hawking,pascal's wager

RE: CNet's article on Hawking

CNet Article

Today I read this CNet Article about Stephen Hawking's recent statement about his position on god. This article is purely a condescending piece of shit meant to make Hawking look like a fool for expressing his beliefs.

It is a short read so I would suggest reading the article yourself.

Pascal's Wager

So this guy starts right off the bat with Pascal's Wager by saying:

If I were a scientist, I'd stick to the Goldman Sachs principle: bet on both sides.

"Believe in science, believe in God" seems to cover all the possibilities and gives you the best chance for a cheery afterlife.

There is so much wrong with Pascal's Wager I'm amazed it can be summed up with a single Homer Simpson Quote:

Homer Simpson

First of all, Pascal's Wager assumes that only one version of "god" is true and that's simply not the case. Any version of "god" may be true so if you hedge your bet on just one of those gods, you are still betting that it's not one of the other gods. You have the same chance of going to hell as you did before; therefore, Pascal's Wager is pointless and about the worst reason to believe in god.

Declaring Shit

He claims that Stephen Hawking is declaring that god doesn't exist, as if he is some kind of authority on the subject. Hawking never claims to be an authority on the existence of god. He simply states his opinion about god and the only reason he has to do that is because YOU'RE MAKING HIM FUCKING DO IT.

I would like to point out that this is related to the Appeal to Authority fallacy.

I have no idea

I have no idea what the fuck he means by this sentence:

I'm not sure whether there was a specific moment in which science overtook the deistic explanation of existence.

Science has no innate say on the existence of "god." We can use science to dismiss "god" claims but Science is just a tool we use to understand our world. I have never heard any study or anything based on science that has concluded that the deistic approach to "god" is more correct.

The Human Eye

He then goes on to say this:

But some look at, for example, the human eye and wonder how that exciting ball of jelly could have come about scientifically.

We have scientific explanations for this. The earth is littered with examples of the evolution of the eye. As a very brief overview for those that don't know: The eye first started to form in aquatic lifeforms that had photosensitive cells on a certain side of their body. As they survived and passed their genes on, these photosensitive cells allowed them to survive better and reproduce more. As time went on these cells collected in spots on the organism. Eventually a cavatiy was formed where these cells continued to collect and evolve. Soon an aperture was evolved to control the amount of light that their photosensitive cells were exposed to. From there the eye evolves into what we observe now in most animals, including humans. There are organisms all over this earth that have eyes at various stages of evolution. They didn't continue to evolve because they didn't have to. Their eyesight was perfect for the environment they were in or their ability.

Technically Incorrect

Now the thing that got me to write this response to this article is the tags that he associated with this article. He labeled it as "Technically Incorrect." Who the fuck are you exactly? I would love to see your evidence for why you feel Hawking is "Technically Wrong." My bet is that you don't have any kind of evidence, just your condescending attitude.

Hawking isn't "Technically Wrong" because it's his opinion. When I argue with Christians about "god" I don't say that they are wrong. I prove to them why their specific god doesn't or can't exist using logic, reason, and reality.

Created: 2014-10-16 10:04:26

Subscribe Today!