lets not forget that modern physics shows that materialism is nonsense too and the mystical idea that the universe is just information is correct(Aquarius?)...

Richard Dawkins in particular, in his position as Cambridge Professor for the public understanding of science, is a prime example.  He wrote a book called "The God Delusion".  He is actually a promoter of "The Atheist Delusion".  Dishonesty of the first degree.

[ArMaP]

Atheism is an entirely faith-based position.  In that sense Atheists are exactly the same as Theists.  Atheism is a faith.  Agnosticism is the only position that can be defended scientifically.

As an atheist I fully agree with you.

[Pimander]

As an atheist I fully agree with you.

So you believe in Atheism but don't pretend it is scientific.  That is a philosophically honest position.  Dawkins could learn from you.

I believe in "other intelligences" but I don't know what they are (maybe one of them is God) so I'm still an agnostic strictly speaking.

"They" could be gods (with a small g), aliens, angels, beings of pure energy or whatever.  However even if we prove they exist that does not prove the existence of God.  Even if a being created this world it does not prove that being is God.  So even if Yahweh" exists, that is not proof God exists.

[petrus4]

The age of Aquarius hasn't started yet.

Would you explain this further?

Yahweh is NOT God!

I won't say that I go as far as Zorgon does where Satan is concerned, but at this point I've known a couple of spirits who are traditionally regarded as monsters, (at least in mainstream terms) but who genuinely surprised me with their level of kindness.  Yahweh is in that category, as far as I am concerned.  I truthfully don't hold it against anyone who was barbaric during the Age of Aries; it was a different time.  That is also, however, why I don't believe that religions like Islam should be applying their legal system within the modern world.  It was appropriate during Aries, (and to a lesser extent Pisces) but it is ***not*** appropriate now.

The entire reason why Mars is considered in detriment in Aquarius, is because if Aquarius' gift for coherent logic was combined with Aries' predisposition for war, humanity would completely destroy itself.  So Aries is an age with virtually no technology, by design.  It's also a period where at least certain people treat each other horrifically, but because the level of technology is limited, nuclear war is not going to happen as a result of it, and said violence can still be somewhat localised and contained.

Scientists who try to present Atheism as scientific irritate the shit out of me!

I think the reason why it's difficult to test for the existence of God, is because we don't really have a specific or coherent definition of what God ***is.***  Some elements of quantum physics are beginning to offer us one, perhaps; in the sense that non-locality presupposes a form of hyperspace which, due to its' fractal nature, is both centralised and non-centralised simultaneously.  The first time I saw Kali Mata, she was standing on the bridge of the TARDIS; and for me, it is her temple.





I believe that the universe has a level of coherence and symmetry which imply, at least to me, that there was some sort of deliberate initiating act involved; simply because I feel that everything fits together far too neatly for it to have been random.  Saying that, however, is ***not*** necessarily assuming the narrative of any of the major religions.

That does not mean I don't think Atheism/Theism are perfectly reasonable things to believe.  I just hate it when scientists try to present Theism as an irrational faith when Atheism is too.

In my experience, there are usually two main differences between atheism and agnosticism.  The atheist has a larger and less mature ego, (which is why they can claim certainty) and generally also wants to actively believe that God does not exist, due to resentment of organised religion.  Agnosticism tends to imply emotional neutrality.

In a person of emotional honesty and authenticity, as a state, in my observation atheism also does not have long term stability.  As a person continues to mature, gain humility, and recover from the emotional wounds that may have been caused by organised religion, there is a gradual shift into quiet, neutral, uncertain agnosticism.  The other possibility is that some form of revelation occurs, and the individual will find God in their own way.  I have seen both possibilities happen.

Atheism is primarily useful to the extent that it encourages us to maintain coherence, rationality, and honesty, and reminds us not to allow ourselves to be deceived by fraudulent predators associated with religion.  Atheism can become detrimental, however, when the ego inflates to such a degree, that certainty about materialism develops.

And lets not forget that modern physics shows that materialism is nonsense too and the mystical idea that the universe is just information is correct(Aquarius?)...

I do consider that an Aquarian association, yes.  In my mind, Uranus as a planet is about the space between two otherwise completely closed off and discrete worlds or states, which can not be traversed ***physically***, but which still may be in other ways.  The association with information is due to the fact that, raw information is about the only thing which may be transitted between physical realities, precisely because information, by itself, has no physical attributes.  They've already teleported bars of music, because that is a lot easier than people.

Richard Dawkins in particular, in his position as Cambridge Professor for the public understanding of science, is a prime example.  He wrote a book called "The God Delusion".  He is actually a promoter of "The Atheist Delusion".  Dishonesty of the first degree.

I used to be genuinely emotionally toxic towards Dawkins.  The main reason why, was because for a long time I held the misconception that my wellbeing depended on my caring about what atheists think.  I have since recognised that it does not, which has allowed me to release the potentially carcinogenic emotions which I used to feel towards some of them.

I can't remember the quote of his which inspired the feeling, but I can remember once reading about Bertrand Russell, and thinking that if I had ever physically met the man, my reaction would have been to embrace him and begin crying hysterically, due to how honestly tragic I considered his philosophical situation.  I later realised, however, that such a reaction would have been extremely condescending, to the point where he would have been justified in being angry with me in response.

[ArMaP]

In my experience, there are usually two main differences between atheism and agnosticism.  The atheist has a larger and less mature ego, (which is why they can claim certainty) and generally also wants to actively believe that God does not exist, due to resentment of organised religion.

In my case, I just don't see a need for god(s) in the way (as far as we understand it) the universe works, in the same way I don't see any need for a parachute on a kayak, but I do know that's just my opinion.

In a person of emotional honesty and authenticity, as a state, in my observation atheism also does not have long term stability.

In my case it has been active for 45 years or so.

Atheism can become detrimental, however, when the ego inflates to such a degree, that certainty about materialism develops.

From what I have seen it looks more like atheism is used by some with an already inflated ego, people that think they should be considered gods and do not like the competition.

I used to be genuinely emotionally toxic towards Dawkins.  The main reason why, was because for a long time I held the misconception that my wellbeing depended on my caring about what atheists think.  I have since recognised that it does not, which has allowed me to release the potentially carcinogenic emotions which I used to feel towards some of them.

You should never worry about what other people think. As long as it doesn't affect you, let them think what they want and live with the consequences.

[space otter]

i really like you guys and think that you present your arguments/feelings/reasoning's in a well thought out manner
but
using astrology in a god conversation cracks me up

don't get me wrong i have used astrology for years and years but astrology is restrictive to this plane of influences while the god argument is more expansive imo..
so i am enjoying the contradiction of it..
and i do like contradictions
like a certain atheist with a christmas card collection...just makes me smile widely

and yes at this time i am in the agnostic mindset

[Pimander]

Would you explain this further? {The statement we are still in the age of Pisces}

Yes.  Easily.

The astronomical ages are based on the position of the Sun at the Vernal Equinox.  So when the Sun rises on the Vernal equinox in Pisces we are in the age of Pisces, when it rises in Aquarius then we are in the age of Aquarius.

Definition of terms: March (or spring or vernal) equinox point. This is the point on the imaginary celestial sphere surrounding Earth at which the ecliptic – or path of the sun across our sky – intersects the celestial equator, or line around the sky directly above Earth's equator. It's sometimes called the First Point in Aries, because the sun used to be located in front of the constellation Aries at the time of the vernal equinox. For the past two thousand years, though, the sun has been located in front of the constellation Pisces at the time of this equinox. That's the significance of the so-called Piscean Age. At some point, the sun at the equinox will be in front of Aquarius. That's when the Age of Aquarius begins.

https://earthsky.org/human-world/when-will-the-age-of-aquarius-begin

Well the Sun is nowhere near Aquarius on the Vernal Equinox.  I checked on the Stellarium.


As you can see from my screen shot above, The Sun was well inside Pisces at the Vernal Equinox this year.  (Pisces is the triangle pointing to the left)

Based on the standard divisions of the constellations Aquarius doesn't begin for hundreds of years. "the March equinox will cross over into the constellation Aquarius in 2597" https://earthsky.org/human-world/when-will-the-age-of-aquarius-begin

Even based on my image of the position of the Sun on this years Vernal Equinox, many assumptions about the ages are way off.  Pisces would only have started 1000 to 1500 years ago.  So Jesus was born in Aries most likely (if he isn't a mythical being).  So the "Lamb of God" moniker makes sense for a Ram!

In my experience, there are usually two main differences between atheism and agnosticism.  The atheist has a larger and less mature ego, (which is why they can claim certainty) and generally also wants to actively believe that God does not exist, due to resentment of organised religion.

I resent organised religion because it is nonsense.  I'm still really an agnostic.

Agnosticism tends to imply emotional neutrality.

Maybe.  It definitely reflects the absence of real evidence.

I used to be genuinely emotionally toxic towards Dawkins.

My disdain for Dawkins is based on the way he pontificates about Atheism when he has no evidence but is supposed to be promoting the public understanding of science.  It is idiotic and he is doing science a disservice.

His position on religion otherwise is completely reasonable.  I completely agree with his premise that Weinberg was right when he said: ""With or without religion, good people can behave well and bad people can do evil; but for good people to do evil - that takes religion."

[ArMaP]

and i do like contradictions
like a certain atheist with a christmas card collection...just makes me smile widely

It's only a contradiction if you think Christmas is directly related to a god.

I see Christmas as a family event and a time people use as an excuse for being better than they usually are. People shouldn't need an excuse or a god to be better.

[space otter]

that is a great sentiment Armap

sad to say folks need an excuse to be better

but i see christmas as a religious day and christmas cards as a religious greeting card  and atheists as non religious
not that it is a bad thing.. it just makes me smile and enjoy it all
as far as  seeing chrismas as  being related to god..
no..not anymore ..
i see it related to big business or attempted control via religion

i used to work with a guy who was a vegan and he collected
carnivorous plants
sorta the same thing..makes me laugh...in a good way

[petrus4]

His position on religion otherwise is completely reasonable.  I completely agree with his premise that Weinberg was right when he said: ""With or without religion, good people can behave well and bad people can do evil; but for good people to do evil - that takes religion."

My interpretation of "religion" at this point, is that it is usually a composite log or record, of a series of communications with extra-dimensional or acorporeal beings, which may or may not occur under the influence of psychedelics; some of whom, for various purposes (not all of which are necessarily malevolent) represent themselves as a monolithic entity, rather than a collective.  I think the main reason is because it is assumed that, at a certain level of development at least, humans find it easier to communicate with a single being rather than a network.

Said beings also exist at levels of development which are more varied than our own.  Some of them are sufficiently advanced that if we put them next to our usual definition of "God," we'd genuinely be hard pressed to tell the difference.  Others might be a few decades or centuries ahead of us.  Still others would be medieval or indigenous from our perspective.  We live in an extremely large universe.

On its' own, communication with transcorporeal aliens is fine.  Problems only develop when the messages come from beings with less positive intentions, who instruct the people listening to go to war with people who communicate with a different group of beings, and have developed a differing unifying philosophy as a result.

I realise that to many here, the above model will seem only slightly less certifiably, batshit insane than what they perceive Christianity as being.  My only defense is that it is consistent with my own direct observation while using psychedelics, and also that my reading of the accounts of other people's psychedelic experiences, have strongly suggested to me that there is a good level of consistency between theirs and my own.

My model also does not preclude the validity of Christianity or any other religion, or assume that any one religion (or the lack of them) is inherently omnipotent or superior to all others.  I again view the central focuses of each religion, as a group of acorporeal beings who all exist simultaneously, but who do so within their own "range of bandwidth."

[RUSSO]

people shouldn't need an excuse or a god to be better.

yep

there is no way all this is by chance. There is a "god". The real question is: what is it nature?