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

I know this is the definition you like, but it is not the standard definition, and it is not the definition everyone else is using. Jar provided this definition that I think most here would accept: You replied, "Thank you jar! Finally someone gets it!" but Jar said nothing about infallibility, and no one here agrees with you that what makes an appeal to authority fallacious is a claim that the authority is infallible.If you can clear up the apparent contradiction between your definition and your statement of agreement with Jar then I think it would help the discussion a great deal.--Percy

You're going to have to get straight what the argument from authority is. Quoting or referencing an authority is not the fallacy of argument from authority. Arguing that something is true because an authority says it is true is the fallacy of argument from authority.--Percy

Might the sources describing Eddington as an atheist be creationist? In a discussion of logical fallacies, it matters not what those men said or believe. Whoever is right or wrong about them doesn't matter, because being wrong is not a logical fallacy.That some scientists see hints of the supernatural in the Big Bang is true. That the Big Bang suggests the supernatural because some scientists think so is the fallacy of argument from authority. That the Big Bang suggests the supernatural because of cited evidence would be a valid scientific argument, were there any evidence to cite.--Percy

No, of course the source being creationist doesn't mean it's wrong. Just a lucky guess by me, right? Concerning quote mining, I haven't seen any particularly bad quote mining examples from you in this thread. We agree about the definition of quote mining, so maybe I shouldn't have replied to your response to Granny Magda, but you didn't reply to my Message 121 and so left me kind of hanging. I'm focused on the fallacy of argument from authority because, as far as I can tell, you still have the definition wrong. You use logic to reason from evidence. Proper reasoning from good evidence leads to conclusions likely to be true. Reason doesn't produce evidence. I'm not sure if this fallacy has a name, but it should.--Percy

She's right. All our wives are right! But don't give up - after all, you've found someone on the Internet who is wrong, and we can't let that go on! Keeping the focus on fallacies instead of the Big Bang, I see one error and one fallacy. The error: Anyone here promoting the singularity as a physical reality is definitely in the minority. I don't think there can be many here with this particular misconception. I haven't noticed anyone in this thread or the Big Bang Theory Supports a Belief in the Universe Designer or Creator God thread advocating this idea.The fallacy: Your facts, as near as anyone here can tell, do not lead to your conclusions.Your conclusion also leads to an infinite regression. Who created the creator? And who created the creator's creator? And who created the creator's creator's creator?--Percy

I think he means Hoyle, not Hawking.--Percy

I think you mean Hoyle. No one here would ask for proof, only support, assuming by that you mean scientific support in the form of evidence.If you're merely trying to show atheists that their views are not shared by some prominent scientists then I think they already know that. But it would be a fallacy to argue that because some prominent scientists believe the Big Bang hints at the supernatural that it imbues the idea with greater credibility. You have your list of scientists that lean toward your view, but atheists could offer a different list of scientists that lean their way, and where does that leave you? Scientifically you're no better off than you were before.Treating what certain scientists believe as if it were evidence for what might be true about the universe is a fallacy. That's why your quotes of famous scientists who lean your way will not convince anyone from the other side. You're not likely to find those who disagree with you quoting scientists who lean the other way, because they understand it is a fallacy.It is the evidence that persuades scientists to lean one way or the other that's important.--Percy

As others have already informed you (and so I don't understand why you're replying like this instead of acknowledging error), Hawking does not reject the Big Bang. Hawking never "turned his back on the Big Bang." The only world-famous physicist fitting that description who springs readily to mind is Hoyle.Hawking accepts the rather obvious evidence that the universe was once small and very dense and experienced a period of very rapid expansion early in its history. Hawker never rejected the Big Bang. Eddington never left Quakerism. And what certain scientists think is not evidence of what is true about nature.No one replied to your error about Hawking in your message Message 314 because the thread was in summation mode, and no replies are permitted in that mode.You continue to misunderstand the fallacy of argument from authority. It isn't citing an authority that is the fallacy. It is claiming that something is so because the authority says it is so.What's important is the evidence that convinced an authority something is so, because then others can examine the evidence to see if it is convincing to them, too.--Percy

Hi DesignTheorist,Hawking "turned his back" on the singularity, not on the Big Bang. The very quote you provided has Hawking saying that there's no singularity at the beginning of the universe, not that there's no Big Bang. Hawking is saying that the Big Bang didn't begin with a singularity, not that it didn't happen. For him or any physicist to conclude that the Big Bang didn't happen would require mountains of evidence to just evaporate.Maybe up until around the mid-twentieth century it was not uncommon for physicists to think of the singularity as real, but at least today it is a very uncommon view. I think most physicists pretty much "turned their back" on the singularity as real a long time ago.Like others I'm a bit sceptical that you've actually read Hawking's book. You come across as being completely unfamiliar with what Hawking actually believes. Instead of taking the clear meaning of his words you seem to be trying to force some other alien meaning upon them. Usually the people behaving in this puzzling manner are following the lead of some creationist website. Like maybe a creationist website similar to one that told you Eddington was an atheist.Note that we have descended into discussing what people meant instead of what the evidence says, and since misinterpreting the simple English of popular-press books by famous physicists with debilitating diseases is not a logical fallacy, we're not even on-topic.--Percy

Hi DesignTheorist,Well, the Big Bang isn't the topic, so I guess I'll just say that you have some interesting interpretations and leave it at that.I only joined this thread to point out that you misunderstand the fallacy of argument from authority. Citing an authority isn't a fallacy. But claiming something is so because an authority says it is so, that's a fallacy.--Percy

I think "error of omission" is a factual error rather than a logical fallacy.--Percy

Hi DesignTheorist,A few things.You don't need to use message subtitles to keep track of which message is a reply to who. The board software does that for you. Each message contains a link to the message it is a reply to, and a list of links to all the replies. You seem to be doing a good job of not taking the "totality" of what other people have provided about Hawking's thinking. Your interpretation of what Hawking believes is based upon quotes you yourself chose and also upon the absence of other quotes you've apparently decided not to consider. Interpretations are not facts, and Hawking isn't the topic of this thread anyway.The topic is logical fallacies.--Percy