Hawking says there are no gods

[Tommy Jeppesen]

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.

No, correct. We as humans have 2 competing overall strategies: Alpha male versus cooperation.
Now that can be observed when looking at human interactions.
So please tell us only using science, which is the correct one?
Answer: Neither. They are different versions in a social group of how replication of the fittest gene plays out.

 

[BadBoy]

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.

there are whole journals for the subject of the evolution of social behavior.

How Humans Became Social

I mean you appear to be ignoring a whole field of established science. Looking at Morality though this filter makes sense to me. Oh well.

 

[BadBoy]

No, correct. We as humans have 2 competing overall strategies: Alpha male versus cooperation.
Now that can be observed when looking at human interactions.
So please tell us only using science, which is the correct one?
Answer: Neither. They are different versions in a social group of how replication of the fittest gene plays out.

What? You seem to be all over the place. Just because there is more than one forcing doesn't mean it can't be studied scientifically.
For example there is evidence to suggest that intelligence may be the better indicator of survival in humans. I am sure there would be others too. This is all scientific.

Edit: So you are saying because Alpha males exist, that opposes cooperation? That just sounds like nonsense. We are a social species that depend on each other, Alpha males exist within that and still depend on the cooperation within the group. And by the way, you're not either an alpha male or not. It's much more nuanced then that.

And why this stops a scientifically informed approach to morality I have no idea.

 

[Tommy Jeppesen]

there are hole journals for the subject of the evolution of social behavior.

How Humans Became Social

I mean you appear to be ignoring a whole field of established science. Looking at Morality though this filter makes sense to me. Oh well.

Could you start reading your own link:

It's a controversial idea.

Yes, we are in the middle of an ongoing evolution in the human race. You bet on the group, so do I. But that doesn't make it science.

 

[Tommy Jeppesen]

I don't think it is at all as simple as that. For example there is evidence to suggest that intelligence may be the better indicator of survival in humans. I am sure there would be others too.

Sure and now link that to Lawrence Kohlberg:
https://www.simplypsychology.org/simplypsychology.org-Kohlberg.pdf

Only 10-15% have the cognition required for your plan to work. I have been doing this for 25 years now.
If there is one correct methodology for ethics?
There is not.

You can be informed by science and the study of the soft underbelly: Philosophy, the soft part of soft science, humanities and religion, but there is no one correct methodology for ethics.

 

[Tommy Jeppesen]

What? You seem to be all over the place. Just because there is more than one forcing doesn't mean it can't be studied scientifically.
For example there is evidence to suggest that intelligence may be the better indicator of survival in humans. I am sure there would be others too. This is all scientific.

Edit: So you are saying because Alpha males exist, that opposes cooperation? That just sounds like nonsense. We are a social species that depend on each other, Alpha males exist within that and still depend on the cooperation within the group. And by the way, you're not either an alpha male or not. It's much more nuanced then that.

And why this stops a scientifically informed approach to morality I have no idea.

Because that requires a cognition not present in humanity overall. We are at A and want to get to B. That a sufficient number of humans can do ethics informed by knowledge. How do we get there in practice? Well, not with hard science evidence, reason AND logic alone.
You need to get more people to connect the dot between their everyday life and this in part:

1st Principle: The inherent worth and dignity of every person;
2nd Principle: Justice, equity and compassion in human relations;
3rd Principle: Acceptance of one another and encouragement to spiritual growth in our congregations; (amounts to the feeling of ethics, my add)
4th Principle: A free and responsible search for truth and meaning;
5th Principle: The right of conscience and the use of the democratic process within our congregations and in society at large;
6th Principle: The goal of world community with peace, liberty, and justice for all;
7th Principle: Respect for the interdependent web of all existence of which we are a part.

https://www.uua.org/beliefs/what-we-believe/principles

That is a load of soft values, but that is the end goal.

Now look at this forum and how we "fight" for the one correct "fix" to it all. We just need evidence, reason AND logic alone, right?
We also need evidence, reason AND logic, but there is more.

 

[Darat]

No, correct. We as humans have 2 competing overall strategies: Alpha male versus cooperation.
Now that can be observed when looking at human interactions.
So please tell us only using science, which is the correct one?
Answer: Neither. They are different versions in a social group of how replication of the fittest gene plays out.

What's this "we humans" there is according to our resident expert no such thing as "we humans".

 

[David Mo]

The photos, the videos, the human exploration of every inch of Mount Olympus.

I don't think that a tourist who takes pictures is doing a scientific study of anything.
Anyway, you have a concept of the Greek religion typical of a comic book. Greeks didn't believe that gods inhabited fountains and mountains the way Walt Disney characters could be seen or "photographed". At least the Greeks with a certain culture.
For believers in gods and spirits they are "presences" that "manifest" themselves in natural objects. The same way that Jesus Christ is present in the host.
Obsiously, science doesn't deal with that kind of things.

 

[David Mo]

Explain how you differentiate between "evidence" and "scientific evidence"? (in 200 words or less would be good)

Is the "evidence" you "have" credible? If so then that's all I asked for. . . .


I don't care if you define the evidence you claim to "have" as being "scientific" or "not scientific".

To anticipate your obvious "define credible" obfuscation, by "credible" I mean stuff like "trustworthy, reliable, logical, plausible, and the like".

ETA - I didn't ask for evidence that gods don't exist. I asked for evidence that gods can exist beyond being fictional characters ("can be non-fictional"). In case you still miss the point, I'm not asking if gods do exist, I'm asking if there's any credible evidence they merely could exist. To put it even more simply, is there any known method by which invisible, magical, sky-daddies even could exist?

Evidence in a broad sense: Signs or indications of something. Scientific evidence: Proofs based on scientific methods. Hypothetico-deductive method or controlled observation.
Yes: there is only a method to know that invisible things exist: if they are inferred from experience. This is my philosophical position. Do you agree?

(No more of 50 words, please).

 

[David Mo]

Clearly you believe you are making a valid argument.

In reality you are not, and you are not convincing any critical thinker that you are.

I asked you if scientists should look into the Hawaiian volcanoes and see if Péle might be in there. You dismiss that then repeat your same claim that there is no scientific evidence of mythical gods.

Which is it, there is no evidence or gods aren't myths. That's one of the most ludicrous arguments for real gods I've heard.

It would appear you are claiming the same old argument, one can't prove there are no gods.

Nothing to see here... I'll move along.

What is the way a scientist can know if tripolina asterya exist in a cave? He goes and enter in the cave.
I don't know any other scientific method to know if a particular thing exist.
Do you know another method to do it?

NOTE: Don't search about tripolinum asterya in Google. I invented it. The problem is that believers think that gods are different to tripolinum asterya. See my comment above. #2708

 

[Tommy Jeppesen]

What's this "we humans" there is according to our resident expert no such thing as "we humans".

Yeah, we as the human species is the same "we" as we can use science to do morality. I know it isn't and so do you.
How science as a methodology can be used to examine the human species, is not the same as we can use science to do morality.
We can model a mass murder and a pacifist, so therefore it is both okay to kill other humans and be a pacifist, because science tells us both is morally correct.
Science can model and describe that, but that is not that we can use science to do morality.

 

[Darat]

I don't think that a tourist who takes pictures is doing a scientific study of anything.
Anyway, you have a concept of the Greek religion typical of a comic book. Greeks didn't believe that gods inhabited fountains and mountains the way Walt Disney characters could be seen or "photographed". At least the Greeks with a certain culture.
For believers in gods and spirits they are "presences" that "manifest" themselves in natural objects. The same way that Jesus Christ is present in the host.
Obsiously, science doesn't deal with that kind of things.

You can use satellite photos of the entire Mnt Olympus to see there is no Palace.

And no my concept of the Greek gods is not comic book, according to the written records we have Zeus was meant to live in a Palace on Mnt Olympus. A Palace that was accessible to humans as well as gods, and demigods and so on.

Where he lived is of course — as I've made clear — only one part of the definition his believers had but it is one of quite a few claims that we can check.

And since we know no such Palace exists we know no such god exists today.

You will now undoubtedly waffle on about metaphors, we need to interpret x as z and so on. By all means do that but then you are no longer talking about the Zeus that people claimed existed.

We know via scientific methodolgy that the Zeus that his belivers claimed existed does not exist.

Science really has no problems with dealing with the actual gods that people worship.

 

[David Mo]

You can use satellite photos of the entire Mnt Olympus to see there is no Palace.

And no my concept of the Greek gods is not comic book, according to the written records we have Zeus was meant to live in a Palace on Mnt Olympus. A Palace that was accessible to humans as well as gods, and demigods and so on.

Where he lived is of course — as I've made clear — only one part of the definition his believers had but it is one of quite a few claims that we can check.

And since we know no such Palace exists we know no such god exists today.

You will now undoubtedly waffle on about metaphors, we need to interpret x as z and so on. By all means do that but then you are no longer talking about the Zeus that people claimed existed.

We know via scientific methodolgy that the Zeus that his belivers claimed existed does not exist.

Science really has no problems with dealing with the actual gods that people worship.

From which Walt Disney film did you get your ideas about Greek mythology? Do you think a picture of a host is enough to prove that Jesus Christ is not in it? Do you think that Greeks were more stupid than the Christians?
Have you read what Celsus says of gods?
Do you kow that there were in Greece about ten Olympus?

 

[Darat]

From which Walt Disney film did you get your ideas about Greek mythology? Do you think a picture of a host is enough to prove that Jesus Christ is not in it? Do you think that Greeks were more stupid than the Christians?
Have you read what Celsus says of gods?
Do you kow that there were in Greece about ten Olympus?

You will now undoubtedly waffle on about metaphors, we need to interpret x as z and so on. By all means do that but then you are no longer talking about the Zeus that people claimed existed.​

 

[Darat]

Yeah, we as the human species is the same "we" as we can use science to do morality. I know it isn't and so do you.
How science as a methodology can be used to examine the human species, is not the same as we can use science to do morality.
We can model a mass murder and a pacifist, so therefore it is both okay to kill other humans and be a pacifist, because science tells us both is morally correct.
Science can model and describe that, but that is not that we can use science to do morality.

Right - so let me get this - you can use "we" when talking about humans but no one else can.

Thanks for clearing that up.

 

[JoeMorgue]

So we're no longer even being intellectually insulted with a mere God of the Gaps but a God of the Gaps that aren't even there.

 

[Tommy Jeppesen]

Right - so let me get this - you can use "we" when talking about humans but no one else can.

Thanks for clearing that up.

Okay, you do have a point. But now look closer. You want to find common ground. Gravity is common to all humans. We are all affected by it.

But the "we" can use science to do morality is not the same "we".
Look up Newton's law of gravity. Found it.
Now look up the law of morality. You can't find it.

So yes, there is maybe some people, that will deny gravity. There is science as Newton's law of gravity.
And yes, some people will deny that science can do morality. There is even an Internet site made by scientist, that says science can't do morality.
So we can explain gravity with science and we can do morality with science, is the same "we" in some weird way, yet also different.
Gravity is a fact. It is not a fact, that science can do morality.

So to rap up! Gravity is the same to all humans. Morality is not.

 

[Tommy Jeppesen]

So we're no longer even being intellectually insulted with a mere God of the Gaps but a God of the Gaps that aren't even there.

Good morning.
Want to play?

 

[JoeMorgue]

Good morning.
Want to play?

Everyday you come closer to just admitting you are doing nothing but outright trolling.

 

[Porpoise of Life]

Okay, you do have a point. But now look closer. You want to find common ground. Gravity is common to all humans. We are all affected by it.

But the "we" can use science to do morality is not the same "we".
Look up Newton's law of gravity. Found it.
Now look up the law of morality. You can't find it.

So yes, there is maybe some people, that will deny gravity. There is science as Newton's law of gravity.
And yes, some people will deny that science can do morality. There is even an Internet site made by scientist, that says science can't do morality.
So we can explain gravity with science and we can do morality with science, is the same "we" in some weird way, yet also different.
Gravity is a fact. It is not a fact, that science can do morality.

So to rap up! Gravity is the same to all humans. Morality is not.

we can 'do morality' with science just as we can 'do psychology' with science.
There is no need for morality to be as absolute and abstract as gravity in order for science to be able to take a look at it...