It is still Fallacy of composition lol. You actually proved why it is fallacy of composition.
Wrong. You're still beating up on a straw man. It would only have been a fallacy had he concluded
, categorically, that all religions were thereby absolutely wrong. He did not. He merely pointed out - rightly - that, on the face of the available evidence, they look like an extremely bad bet.
You said "merely that it (religion) has retreated in the face of all evidence we have to date, and that on the face of it, it is a pretty bad bet". He is using ONE religion, or God, as the basis for not believing in every conceivable god.
False. I'll let kcrady speak in his own defense:
As I've already said before, my argument against IMP-based explanations was not an argument from pure, philosophical logic, but from probability. It's the same sort of probability judgment people (except for you apparently) make all the time.
Where did I even say that it did? What I said was that IMPs as an explanatory mechanism for natural phenomena have a track record of 100% failure. So far you have not provided a single counter-example (beyond that which is currently in dispute between us) of a successfully-demonstrated IMP-based explanation for a natural phenomenon. How many diseases have been shown to be caused by demons? How many weather phenomena have been demonstrated to be caused by shamanic rain dances? Does the fact that Every. Single. Time. an IMP-based explanation has been offered for some phenomenon, and that phenomenon has come to be understood, that it has turned out to be a natural phenomenon prove that IMPs don't exist? No. It just shows that, if any IMPs exist, as far as we can tell, they don't do anything.
Note that "as far as we can tell". That's an inductive inference
, not a deduction, and generalizations are
allowed in inductive reasoning where they are qualified as such.
And that is fallacy of composition, because not every religion makes the claim that he is stating.
You can't even get your logical fallacies straight. Had kcrady indeed made the assertion you imply he has (which he hasn't), then it would be a hasty generalization
, not a fallacy of composition.
Nothing that he said applies to the Christian God (or any other god that i am aware of)
Nothing you'd care to admit, you mean.
And on another note, he is, by theory, concluding that religion is wrong because science has shown us that the claims that religions make is not a supernatural cause. That is HIS argument.
No, it isn't. He hasn't drawn the conclusion
that "religion is wrong". What he has said is that it has an extremely poor track record. If you want to embellish that and erect straw men in the process, knock yourself out. You only make yourself look like a fool in doing so, though.
But my point is, that says nothing about the God of Christianity, neither does it prove that the religion that he is referring to God doesn't exist.
You seem to understand neither his argument nor the terms of the debate. He does not need to, nor has he attempted to, prove
such a thing. What he has pointed out - and fairly - is that Invisible Magic Persons™ have a 100% failure record in terms of providing explanations for natural phenomena. Such as, for instance, the reason for rainbows - which does
apply directly to Jahweh.
This quote above is so irrelevant to anything that addressing it any more than what I am doing right now would just be a waste of time.
The quote that I gave on this subject came DIRECTLY from Hawking himself. He said it, not me. But you have no problem accepting KC's quote from Hawking. Oh no, that was all fine and dandy. But the minute i put my quote up from Hawking, you make a comment on it. The majority of this room is biased, and full of crap. And it is evident how much CRAP this room is full of every single day I get a biased post like the one above.
The only "crap" here is coming from your own keyboard. The quote you gave is not the contentious issue here. What is at issue is your blithe dismissal, based on nothing bar your own faulty understanding of LCDM cosmology and personal opinion apparently, that the only reason Hartle and Hawking advance such ideas is to shore up their own preconceptions, and not out of any desire to further scientific understanding of reality. That's a serious charge.
Dude, are you freakin serious??
I am entirely serious.
This is just complete ignorance.
The Big Bang Theory recognizes that there was absolutely nothing prior to it, no time, no space, or no energy.
Again, you're simply wrong. I strongly suggest you do your homework. The Big Bang recognises an "initial condition" of the cosmos; anything beyond that is quite simply outside the scope of the model. It does not
assert that "there was absolutely nothing prior to it". You have, I am afraid, quite simply made that up. Since you invoked the second law of thermodynamics earlier, it's rather funny that you ignore the first: energy can neither be created nor destroyed
. If you're seriously advancing the case that the Big Bang contains within it the assertion that the first law of thermodynamics is violated at t
=0 and a staggering amount of energy simply appears out of nowhere, I think you need to show your working.
WOWWWWWWWW. Just disagreeing just to disagree. So typical
Again, wrong. I have better things to do with my time than disagree with you purely for the sake of it.