# 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:** 8
**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, 3:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kirk-cameron-schools-stephen-hawking-in-science/582818/141 "2011-05-23T15:53:56Z")
> [@Lobohan](#): > > She’s much, much smarter than you. > > Why are you even at a website devoted to reducing ignorance? You obviously have no intention of learning anything. Says the ultimate authority on intelligence:rolleyes: You can’t even chew gum and walk at the same time. ---
**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, 3:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kirk-cameron-schools-stephen-hawking-in-science/582818/142 "2011-05-23T15:54:11Z")
> [@classyladyhp](#): > > You came over here with one purpose only and YOU know that. When you’re devoted to fighting ignorance you go where the ignorance is. 😃 ---
**Author:** ![IvoryTowerDenizen](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ivorytowerdenizen/32/17937_2.png) [@IvoryTowerDenizen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/IvoryTowerDenizen)\ **Post date:** [May 23, 2011, 3:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kirk-cameron-schools-stephen-hawking-in-science/582818/143 "2011-05-23T15:55:03Z")
> [@classyladyhp](#): > > You came over here with one purpose only and YOU know that. I do know that- to discuss this topic. And the bulk of that post was my contribution on topic. That I coupled a tease with my actual post is coincidental, but fun anyway. You seem to be the one harassing me and chortling in glee that I made an error, which I had already admitted. ---
**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, 3:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kirk-cameron-schools-stephen-hawking-in-science/582818/144 "2011-05-23T15:55:15Z")
> [@Zeriel](#): > > Not enough evidence to speculate. So what you’re saying is that no one knows what caused the Big Bang to happen?Or where the material to cause the Big Bang came from? You see I try to have a reasonable discourse and I do thank you for responding. Now if the rest of the kids could behave themselves. ---
**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, 3:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kirk-cameron-schools-stephen-hawking-in-science/582818/145 "2011-05-23T15:56:22Z")
> [@Lobohan](#): > > When you’re devoted to fighting ignorance you go where the ignorance is. 😃 Says the one with a phd in stupidity:rolleyes: ---
**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, 3:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kirk-cameron-schools-stephen-hawking-in-science/582818/146 "2011-05-23T15:56:34Z")
> [@classyladyhp](#): > > Says the ultimate authority on intelligence:rolleyes: You can’t even chew gum and walk at the same time. What is your evidence for that assertion? I can prove you’re an idiot, I have this and the abortion thread to show how you aren’t smart enough to argue things effectively. Have you been watching me chew gum recently? By the way, when you die you’re gonna stop existing. Think about that tonight before you go to sleep. 😃 ---
**Author:** ![Double\_Foolscap](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/85e7bf/32.png) [@Double\_Foolscap](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Double_Foolscap)\ **Post date:** [May 23, 2011, 3:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kirk-cameron-schools-stephen-hawking-in-science/582818/147 "2011-05-23T15:57:08Z")
> [@classyladyhp](#): > > So again. What caused the Big Bang? The universe created itself out of nothing? > There was no cause? Fine, I’ll bite: Gee, **classyladyhp** , I don’t know what caused the Big Bang. Why do you ask? ---
**Author:** ![bup](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/6bbea6/32.png) [@bup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bup)\ **Post date:** [May 23, 2011, 3:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kirk-cameron-schools-stephen-hawking-in-science/582818/148 "2011-05-23T15:57:43Z")
Kind of tangential to the pitting, but I wonder if someone could demonstrate that something will \*always \*be untestable. Consciousness blows my mind, and it’s the only evidence I can give that there is, maybe not God, but something beyond what science can ever explain. Consciousness exists, but our cells all live independent lives - we are amalgamations of millions of…germs, essentially, that work really well together. No cell is ever really communing with another - the best it can do is send impulses and chemicals to other cells. And yet consciousness exists. Could science ever explain consciousness? Could it test and prove consciousness exists or not? For me, proof of consciousness is philosophical. If consciousness does not exist, but we perceive that it does, then it must be an illusion. But an illusion \*requires \*an observer. If it doesn’t fool somebody, it’s not an illusion. But if there’s somebody to fool, you have consciousness. We are more than software running in a meat computer. Not proof of God, but it demonstrates something that makes more sense than a dick-covered nipple, or whatever it was. It’s usually an invisible unicorn, or that teapot orbiting the sun. If science hard-liners deny anything that there’s no solid evidence for, consciousness would have to be denied. ---
**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, 3:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kirk-cameron-schools-stephen-hawking-in-science/582818/149 "2011-05-23T15:58:17Z")
> [@Lobohan](#): > > What is your evidence for that assertion? I can prove you’re an idiot, I have this and the abortion thread to show how you aren’t smart enough to argue things effectively. > > Have you been watching me chew gum recently? > > **By the way, when you die you’re gonna stop existing**. Think about that tonight before you go to sleep. 😃 Oh and if there is a hell. You’ve got a seat reserved:D ---
**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, 3:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kirk-cameron-schools-stephen-hawking-in-science/582818/150 "2011-05-23T15:58:39Z")
> [@classyladyhp](#): > > So what you’re saying is that no one knows what caused the Big Bang to happen?Or where the material to cause the Big Bang came from? You see I try to have a reasonable discourse and I do thank you for responding. Now if the rest of the kids could behave themselves. There is no evidence for what happened before the big bang. Therefore only a stupid person would blindly assert that it is the Abrahamic, much less the Christian God. There is zero evidence for that, yet you declare it as true. Why is 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, 3:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kirk-cameron-schools-stephen-hawking-in-science/582818/151 "2011-05-23T15:58:55Z")
> [@Scylla](#): > > Hawking is engaging in a bit of vanity to claim that God wasn’t responsible for the event. > [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](#): > > 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? > > “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. > > 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. > > 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) > > The idea of a “first cause” is interesting, but AFAIK it’s been refuted by modern astrophysics as a logical necessity. > > No, no he doesn’t. > > [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xfZFsXfCy6s&feature=player\_detailpage#t=18s](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xfZFsXfCy6s&feature=player_detailpage#t=18s) > > First two. And no, science does not require an omnipotent creator. > > [The 'Big Bang' Argument for the Existence of God » Internet Infidels](http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/theodore_schick/bigbang.html) > > 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. 😕 I thought the Flying Spaghetti Monster was a chick… ---
**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, 3:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kirk-cameron-schools-stephen-hawking-in-science/582818/152 "2011-05-23T15:59:24Z")
> [@Double\_Foolscap](#): > > Fine, I’ll bite: > > Gee, **classyladyhp** , I don’t know what caused the Big Bang. Why do you ask? To demonstrate that there are some things that we do not yet understand. ---
**Author:** ![Gyrate](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gyrate/32/3588_2.png) [@Gyrate](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gyrate)\ **Post date:** [May 23, 2011, 3:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kirk-cameron-schools-stephen-hawking-in-science/582818/153 "2011-05-23T15:59:27Z")
> [@classyladyhp](#): > > So again. What caused the Big Bang? The universe created itself out of nothing? > There was no cause? So again: > [@Gyrate](#): > > We don’t know. We do, however, have some theories which are potentially testable. “God did it” is untestable, unfalsifiable and arguing from ignorance. It’s bad theology and it’s bad science. > > You’ve (mis-)quoted a famous scientist as support for your argument. I’ll trade you for a famous pastor with a better understanding of both science and God than yours: > > > [@Dietrich Bonhoeffer](#): > > > > …how wrong it is to use God as a stop-gap for the incompleteness of our knowledge. If in fact the frontiers of knowledge are being pushed further and further back (and that is bound to be the case), then God is being pushed back with them, and is therefore continually in retreat. We are to find God in what we know, not in what we don’t know. And we’ve also addressed (in brief) the fundamental flaws with the “20 arguments” page you asked about. But hey, keep repeating the same phrases and when eventually we get tired of repeating our responses you can claim victory. ---
**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, 4:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kirk-cameron-schools-stephen-hawking-in-science/582818/154 "2011-05-23T16:06:01Z")
> [@bup](#): > > Kind of tangential to the pitting, but I wonder if someone could demonstrate that something will \*always \*be untestable. > > Consciousness blows my mind, and it’s the only evidence I can give that there is, maybe not God, but something beyond what science can ever explain. > > Consciousness exists, but our cells all live independent lives - we are amalgamations of millions of…germs, essentially, that work really well together. No cell is ever really communing with another - the best it can do is send impulses and chemicals to other cells. And yet consciousness exists. > > Could science ever explain consciousness? Could it test and prove consciousness exists or not? > > For me, proof of consciousness is philosophical. If consciousness does not exist, but we perceive that it does, then it must be an illusion. But an illusion \*requires \*an observer. If it doesn’t fool somebody, it’s not an illusion. But if there’s somebody to fool, you have consciousness. > > We are more than software running in a meat computer. Not proof of God, but it demonstrates something that makes more sense than a dick-covered nipple, or whatever it was. It’s usually an invisible unicorn, or that teapot orbiting the sun. If science hard-liners deny anything that there’s no solid evidence for, consciousness would have to be denied. **Shitting dick nipple** s: [noparse][http://www.socalbeerpong.com/files/webform/Shitting\_Dicknipples.jpg[/noparse]](http://www.socalbeerpong.com/files/webform/Shitting_Dicknipples.jpg%5B/noparse%5D) [NSFW. In fact, you really shouldn’t look at this.] We have evidence for consciousness. You think and demonstrate self awareness. We can’t know you’re not an automation pretending to be conscious, but we can’t know anything with absolute certainty. You’re asserting that we are more than software running on a meat computer, that’s an assertion that seems to be false, since we know that consciousness is effected by damage and chemical modifications to the brain. If we’re more than the operations of our brain, why can changes in behavior happen because of brain damage or drugs? Aside from that, we have no evidence of anything more. So the evidence we do have suggests we’re mechanical. ---
**Author:** ![Morgyn](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/morgyn/32/3041_2.png) [@Morgyn](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Morgyn)\ **Post date:** [May 23, 2011, 4:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kirk-cameron-schools-stephen-hawking-in-science/582818/155 "2011-05-23T16:07:37Z")
Well, hun, I was trying to reduce it to a level you’d be able to understand, using a metaphor you might be familiar with. Obviously, you haven’t gotten that speech from your folks yet, so we’ll try again in plain language. No, I don’t know what caused the Big Bang. I never said I did. No one in this thread has said they did. No SCIENTIST has said they did, although they’ve got some theories and they’re working on experiments that can provide evidence. The nifty thing about science is that it lets you say, “We don’t know. Yet.” And then it goes on to try to make it into, “Hey, now we know! And we have evidence!” You, on the other hand, seem perfectly content to sit there looking at your navel, locked in your unassailable belief that waving your hand and saying “God did it” is sufficient. It isn’t. It never will be. Science may come up with an answer that has proof. It has that hope. You never will. More sadly, you will never recognize that the lack is in you, not in science. ---
**Author:** ![Double\_Foolscap](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/85e7bf/32.png) [@Double\_Foolscap](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Double_Foolscap)\ **Post date:** [May 23, 2011, 4:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kirk-cameron-schools-stephen-hawking-in-science/582818/156 "2011-05-23T16:09:43Z")
> [@classyladyhp](#): > > To demonstrate that there are some things that we do not yet understand. Well shucks, I guess you’re right. So I guess my next question would be: what’s your point? Any scientist who thought that we understood everything would be a pretty bored scientist; all he’d have to do would be browse the web all day and make pretty fractal patterns. You quoted Einstein, so let me quote Newton: “I do not know what I may appear to the world, but to myself I seem to have been only a boy playing on the seashore, and diverting myself in now and then finding a smoother pebble or prettier shell than ordinary, whilst the great ocean of truth lay all undiscovered before me.” Scientists never stop searching for truth (or fact, or answers, or whatever) amidst the things they don’t understand. They’re fully aware of the limits of their knowledge. When “Because God did it” becomes an answer, all scientific enquiry has to stop, because it’s reached the level of a bored parent telling their inquisitive child, “Just because.” ---
**Author:** ![Acsenray](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/acsenray/32/4519_2.png) [@Acsenray](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Acsenray)\ **Post date:** [May 23, 2011, 4:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kirk-cameron-schools-stephen-hawking-in-science/582818/157 "2011-05-23T16:24:53Z")
> [@IvoryTowerDenizen](#): > > Do you don’t even have to file copyRIGHT. 🙂 You own what you write, which differs from trademarks, which do have to be filed to be enforced. > > Beyond that, my knowledge is fuzzy on copyright law. At the risk of extending this hijack, this is wrong. You can earn common law trademark rights without registering your mark, just as you can earn copyright interest without registering your copyright. In both cases, registration has its advantages, but in neither case is it mandatory. ---
**Author:** ![Snowboarder\_Bo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/snowboarder_bo/32/229_2.png) [@Snowboarder\_Bo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Snowboarder_Bo)\ **Post date:** [May 23, 2011, 4:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kirk-cameron-schools-stephen-hawking-in-science/582818/158 "2011-05-23T16:35:29Z")
> [@classyladyhp](#): > > When I see all the glories of the cosmos, I can’t help but believe that there is a divine hand behind it all. Albert Einstein > > My religion consists of a humble admiration of the illimitable superior spirit who reveals himself in the slight details we are able to perceive With our frail and feeble minds. That deeply emotional conviction of the presence of a superior reasoning power, which is revealed in the incomprehensible Universe, forms my idea of God. Albert Einstein AFAIK neither of those are actual quotes from Albert Einstein. Your research prowess is on a par with your reasoning skills. ---
**Author:** ![IvoryTowerDenizen](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ivorytowerdenizen/32/17937_2.png) [@IvoryTowerDenizen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/IvoryTowerDenizen)\ **Post date:** [May 23, 2011, 4:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kirk-cameron-schools-stephen-hawking-in-science/582818/159 "2011-05-23T16:40:26Z")
> [@Acsenray](#): > > At the risk of extending this hijack, this is wrong. You can earn common law trademark rights without registering your mark, just as you can earn copyright interest without registering your copyright. In both cases, registration has its advantages, but in neither case is it mandatory. And with that I happily admit my ignorance on this subject. 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![Zeriel](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/58956e/32.png) [@Zeriel](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zeriel)\ **Post date:** [May 23, 2011, 5:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kirk-cameron-schools-stephen-hawking-in-science/582818/160 "2011-05-23T17:04:22Z")
> [@classyladyhp](#): > > So what you’re saying is that no one knows what caused the Big Bang to happen? Absolutely, all we have are speculations. However… > [@](#): > > Or where the material to cause the Big Bang came from? There are working theories that predict that something CAN appear out of nothing: Y’see, there’s this phenomenon called “virtual particles”. The short version is that a vacuum can spontaneously produce two particles (or rather, a particle and its antiparticle). Many odd physical phenomena (from the Casimir Effect to near-field radio effects) can be understood in those terms, and in 1997 it was experimentally verified that not only does it happen, but it can redistribute the electrical charges/currents in an electromagnetic field where these spontaneous creations are taking place (thus meaning these particles are capable of interacting with and changing our present physical reality). Creation ex nihilo is thus shown plausible under both our current model and current observations of the physical universe, no God necessarily required. There are wildly speculative theories that involve entire galaxies of anti-particles beyond our ability to detect same, to account for the fact that virutal particle creation produces equal amounts of matter and anti-matter, yet all we really see today is matter. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kirk-cameron-schools-stephen-hawking-in-science/582818.md?page=7) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kirk-cameron-schools-stephen-hawking-in-science/582818.md?page=9)