Kirk Cameron schools Stephen Hawking in science

[Paul_in_Qatar]

@Scylla

Both Hawking’s and Cameron’s claim have this unknowable unexplainable event indistinguishable from magic wherein the universe just suddenly appears out of nothing.

Yep.

Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic. Clarke’s Third Law.

Any sufficiently advanced double talk is indistinguishable from science. Paul’s Observation on Clarke’s Law

[Cheshire_Human]

@Fear_Itself

If there is no proof that god exists, is more logical to conclude he likely does exist, or that he likely does not exist.

Fallacy of the Excluded Middle, here. The most logical thing to do is reserve judgement. Anything else is a conclusion without evidence. One is, of course free (and it’s reasonable) to believe that he likely does not exist, but there is no logical basis for that belief.

[BigT]

@Budget_Player_Cadet

The burden of proof is on the person making the positive claim. No proof that he does exist means that he probably does not exist, or at least that there is no reason to believe he exists. No proof that he doesn’t exist means, well, nothing. I mean, how would you ever disprove anything?

Well, then, gravity doesn’t exist. My proof? Oh, I don’t have to have any.

The burden of proof is always on the person making the claim. Full stop.

[Gyrate]

@Budget_Player_Cadet

I looked at that list and saw Pascal’s Wager.

I then broke out laughing. Maybe I’ll answer it when I get home from school, but really? Anything that lists pascal’s wager as a serious argument for the existence of god is logically bankrupt and loses a shitload of credibility.

Ooh, I missed that. I skimmed a few more. Arguments 10-13 are “God exists because we can conceive of Him”, 14 and 15 are the old “Without God there can be no morality” chestnut, 15 and 16 are “God must exist because we really, really want Him to”, and 18 and 19 are straightforward Argumentum ad populum.

Only Argument 17 is remotely compelling, for reasons that have nothing to do with logic.

[Who_me_1]

@Budget_Player_Cadet

I looked at that list and saw Pascal’s Wager.

I then broke out laughing. Maybe I’ll answer it when I get home from school, but really? Anything that lists pascal’s wager as a serious argument for the existence of god is logically bankrupt and loses a shitload of credibility.

This one got me to giggling.

1. We have ideas of many things.
2. These ideas must arise either from ourselves or from things outside us.
3. One of the ideas we have is the idea of God—an infinite, all-perfect being.
4. This idea could not have been caused by ourselves, because we know ourselves to be limited and imperfect, and no effect can be greater than its cause.
5. Therefore, the idea must have been caused by something outside us which has nothing less than the qualities contained in the idea of God.
6. But only God himself has those qualities.
7. Therefore God himself must be the cause of the idea we have of him.
8. Therefore God exists.

Why is 4 correct? We have stories of world spanning empires, because someone thought of them… that means that they exist? I have thoughts of beautiful women who live for having sex with me… I guess I’d better look harder for them.

[Lobohan]

@Cheshire_Human

Fallacy of the Excluded Middle, here. The most logical thing to do is reserve judgement. Anything else is a conclusion without evidence. One is, of course free (and it’s reasonable) to believe that he likely does not exist, but there is no logical basis for that belief.

You can logically believe that *certain *Gods don’t exist. For instance our current universe is impossible to exist if you have an omnipotent and omnibenevolent God.

The God of the bible is certainly not real, since the bible is contradictory and wrong in many places. Which means that if the Christian God exists, He is different from what most Christians are expecting.

[Kobal2]

@Lobohan

When you die your brain will start to rot. Your brain creates your consciousness through mechanical operations.

OBJECTION ! Assumes facts not in evidence.

[classyladyhp]

@Lobohan

When you die your brain will start to rot. Your brain creates your consciousness through mechanical operations. Your consciousness will fade utterly and permanently once you brain can no longer support it.

When you die you wont have any answers, because you will shut off and not know anything at all.

On the upside, the average intelligence of the human race will rise a bit on that day.

So you hope I die. You’re such a nice person. Take care. You’re a fucking moron.

[Who_me_1]

@Kobal2

OBJECTION ! Assumes facts not in evidence.

Brain Function and Pathology

May I enter this into evidence?

[Who_me_1]

@classyladyhp

So you hope I die. You’re such a nice person. Take care. You’re a fucking moron.

Hey! You’re the one that’s making absurd statements!
And he didn’t say he hopes you die, he just said that the average intelligence of the human race will rise when you do.

[Kobal2]

@Who_me_1

Brain Function and Pathology
May I enter this into evidence?

I meant that **Lobohan **assumes **classyladyhp **to have a functioning brain. This has not been demonstrated beyond reasonable doubt.

[classyladyhp]

@Who_me_1

Hey! You’re the one that’s making absurd statements!
And he didn’t say he hopes you die, he just said that the average intelligence of the human race will rise when you do.

Yes and I believe it.Iif the King of the Idiots think I’m dumb then it must be true.

[classyladyhp]

Who the hell do you think you people are? Unless you guys have died and come back you don’t know fuck all about what happens when we die.
I am so fucking sick of the ad hominem fallacy.

[Who_me_1]

@classyladyhp

Who the hell do you think you people are? Unless you guys have died and come back you don’t know fuck all about what happens when we die.
I am so fucking sick of the ad hominem fallacy.

And we’re sick of your stupidity.

[Gyrate]

@classyladyhp

Who the hell do you think you people are? Unless you guys have died and come back you don’t know fuck all about what happens when we die.
I am so fucking sick of the ad hominem fallacy.

The Ad hominem fallacy only applies if the posters in question assert that your arguments fail because you’re stupid. Asserting that you’re stupid because your arguments fail is perfectly sound logically, although not very nice.

[Lobohan]

@classyladyhp

So you hope I die. You’re such a nice person. Take care. You’re a fucking moron.

I don’t hope you die. I’m just noting that your stupidity is a net drag on the race of humanity.

[Double_Foolscap]

@classyladyhp

Who the hell do you think you people are? Unless you guys have died and come back you don’t know fuck all about what happens when we die.
I am so fucking sick of the ad hominem fallacy.

Well, I can’t speak for the rest of the group in here, but I don’t let what may or may not happen when we die dictate what I do from moment to moment. The whole “mystery of the universe” thing which started off this tangent is way beyond my comprehension, but that’s fine by me. A lot of stuff is way beyond my comprehension, but I don’t ascribe magic to it just because I don’t understand it.

My knowledge of how a computer processor works is roughly equal to my knowledge of the beginning of the universe. That doesn’t mean I believe God lives in my motherboard. I’m willing to listen to a computer scientist explain it, but that’s because s/he has devoted a significant portion of his life to understanding how it works. That’s the same reason I’m going to trust Hawking over Cameron. I never even watched Growing Pains, but I got like 70% of the way through A Brief History of Time

[Jack_Batty]

Wait, wait. I may have stumbled upon a nugget.

@classyladyhp

Unless you guys have died and come back you don’t know fuck all about what happens when we die.

Have you died and come back? Please regale us with your tales (this could get interesting).

[Lobohan]

@classyladyhp

Who the hell do you think you people are? Unless you guys have died and come back you don’t know fuck all about what happens when we die.
I am so fucking sick of the ad hominem fallacy.

You’re the one suggesting, without any evidence, that a dude in space created the universe and allows our consciousness to keep functioning after death.

Where is your evidence? And simply being a person that really, really doesn’t want oblivion isn’t evidence.

[tagos]

Just want to point out that scientists are on to the whole ‘what happened before the Big Bang’ thing.

Still no sign of God.