A proper understanding of logical fallacies will improve the quality of debate

I am quite satisfied with "smacks of." Hawking thinks it smacks of is strong enough to turn his back on his most important paper of his career, the one with Penrose supporting the big bang.My previous thread showed the big bang is both compatible with and supported of the idea of a Universe Designer or Creator God. I also said if there was a big bang, there had to be a Big Banger. Hawking and I may not agree about many things but we certainly agree that the big bang smacks of divine intervention.

The singularity at the beginning of the universe is the definition of the big bang.

Hawking's new idea of a no boundary universe has never caught on.

Whatever Hawking's current theory is, it is different than the accepted view of the big bang.

I quoted Hawking specifically because I was challenged to quote him. The point is that everyone agrees that to use Hawking's words the big bang "smacks of divine intervention." This is no disagreement on this point anywhere but on this thread and I am baffled as to why it exists here.

I am not making up these quotes. Hawking says he has changed his mind.

I have read the book.

Your personal insults do not do anything to advance the discussion.

Deal with the quotes or provide your own.

The thread has obviously gone off the rails as people want to discuss my previous thread. What all of these disagreements have in common is faulty critical thinking known variously as "confirmation bias," "group-think," "tribalism" and "cherry-picking."The different terms are related but used in different settings. "Confirmation bias" is discussed among scientists, "group-think" among sociologists and the fallacy of "cherry-picking" among logicians. But the terms are closely related.Wikipedia has an interesting article on it Confirmation bias - WikipediaBasically, people look at evidence expecting to see confirmation of what they want to see. They tend to completely skip over information that is contrary to the position they hold. This is why it is recognized as very important to scientists not to go into research with pre-conceived ideas.On a forum such as this, it is common to see group-think at work. You see a post from someone and you can immediately see that you disagree with him but perhaps you don't read closely enough to consider the evidence and logic he presents because you see other people from your "tribe" accusing of logical fallacies and stupidity.It is important to try to avoid confirmation bias and tribalism. It is a serious flaw in good critical thinking skills.

Have you seen this video?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kQFKtI6gn9Y

I have read the book.

designtheorist, #242 writes:I have already read the first chapter of Hawking's book.

He was challenged to read Chapter 1. He responded that he had read Chapter 1. Since Chapter 1 is a subset of The Whole Book it would fallacious to assume that just because he HAD read Chapter 1 that also means he HAS NOT read The Whole Book. Indeed, anybody that has read The Whole Book could truthfully say 'I have already read Chapter 1' when challenged by someone to do so.

As I said before, I have read the book.

I do my best to present my case error free.

I used the Hawking quotes as an example. If you read the quotes I provided, it is clear that Hawking understands that a universe with a beginning "smacks of divine intervention."

The problem with this premise is that if a Universe Designer or Creator God exists, then he or she exists outside of space and time. [...] If a Universe Designer or Creator God exists, he or she did not begin to exist so there is no need for a cause. If the universe began to exist at the big bang, then it needs a cause. The only cause available is something which exists outside of space and time - a Universe Designer or Creator God.

My argument has nothing to do with Affirming the Consequent. I was merely providing definitions.

The quote I cited appeared on page 46 of A Brief History of Time. Hawking writes:"Many people do not like the idea that time has a beginning, probably because it smacks of divine intervention. (The Catholic Church, on the other hand, seized on the big bang model and in 1951 officially pronounced it to be in accordance with the Bible.) There were therefore a number of attempts to avoid the conclusion that there had been a big bang."If someone looks at that passage alone, Hawking is clearly speaking of other people. However, in the larger context it is clear Hawking does not disagree with this assessment. Hawking never argues that this opinion is in error. In fact, by 1988 Hawking had "changed his mind" about the big bang and the beginning of time so he could avoid the appearance of divine intervention."So long as the universe had a beginning, we could suppose it had a creator. But if the universe is really completely self-contained, having no boundary or edge, it would have neither beginning nor end; it would simply be. What place then for a creator? Stephen Hawking, A Brief History of Time, p. 140-141.