Hawking says there are no gods

[Tommy Jeppesen]

Without going down the morality wormhole too far, science can indeed inform decisions about what is moral and what isn't when we use Well Being as the foundation of morality.
The two outside questions are indeed entirely scientific when viewed from the standpoint of well being.

There is no universal we in the human species. You don't need that I have a good life for you to have a good life. There is no universal empathy and altruism.

It maybe "What if any is outside the universe" can never be answered, but we don't know that yet. And "What does it matter and how do the universe matter" I think is not necessarily answered if God does in fact exist anyway - I mean "why god and why does he do anything and why does he do what he does" comes next. But if we want to find an explanation to that question it may be that it has some bearing on our well being and so finding an answer and working out how it impacts us with respect to well being could be important, though I suspect it's actually a nonsense question.

Again, if we base our decisions on the outcome with respect to well being then truth absolutely matters, and should in principal be scientifically investigated in each case.

What about those who don't base their morality on a universal "we"?
Your idea is falsified, when looking at the human world. It is noble, but you have a problem. How do you get from where we are now to if we base our decisions on the outcome with respect to well being.
It appears if it stands alone to be the Nirvana fallacy.

 

[BadBoy]

Yeah, take that up with these people.

https://undsci.berkeley.edu/about.php

The quote, I used, was from there.

Now here are at least 3 positions on killing other humans.
Someone: I like it.
Someone else: There can be cases where it is okay and others where it is wrong.
Someone else: It is wrong to kill another human.



You have 3 different "scales" in the above example of killing another human. So which scale is correct?
Skeptic Ginger, who made you boss of humanity and why should we use your scale? There are other ones generated than yours. That is your problem.
Take Newton's law of universal gravitation, it has limits in regards to QM, but it is common to all humans.
That you generate a scale, doesn't make it common to all humans, because someone else can generate another scale.

Gravity is common to all humans and Skeptic Ginger's scales are the source of all morality.
Both claims can be tested using science and with different outcomes:
Gravity is common to all humans.
Skeptic Ginger's scales are not the source of all morality, because we can observe other scales for morality.

Hi Skeptic Ginger. Your claim of morality is falsified by looking at the fact, that there are different sets of morality, where as gravity is not different to different humans. It is that simple.

You are confused.

We are talking about situational ethics. What is the moral action to take in any specific situation has to be evaluated with respect to that situation. It's not that the scales are different, but that they are reset for different situations.

When we base morality on well being, we can make objective decisions based on well being. But this is not always easy to do in all situations, which we can see everyday in reality.

1. Generally it is bad for humans to kill other humans
2. When a guy tries to kill you with a knife it maybe your only defense is to kill him/her first, but it depends on the situation.
3. If he is trying to kill you because you just killed his sister - is he justified in attempting to kill you? That's potentially a difficult one.
4. What if I am mentally ill, or have a brain tumor when I killed his sister.

5. Is abortion moral or immoral.
6. Is capital punishment moral or immoral.
7. If capital punishment is moral, is it immoral to kill them slowly

Where in all the scripture and tablets and divine revelation does it tell us what to do here.

Just saying there are moral absolutes is pointless if we don't know what they are. We have to decide in each case what leads to the best well being for the most people - and that is not easy - but it is what we do every single day.

 

[Tommy Jeppesen]

The "predict" in that is key. Theoretical physics (or one branch of it) predicted that the Higgs Boson exits. They tested it and it does.

Yes, it predicts and then it is tested by experimental physics.
Now test what is outside the universe. Oh, wait, we haven't done that, so we don't know that with experimental physics.
That is the difference between theoretical physics and experimental physics.

 

[Tommy Jeppesen]

You are confused.

We are talking about situational ethics. What is the moral action to take in any specific situation has to be evaluated with respect to that situation. It's not that the scales are different, but that they are reset for different situations.

When we base morality on well being, we can make objective decisions based on well being. But this is not always easy to do in all situations, which we can see everyday in reality.
...

When someone bases morality on on what ever he/she/they subjectively choose, then they can further reason about and test how to go about that.

Could you stop using a universal "we"?!! You are not humanity, nor am I or anybody else.
You are using a universal "we" on situational ethics, but there is no universal "we" in any situation. There are several humans and different POWs.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

...
A universe from nothing sounds impossible to me, but not to people who have a vastly superior understanding of how it could occur mathematically.

No matter how you look at it, you run into impossibilities.

If the Universe didn't come into being from nothing, then something had to exist in infinite past-time.

And that's not possible either in our experience.

Adding a god layer does nothing, the same argument occurs not to mention it's rather obvious gods don't exist.

Personally, I love the mystery.

 

[BadBoy]

There is no universal we in the human species. You don't need that I have a good life for you to have a good life. There is no universal empathy and altruism.

I think there is. Humans are quite evidently a social species. We wouldn't have survived without cooperation within a group. But it's not perfect and brains are different on a scale. However, people who don't cooperate at all don't tend to last long. We banish individuals who break the social code. It is not straight forward but that is what you would expect when you have groups of bings from an evolved social species.

Generally you do need other people to have a good life for you to have a good life. You depend on other people every single day. Going to night club wouldn't be much fun on your own.

What about those who don't base their morality on a universal "we"?

Even street gangs have a code of conduct within their gang, but generally individuals like serial killers get dealt with.

Your idea is falsified, when looking at the human world.

I disagree, I think what we see is exactly what you would expect to see from a biological evolutionary standpoint.

I think if morals were absolute we would see the opposite. We would see more order and less chaos. We wouldn't see so many differences between cultures and moral decisions in ALL situations would be evident to everyone.

 

[BadBoy]

When someone bases morality on on what ever he/she/they subjectively choose, then they can further reason about and test how to go about that.

Could you stop using a universal "we"?!! You are not humanity, nor am I or anybody else.
You are using a universal "we" on situational ethics, but there is no universal "we" in any situation. There are several humans and different POWs.

'We' are all humans. I am not talking about dogs, cats, ants and humans, I'm talking about humans. We are individuals - but we are also social creatures biologically - as are some other species.

A pride of Lions don't generally eat each other because they need to cooperate to survive. Same as dogs. Apparently dogs can show signs of understanding what is fair or unfair (in a specific situation of course).

 

[Tommy Jeppesen]

I think there is. Humans are quite evidently a social species. We wouldn't have survived without cooperation within a group. But it's not perfect and brains are different on a scale. However, people who don't cooperate at all don't tend to last long. We banish individuals who break the social code. It is not straight forward but that is what you would expect when you have groups of bings from an evolved social species.

Generally you do need other people to have a good life for you to have a good life. You depend on other people every single day. Going to night club wouldn't be much fun on your own.

Even street gangs have a code of conduct within their gang, but generally individuals like serial killers get dealt with.

I disagree, I think what we see is exactly what you would expect to see from a biological evolutionary standpoint.

I think if morals were absolute we would see the opposite. We would see more order and less chaos. We wouldn't see so many differences between cultures and moral decisions in ALL situations would be evident to everyone.

If I die, you don't.
All members of humanity do not need to have a good life, for some to have a good life.
Show me the actual universal group in humanity. You can't because groups can compete as well as cooperate according to the 4 Fs in biology. Competition takes also place within the human species. There is a reason it is replication of the fittest gene and not the survival of all members of the fittest species.

 

[BadBoy]

No matter how you look at it, you run into impossibilities.

If the Universe didn't come into being from nothing, then something had to exist in infinite past-time.

And that's not possible in our experience.

Adding a god layer does nothing, the same argument occurs not to mention it's rather obvious gods don't exist.

Personally, I love the mystery.

its a total mind F#$#k

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Yeah, take that up with these people.
https://undsci.berkeley.edu/about.php

The quote, I used, was from there.

So you think because they used a pronoun for science that changes the fact science is not a 'thing' it's a process?

Or are you trying to distract from the facts with this little sidetrack?

Now here are at least 3 positions on killing other humans.
Someone: I like it.
Someone else: There can be cases where it is okay and others where it is wrong.
Someone else: It is wrong to kill another human.

You have 3 different "scales" in the above example of killing another human. So which scale is correct?

Skeptic Ginger, who made you boss of humanity and why should we use your scale? There are other ones generated than yours. That is your problem.
Take Newton's law of universal gravitation, it has limits in regards to QM, but it is common to all humans.
That you generate a scale, doesn't make it common to all humans, because someone else can generate another scale.

Gravity is common to all humans and Skeptic Ginger's scales are the source of all morality.
Both claims can be tested using science and with different outcomes:
Gravity is common to all humans.
Skeptic Ginger's scales are not the source of all morality, because we can observe other scales for morality.

Hi Skeptic Ginger. Your claim of morality is falsified by looking at the fact, that there are different sets of morality, where as gravity is not different to different humans. It is that simple.

I'm sorry it hasn't occurred to you how we determine means and standard deviations and what you can do with that kind of measurement in scientific research.

 

[Tommy Jeppesen]

'We' are all humans. I am not talking about dogs, cats, ants and humans, I'm talking about humans. We are individuals - but we are also social creatures biologically - as are some other species.

A pride of Lions don't generally eat each other because they need to cooperate to survive. Same as dogs. Apparently dogs can show signs of understanding what is fair or unfair (in a specific situation of course).

Yet males fight and different prides can fight. So with different groups of dogs and within a group.

Your problem to the bone is that evolution is the replication of the fittest gene.
There is no "we" in evolution.

 

[Tommy Jeppesen]

So you think because they used a pronoun for science that changes the fact science is not a 'thing' it's a process?

Or are you trying to distract from the facts with this little sidetrack?

I'm sorry it hasn't occurred to you how we determine means and standard deviations and what you can do with that kind of measurement in scientific research.

There are no means and standard deviations in morality, because there is no universal standard to start from.
That is your problem. You pull one out of your brain and I can pull another out of my brain. Yet you claim a "we" for everybody. There is no "we" in the human species.
In short - subjectivity in, subjectivity out. Or if you like garbage in, garbage out.
You are not doing science, when you choose a standard to measure from, because the standard is subjectively chosen.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

There are no means and standard deviations in morality, because there is no universal standard to start from....

So you don't understand it then. Got it.

Think: population based, populations can be studied, compared and contrasted and individuals within populations can be studied. Why on Earth do we need some universal moral? What would you do with it that would be better than the population mean?

 

[BadBoy]

Yet males fight and different prides can fight. So with different groups of dogs and within a group.

Your problem to the bone is that evolution is the replication of the fittest gene.
There is no "we" in evolution.

What do you mean by fittest gene ?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

...

Your problem to the bone is that evolution is the replication of the fittest gene.
There is no "we" in evolution.

No, that's not how evolution works either.

 

[Tommy Jeppesen]

So you don't understand it then. Got it.

Yes, I don't understand how you can start subjectively and then claim that is an objective result, just because you say science.
I can't replicate your methodology, because you start subjectively and claim you end objectively.
Your "we" is not a universal, objective standard. Your "we" is an inter-subjective limited group of humans.
That you claim a "we", doesn't magically turn it into a universal, objective standard.
A "we" is a group of humans, who share something, in this case your "we" share a view of morality, but that is not universal, because there are other views.
That is the problem with your "we". You don't get that it is intersubjective and not a universal, objective standard.

 

[Tommy Jeppesen]

No, that's not how evolution works either.

What do you mean by fittest gene ?

Start by reading up on the 4 Fs in biology.
Competition for resources and mating partners take place within the human species and not just against the rest of the universe.

Your problem boils down to this. Someone as an individual doesn't have to have a good life for the human species to survive.
There are humans right now dying of hunger, yet the human species survives.
If I don't get water, I die, yet you survive.
For it to be an universal standard, it would have to be: If I don't get water, I die and you die too.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Come on Tommy, you're only digging your hole deeper.

 

[Tommy Jeppesen]

Come on Tommy, you're only digging your hole deeper.

Check replication of the fittest gene. Check the 4Fs in biology. Start using science and understand how evolution works.
Altruism works biologically in kin-related groups. It breaks down on the level of the human species, unless we were closer related. We are not one group of ants, nor the Borg.

 

[BadBoy]

Start by reading up on the 4 Fs in biology.
Competition for resources and mating partners take place within the human species and not just against the rest of the universe.

Your problem boils down to this. Someone as an individual doesn't have to have a good life for the human species to survive.
There are humans right now dying of hunger, yet the human species survives.
If I don't get water, I die, yet you survive.
For it to be an universal standard, it would have to be: If I don't get water, I die and you die too.

survival of the fittest is not simply about who is the biggest strongest mate.

In fact it doesn't mean that at all really.

It means my genes fit my environment better giving me a survival edge. This may include being the biggest Lion so I get to spread my genes. But that biggest strongest Lion could have been born with other traits that causes him to die even before he gets to the mating season.

Elephants are now being born with smaller and smaller tusks, because the ones the are born to grow big tusks very quickly are killed sooner, preventing them from mating, taking out the big tusk gene from the pool.