# Kirk Cameron schools Stephen Hawking in science **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [May 22, 2011, 9:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kirk-cameron-schools-stephen-hawking-in-science/582818 "2011-05-22T21:45:07Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Scylla](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a5b964/32.png) [@Scylla](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scylla)\ **Post date:** [May 23, 2011, 3:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kirk-cameron-schools-stephen-hawking-in-science/582818/41 "2011-05-23T03:13:55Z")
> [@Fear\_Itself](#): > > How would we know that? We have no hypothesis for any of the conditions before the big bang. Good point. Semantics break down. The is no "before, the big bang. ---
**Author:** ![Scylla](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a5b964/32.png) [@Scylla](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scylla)\ **Post date:** [May 23, 2011, 3:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kirk-cameron-schools-stephen-hawking-in-science/582818/42 "2011-05-23T03:14:57Z")
> [@Lobohan](#): > > Only a real dipshit would think, “Because God did it!” is a sensible answer. You would know. ---
**Author:** ![Lobohan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lobohan/32/79_2.png) [@Lobohan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lobohan)\ **Post date:** [May 23, 2011, 3:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kirk-cameron-schools-stephen-hawking-in-science/582818/43 "2011-05-23T03:17:54Z")
> [@Scylla](#): > > You would know. I’m an expert on dipshits, having read your posts in some detail. 😃 ---
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [May 23, 2011, 3:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kirk-cameron-schools-stephen-hawking-in-science/582818/44 "2011-05-23T03:32:02Z")
> [@Scylla](#): > > Wood: > > None of that is really an answer. Kirk’s explanation offers an answer. Hawking’s does not. So, that’s one point for Kirk. Hawking, at least in the linked article, isn’t talking about the origins of the universe. He’s talking about the concept of life after death. So Kirk does not actually score a point, because he’s not addressing the question under debate. Also, simply offering an idea is not valuable in and of itself, unless you can provide evidence for the idea. Cameron does not have any evidence that God created the universe (well, he \*thinks \*he does, but that’s a different pit rant). I, also, do not have any evidence for what created the universe, which is why I’m not offering an opinion on what created the universe. Keeping your mouth shut when you don’t know anything is a virtue, not a vice. > [@](#): > > Further, Kirk’s explanation is actually pretty good. One strong definition of God is the creator of the universe. Another is that God is omnipotent. Creating a universe from nothing comes pretty close to passing my shit test for omnipotence (it’s a pretty good trick, you’ll admit.) This is wrong on so many levels. The first one is that it’s a pure tautology. If you define “God” as “the origin of the universe,” and the only evidence that you have for his existence is that there this universe lying about, then you haven’t explained anything. You’ve merely observed that the universe must have a start point, and arbitrarily assigned the label “God” to this point. Second, while creating a universe is a pretty neat trick, it’s far from evidence of omnipotence. The universe is made up of hundreds of rules that appear to be inviolate: we call these rules “physics.” Nothing in the universe can violate these laws - in fact, it is the constraints of these laws that cause the universe to have the form that it does. If, as you suggest, we define God as “the originator of the universe,” all the evidence we have at hand indicates that these laws bind God as much as they bind his creation - which means he is not, in fact, omnipotent, just very, very powerful. Lastly, Cameron is _not_ defining God as “the origin of the universe.” He’s defining God as the God of the Isrealites, father of Jesus Christ, direct revelator of the Holy Bible, and the guy who invented the banana. You can’t separate out one aspect of his claim, ignore everything else about it, and say that it’s a good argument. The whole thing comes as a package - either the universe was created in six days by a large bearded man who lives on a cloud, or Cameron is full of shit. > [@](#): > > Hawking ignores a cause or a reason or an explanation for the Big Bang. I don’t think simply ignoring that huge question is either satisfactory, or good science or even good thinking. I could be mistaken, but I strongly suspect that Hawking has, indeed, addressed the question of what instigated the Big Bang, and what existed before that point. His thoughts on that question aren’t included in this article, because (as noted earlier) this article isn’t about what Stephen Hawking thinks happened before the Big Bang. It’s about what Stephen Hawking thinks happens after you die. > [@](#): > > Cameron addresses the question and calls the answer “God.”. Ignoring a question doesn’t get you any further, addressing it and defining it can get you further. Neither does making up shit without evidence. In fact, it tends to get you farther away from the correct answer, because you tend to look only for evidence that supports your preconceptions, and ignore evidence that contradicts it. > [@](#): > > If you don’t like the word “God” you can call it Fred, or the prime mover or the first cause, but in any case you are looking at something that created the universe out of nothing. Since the universe contains all things and possibilities, whatever did it was for all intents and purposes omnipotent. This is interesting, because you’ve managed to make a statement that is inaccurate by both Hawking’s standards, and Cameron’s standards. Cameron would disagree vehemently that the universe contains all things. His definition of God revolves on the concept that God is not of or within the universe. He exists outside of it entirely. Hawking would disagree that the universe contains all possibilities. For one thing, there are a huge number of things that are flatly impossible under the laws of physics as we understand them. The speed of light being a hard limit is just one of them. Further, there are things that, while technically possible, are so statistically remote that they will never, under any circumstances, come to pass, even in an infinite universe. Your statement also fails as a synthesis of these two arguments. Hawking views the creation of the universe as a function of the universe itself. Cameron views the creation of the universe as an act of will by a being that exists outside of the universe. No amount of label switching will ever force these two views into congruence. The universal origin that Cameron believes in is fundamentally different from the universal origin that Hawking theorizes. > [@](#): > > So, when science comes up with an explanation of the universe that doesn’t require an omnipotent creator to make the universe out of nothing, than it can tell Kirk Cameron to fuck off… But science equites an omnipotent creator, or there is no Big Bang. Nonsense. The fundamentalist Christian response faces exactly the same problem you ascribe to the Big Bang theory: the creation of nothing out of nothing. If an omnipotent creator deity creating himself out of nothing is a satisfactory answer to the question of the origin of the universe, then the Big Bang exploding out of nothingness is an equally valid answer. If the Big Bang’s self creation is an insufficient answer, then the creator deity’s self creation as an act of will is equally insufficient. Regardless of that, science doesn’t claim that the Big Bang exploded out of nothing, it simply says that we have no idea what existed before the Big Bang, because as near as we can tell, everything in this universe was created in that explosion. What existed before that is not currently knowable, but that’s not the same as saying that there was nothing before that. ---
**Author:** ![kaylasdad99](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kaylasdad99/32/3398_2.png) [@kaylasdad99](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kaylasdad99)\ **Post date:** [May 23, 2011, 4:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kirk-cameron-schools-stephen-hawking-in-science/582818/45 "2011-05-23T04:18:29Z")
Cameron, in positing a deity with no particular evidence to favor that deity, is really only offering a placeholder. Hawking is offering no placeholder. Hawking _could_ offer a placeholder, and call the placeholder “God,” with the understanding that observation and hypothesizing would continue, and the placeholder would need to give way before more refined knowns. But he declines to do that, because of the trap inherent in doing so. The trap is the one that Cameron falls into: Offering up the placeholder, and saying _“That’s the answer. No need to look further.”_ ---
**Author:** ![Askance](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/askance/32/8281_2.png) [@Askance](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Askance)\ **Post date:** [May 23, 2011, 4:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kirk-cameron-schools-stephen-hawking-in-science/582818/46 "2011-05-23T04:56:23Z")
> [@wevets](#): > > And yet it doesn’t bother you that Genesis 2 explicitly contradicts Genesis 1? :dubious: > [@Scylla](#): > > Oh sure, multiple authors and such. I’m just saying that first bit seems to hold up. Gen 1 says there was day and night before god created the sun. And there were plants before there was a sun. This is “eerily similar to the scientific explanation” for you? BTW god also seems to believe the moon only shows up at night, which is a tad forgetful of him. > [@](#): > > 1:16 And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: ---
**Author:** ![Sampiro](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/2acd7d/32.png) [@Sampiro](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sampiro)\ **Post date:** [May 23, 2011, 5:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kirk-cameron-schools-stephen-hawking-in-science/582818/47 "2011-05-23T05:02:55Z")
> [@Scylla](#): > > Oh, that’s easy. God created himself. One of the many benefits of omnipotence. Others include parking and great seating at concerts. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [May 23, 2011, 5:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kirk-cameron-schools-stephen-hawking-in-science/582818/48 "2011-05-23T05:31:27Z")
> [@Scylla](#): > > You would know. Do you truly believe that making up an answer for which there is no evidence at all is better than saying “I don’t know yet.”?? ---
**Author:** ![AlienVessels](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/ba8739/32.png) [@AlienVessels](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AlienVessels)\ **Post date:** [May 23, 2011, 5:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kirk-cameron-schools-stephen-hawking-in-science/582818/49 "2011-05-23T05:55:50Z")
> [@Scylla](#): > > Wood: > > None of that is really an answer. Kirk’s explanation offers an answer. Hawking’s does not. So, that’s one point for Kirk. When an answer is the answer you can give to every question, it’s not really an answer. ---
**Author:** ![Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/budget_player_cadet/32/205_2.png) [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Budget_Player_Cadet)\ **Post date:** [May 23, 2011, 6:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kirk-cameron-schools-stephen-hawking-in-science/582818/50 "2011-05-23T06:13:46Z")
> [@Scylla](#): > > Hawking is engaging in a bit of vanity to claim that God wasn’t responsible for the event. And you are engaging in extreme vanity to claim that the Flying Spaghetti Monster wasn’t responsible for the event. May his noodly appendage touch your mind soon, lest ye be drawn into the fiery hells of the wok. It’s not “vain” to decline a theory for which no evidence has ever been given. If I were to tell you “I exhumed your dead grandmother and raped her corpse”, would you believe me? Would you think it reasonable that I claim that you’re “vain” for saying “I don’t believe you”? Of course not. That would be _ridiculous_. You’re shifting the burden of proof unreasonably. Can you provide a _single_ scrap of sound evidence (logical or empirical, preferably the latter) that points to god (or better yet, _your_ god) as the responsible party for the event? > [@](#): > > He doesn’t really offer a better explanation. “I don’t know” _is_ better than “false explanations X Y and Z”. Look, this is the disconnect we have here. Scientists fill their “holes” (i.e. the gaps in their knowledge) with “I don’t know”. It’s an honest answer, and it’s easy to replace when we figure the problem out. I don’t know is an honest placeholder for when we find a good answer. The religious fill their holes with “God did it”. It’s _not_ an honest answer, it’s _not_ easy to replace when we do figure the problem out (see also: creationism vs. evolution; that debate should’ve ended back in the early 1900s but it’s still raging on!). God did it is not a placeholder; it’s a dishonest answer that will not go away when we find the _right_ answer. > [@Scylla](#): > > Wood: > > None of that is really an answer. Kirk’s explanation offers an answer. Hawking’s does not. So, that’s one point for Kirk. OK. Kirk’s explanation offers an answer. But tell me this… Say you’re walking with your girlfriend, and she suddenly disappears, would you accept “FSM did it” as an answer, because it’s better than “we don’t know”? No, of course not! It’s a _false_ answer! It’s effectively worthless! It also gives you no help towards, say, _doing_ something about it. > [@](#): > > Further, Kirk’s explanation is actually pretty good. One strong definition of God is the creator of the universe. Another is that God is omnipotent. Creating a universe from nothing comes pretty close to passing my shit test for omnipotence (it’s a pretty good trick, you’ll admit.) Omnipotence does not mean “able to create the universe”. It means _all-powerful_. As in, can do/create anything. (Omnipotence is, by the way, self-contradictory and logically impossible) > [@](#): > > If you don’t like the word “God” you can call it Fred, or the prime mover or the first cause, but in any case you are looking at something that created the universe out of nothing. Since the universe contains all things and possibilities, whatever did it was for all intents and purposes omnipotent. The idea of a “first cause” is interesting, but AFAIK it’s been refuted by modern astrophysics as a logical necessity. > [@](#): > > So, when science comes up with an explanation of the universe that doesn’t require an omnipotent creator to make the universe out of nothing, than it can tell Kirk Cameron to fuck off… But science equites an omnipotent creator, or there is no Big Bang. > > Therefore Kirk Cameron has a point, QED. No, no he doesn’t. [![](https://img.youtube.com/vi/xfZFsXfCy6s/maxresdefault.jpg "Top Ten Creationist Arguments-Part 2") ](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xfZFsXfCy6s) First two. And no, science does not require an omnipotent creator. > **[The 'Big Bang' Argument for the Existence of God » Internet Infidels](https://infidels.org/library/modern/the-big-bang-argument-for-the-existence-of-god-1998/)** > > (1998\*) Theodore Schick Jr. Abstract: Some believe that evidence for the big bang is evidence for the existence of god. Who else, they ask, could have caused such a thing? In this paper, I evaluate the big bang argument, compare it with the... > [@](#): > > To save the argument, the first premise could be amended to read: > > ``` > 1'. Everything except god has a cause other than itself. > > ``` > > But if we’re willing to admit the existence of uncaused things, why not just admit that the universe is uncaused and cut out the middleman? David Hume wondered the same thing: > > ``` > But if we stop, and go no farther, why go so far? Why not stop at the material world? ... By supposing it to contain the principle of its order within itself, we really assert it to be god; and the sooner we arrive at that Divine Being, so much the better. When you go one step beyond the mundane system, you only excite an inquisitive humor, which it is impossible ever to satisfy.[5] > > ``` Plus, let’s not forget this: time is believed to effectively not exist before the big bang. Without time, causality kind of falls apart. I do not have a source at the moment (couldn’t find it) but I’m fairly sure that recent research has established that a first cause actually was not necessary. ---
**Author:** ![splatterpunk](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/3be4f8/32.png) [@splatterpunk](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/splatterpunk)\ **Post date:** [May 23, 2011, 6:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kirk-cameron-schools-stephen-hawking-in-science/582818/51 "2011-05-23T06:17:54Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > Do you truly believe that making up an answer for which there is no evidence at all is better than saying “I don’t know yet.”?? Of course. Because, you know, making up an answer is at least providing an answer. And that’s why Cameron is one up on Hawking. > [@Scylla](#): > > None of that is really an answer. Kirk’s explanation offers an answer. Hawking’s does not. So, that’s one point for Kirk. Seriously, I’ve never understood why the people of this board even bother to engage this idiot. ---
**Author:** ![Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/budget_player_cadet/32/205_2.png) [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Budget_Player_Cadet)\ **Post date:** [May 23, 2011, 6:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kirk-cameron-schools-stephen-hawking-in-science/582818/52 "2011-05-23T06:23:12Z")
> [@splatterpunk](#): > > Of course. Because, you know, making up an answer is at least providing an answer. And that’s why Cameron is one up on Hawking. > > Seriously, I’ve never understood why the people of this board even bother to engage this idiot. I assumed he, you know, wasn’t _quite_ as stupid as he seemed. Might wanna rename this thread to “Everyone else schools Scylla in science”. :V ---
**Author:** ![splatterpunk](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/3be4f8/32.png) [@splatterpunk](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/splatterpunk)\ **Post date:** [May 23, 2011, 7:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kirk-cameron-schools-stephen-hawking-in-science/582818/53 "2011-05-23T07:04:54Z")
> [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](#): > > Might wanna rename this thread to “Everyone else schools Scylla in science”. :V Good luck with that. When it comes to defending the idiotic religious right, **Scylla** is as receptive to “schooling” as a Klansman is to Affirmative Action. No argument is to stoopid or incomprehensible when defending GOP/Godbotherer/Anti-Librul “values.” My favorite **Scylla** argument: Remember a few years back when Bush groped German Chancellor Angela Merkel, totally creeping her out? Well, according to **Scylla** , that was a brilliant geopolitcal move demonstrating America’s dominance over the European Union… or some shit. He’s a fucking idiot. ---
**Author:** ![Fear\_Itself](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fear_itself/32/19637_2.png) [@Fear\_Itself](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fear_Itself)\ **Post date:** [May 23, 2011, 7:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kirk-cameron-schools-stephen-hawking-in-science/582818/54 "2011-05-23T07:28:32Z")
> [@Scylla](#): > > As I’ve read about this, including Hawking’s explanations, there is no time and space before the big bang. Universal constants such as the speed of light, gravity, things like pi, space and time are defined shortly after thin Big Bang. The planck increments of time and space are also defined. They are a function of things that occurred during the big bang. There is no time and space before the big bang. There is no such thing as “before.” it’s a meaningless term. How does this support the existence of a god? It sounds like you are proposing a “god of the gaps” wherein everything we know is science, and everything we don’t know must therefore be god. That is the antithesis of logic and the scientific method, but hey, whatever gets you through the night. Just don’t expect the rest of us to buy into it. ---
**Author:** ![Hallucinex](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/ba9def/32.png) [@Hallucinex](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hallucinex)\ **Post date:** [May 23, 2011, 8:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kirk-cameron-schools-stephen-hawking-in-science/582818/55 "2011-05-23T08:56:30Z")
> [@Scylla](#): > > According to Hawking’s and science’s viewpoint there is a point in time or space where there was no time or space or anything at all; no mass, no matter, nothing absolutely nothing at all. The big bang occurred from which everything else promulgated. > > How is that different from "in the beginning there was darkness and the darkness was without form or void, and God moved across the face of the darkness and said “Let there be light.” > > For something originally written several thousand years ago, that is eerily similar to the scientific explanation. That’s always bothered me. If you simplify the explanation down to this level, then it’s not that hard to be ‘eerily similar’ when you’re essentially just making a 50/50 guess as to whether the universe has always existed or not. ---
**Author:** ![wolf\_meister](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wolf_meister/32/15202_2.png) [@wolf\_meister](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wolf_meister)\ **Post date:** [May 23, 2011, 10:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kirk-cameron-schools-stephen-hawking-in-science/582818/56 "2011-05-23T10:42:18Z")
Geeezzzz!!! This foolishness is still getting debated? Originally Posted by **Scylla** > [@](#): > > None of that is really an answer. Kirk’s explanation offers an answer. Hawking’s does not. So, that’s one point for Kirk. Okay let’s go back to a time when science didn’t have an answer and now does. The work of Kepler, Newton, Cavendish, et al permitted scientists to determine the mass of the Sun. Scientists then went on to speculate about what fuel it used to produce that energy (assuming the Sun had an adequate oxygen supply). No matter what fuel was chosen, the Sun could not possibly have burned for as long as it did. The scientists’ answer - we don’t know what fuel the Sun is using. The Kirk Cameron answer? God did it. That isn’t the way science works. Eventually, it was found that the Sun’s energy is produced by hydrogen atoms fusing into helium. So, we had a Kirk Cameron answer that is now definitely shown to be wrong. So, _no_ points for Kirk whatsoever just for having an answer. ---
**Author:** ![Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/budget_player_cadet/32/205_2.png) [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Budget_Player_Cadet)\ **Post date:** [May 23, 2011, 10:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kirk-cameron-schools-stephen-hawking-in-science/582818/57 "2011-05-23T10:53:05Z")
> [@splatterpunk](#): > > Good luck with that. When it comes to defending the idiotic religious right, **Scylla** is as receptive to “schooling” as a Klansman is to Affirmative Action. No argument is to stoopid or incomprehensible when defending GOP/Godbotherer/Anti-Librul “values.” > > My favorite **Scylla** argument: > > Remember a few years back when Bush groped German Chancellor Angela Merkel, totally creeping her out? Well, according to **Scylla** , that was a brilliant geopolitcal move demonstrating America’s dominance over the European Union… or some shit. > > He’s a fucking idiot. Hey, I’m new here. 🆒 Does sound like an… _interesting_ character. You’d think _some_ form of intelligence would’ve rubbed off on him if he’s been here for more than 5 years, though… > [@wolf\_meister](#): > > Geeezzzz!!! This foolishness is still getting debated? > > Originally Posted by **Scylla** > Okay let’s go back to a time when science didn’t have an answer and now does. > The work of Kepler, Newton, Cavendish, et al permitted scientists to determine the mass of the Sun. Scientists then went on to speculate about what fuel it used to produce that energy (assuming the Sun had an adequate oxygen supply). No matter what fuel was chosen, the Sun could not possibly have burned for as long as it did. > The scientists’ answer - we don’t know what fuel the Sun is using. > The Kirk Cameron answer? God did it. > That isn’t the way science works. Eventually, it was found that the Sun’s energy is produced by hydrogen atoms fusing into helium. > So, we had a Kirk Cameron answer that is now definitely shown to be wrong. > So, _no_ points for Kirk whatsoever just for having an answer. Yes. And now add the problem that “god did it” has that “I don’t know” doesn’t: when we actually _do_ learn the facts, they will be ignored by those who have gotten “god did it” into their head. Again, refer to evolution/creationism “debate”. ---
**Author:** ![classyladyhp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/b5ac83/32.png) [@classyladyhp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/classyladyhp)\ **Post date:** [May 23, 2011, 11:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kirk-cameron-schools-stephen-hawking-in-science/582818/58 "2011-05-23T11:06:10Z")
> [@Sampiro](#): > > I’m not an astrophysicist, but I don’t think any of them claim the universe suddenly appeared out of nothing or anything remotely like. > > What do Cameronites answer when asked the very obvious question “If everything had to be created what created God?” God always was. Our human minds will never be able to understand this though. ---
**Author:** ![Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/budget_player_cadet/32/205_2.png) [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Budget_Player_Cadet)\ **Post date:** [May 23, 2011, 11:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kirk-cameron-schools-stephen-hawking-in-science/582818/59 "2011-05-23T11:14:23Z")
> [@classyladyhp](#): > > God always was. Our human minds will never be able to understand this though. Logical reasoning or physical evidence or GTFO. ---
**Author:** ![classyladyhp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/b5ac83/32.png) [@classyladyhp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/classyladyhp)\ **Post date:** [May 23, 2011, 11:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kirk-cameron-schools-stephen-hawking-in-science/582818/60 "2011-05-23T11:20:05Z")
> [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](#): > > Logical reasoning or physical evidence or GTFO. Nice. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kirk-cameron-schools-stephen-hawking-in-science/582818.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kirk-cameron-schools-stephen-hawking-in-science/582818.md?page=4)