I decided to let the fans on my Facebook page debunk this flimsy piece of fallacious religious propaganda. I was going to choose one reply, but a number of good replies were presented.
*Feel free to add to the debunking in the Comments.
From the very beginning this video is trite and untrue as the big bang theory got it’s beginning in 1927, and the sheer stupidity of stating ‘It began, therefore God!’ shows exactly the limits of this man’s reasoning ability while coming head-to-head with his obvious cognitive dissonance of trying to rationalize his religion with the world of science.
Another quibble is his statement of Quantum Fluctuations being ‘brought down’ in Nature 40 years ago is also patently false as it was first proposed by Adam Davis’ study in 1916 at Harvard.
This entire video is simply yet another attempt at using ‘god putty’ to fill in the gaps of science and claim ‘therefore God!’, and even more damning are the constant inaccuracies of this so-called scientist’s testimonies showing just how little he cares about the details.
Were this a presentation for a class the entire thing would get an F for it’s lack of detail, misrepresentation of facts, and starting with a foregone conclusion.
I can state that after listening to him speak and hearing his attention to details that I am certain there is a good reason he’s a teacher at a religious university.
I am _not_ a scientist, though I am a ‘fan’ of science, reason, and the scientific method, so I am quite certain someone else can do a far better job than I at picking this ‘thing’ apart, in fact, I ask for it, I would love to see what I have missed.
Appeal to authority by citing scientific credentials.
Includes religious texts along with scientific knowledge as if they are equally valid and robust in getting to the truth with regards to the creation of the universe.
Who are these hard line “atheists” that agree science has discovered god?
Perhaps he should have named a few to support this claim.
Strangely no Nobel prize winner mentioned in this regard either.
Makes no reference to any erroneous claims in his holy books that have been scientifically debunked, but is happy to promote the idea that the Torah/Bible are scientifically sound.
Gives definition of god that appears to fit the laws of nature, but no mention of likeness to man’s image. How did he miss that one?
The Laws of Nature predate the creation of the universe, but no proof given.
And how exactly do you predate anything before time anyway?
“When people ask me if a god created the universe, I tell them that the question itself makes no sense. Time didn’t exist before the big bang, so there is no time for god to make the universe in. It’s like asking directions to the edge of the earth; The Earth is a sphere; it doesn’t have an edge; so looking for it is a futile exercise. We are each free to believe what we want, and it’s my view that the simplest explanation is; there is no god. No one created our universe,and no one directs our fate. This leads me to a profound realization; There is probably no heaven, and no afterlife either. We have this one life to appreciate the grand design of the universe, and for that I am extremely grateful.” ~Stephen Hawking
Imagine all the time and effort this old dude put into justifying his belief. Only to fizzle out with that lazy last line. Reminded me of this – “When you declare there is no Flying Spaghetti Monster, the very capacity in you which enables you to declare non-existence of Flying Spaghetti Monster, is Flying Spaghetti Monster.”
I’m no physicist or logician, but I recognize a smorgasbord of fallacies (identified by brackets below) when I see them. Correct me where I’m wrong.
Mr. Schroeder stating scientific knowledge changed in the last 50 years but he now has static knowledge on which he can base his “proof of god” is a [self refuting idea]. The fact that scientific knowledge evolved the last 50 years is not evidence it will not further evolve, if anything suggesting the opposite, which would put in doubt his “proof” based on current, partial assumptions. Drawing only from 50 years of experience in science is also a fallacy of [insufficient sample] for him to conclude on the extent of future scientific progress.
His claim that “you can talk to the hard-line atheists and they will say science has indeed discovered god” is a fallacious [straw man], an oxymoron and [suppressing correlative] to redefine mutually exclusive options together, since the definition of atheists is one who does not believe in god concepts due to lack of evidence.
His multiple quotes of “development of the universe from the creation” and “from how it was created” already smuggled in the language of “creation” to [assume the answer].
Offering his “ex nihilo” myth as the only possible explanation of the Big Bang is [special pleading] considering “out of nothing” creation myths are very common with examples found in stories from Africa, Asia, Arabia and North America. If at all, it would support not only his preference but all ex nihilo myths, getting him no nearer to his erroneous conclusion.
Regarding the cosmological questions posed by Schroeder, the current, correct scientific answers are:
1. We don’t know what took place antecedent the Big Bang. Einstein’s math breaks down regressing toward the instant it took place, which suggests our theories are only partial pictures. Theoretical physicists are investigating the subject and current ideas include the Chaotic Inflation, White Hole, Big Bounce and Branes theories.
2. We don’t know what is beyond our observable universe or what is known as the Hubble Volume, which is only a fraction of our entire universe. There are limits to our observational abilities and the distance light can travel in time, as well as the phenomenon of photon dispersion through vast distances, pending light source, rendering detection difficult. Scientific hypotheses that postulate what is beyond our universe include Dark Flow, Infinite Bubble, Parallel Universes, etc.
All the scientific hypotheses listed are based on actual observations and mathematics where as Schroeder’s alternative is based on vague, translated words in a holy text. Evidentially speaking, he commits a [balance fallacy]. As a physicist, he should be aware of the other hypotheses, but he chooses, without mention, to ignore them all in favor of one that offers him [emotional appeal] to support his deity, further committing the [data mining] fallacy.
His insertion of god into these gaps in science is a classic [argument from ignorance] in the dubious tradition of religious apologists, not scientists. Using [equivocation] to equate his bible verses to scientific terms, his [confirmation bias], a systematic error in inductive reasoning, causes him to [beg the question] yet again with [presupposition] of his variety of god.
The rest of his video, claiming “god predates time, is outside of time and not a physical being”, is summarily [argument by assertion] up to his very last words “that which created the universe is also active…pretty much established by…” someone watching the video. As a parting gift, he throws in two more fallacies for good measure – [false cause] and a complete [non sequitur]. The fact that one is watching that video establishes…one is watching that video.
I have to admit I missed his [argument from authority] fallacy, which others have pointed out.
First up on our “fallacious fantasy ride” is the argument from authority. “I have a backgound in this, that, and the other, therefore you should place a higher value on my argument than the opposing view.” Example, you may be a world famous physicist, but that hardly means that your argument about tribal mentality is correct without evidence. Even an argument within your field of expertise is subject to further investigation without proper evidence.
“Science has discovered god.” Assertion without evidence. As this segment moves on, he makes a plea to logic (if you can call it such), not a plea based on evidence.
Argument from ignorance. “I cannot conceive any other way that the universe may have started, therefore, GOD.”
Special pleading. “The laws of our universe, physics, are complex. Complexity cannot cannot simply arise from nothing. A more complex being or thing must have created the laws that govern our universe, and we call that complexity GOD.” Of course, this creates more questions than it answers like, “If complexity demands a designer, the designer must needs be even more complex. A watch doesn’t make a watchmaker. An even more complex creator must have a creator as well.” Infinite reduction. The theist then asserts that god always existed outside of time (which is a poor construct, as terms like “infinite” and “forever” are claims built upon the concept of time, which didn’t exist before the universe came into being).
Even worse, he claims that all of this verifies a SPECIFIC god, namely Yahweh. Even if these arguments held up logically, which they do not, they do not support the idea of a biblical god anymore or less than they prove the deists’ idea of god. Or the Hindus’.
Any marriage of scientific theory and theology is bound to fail. They rely on different premises.
Well … It’s always the same story, in three points :
1/ As a human being I am too limited to conceive infinity, and to conceive how “something” can appear from what I call “nothing”. This point is true.
2/ I cannot live with my limited abilities which prevent me from having the answer to my questions: this is called to have a problem linked to anxiety, unnaceptable fear, the overwhelming need to be reassured, etc.
3/ I invent a god to explain this “something” from “nothing” and reassure myself.
Point 3 is a consequence of point 2, but neither point 1 nor point 2 or point 3 are proof that god exists. They are just proof that some people cannot support existence without believing there is a god.
So all that this guy says comes to nothing, except that some people with mental weaknesses need to believe there is a god, but certainly not to the fact that what they believe in is true.