How am I a racist, and how does what I wrote legitimise racism? Please answer.

If you had any reading skills at all, you would see that I was NOT saying that. I identified morality as a human construct overlying and modifying innate genetically-controlled behaviours. The details of the human moral construct varies with the society; the underlying behaviours really don't, except on an evolutionary timescale.

Now you've got it. You might modify them but you won't eradicate them. And animals that live together often behave in ways which we might consider to be moralistic. Those behaviours evolved.

 

You don't need to argue that 'religion lead to immoral acts' it's a fact, and should never ever be tollerated.

Just to be clear once again, I am not a fan of 'big religion' in fact i'd agree wholeheartedly with 99% of what Richard Dawkins says. I do however refuse to close my mind to this issue and hide behind science.

 

Standard sort of answer from him then-just reverse it all in an effort to throw the argument!

Les

 

I accept that evolution exists as I said however.

I am not qualified to say where he came from!



Les

 

Leslie, very good! I agree with you :-)


TdW...I have chosen to ignore.


The most of the rest of you: Have you noticed how your own view denies those of anyone who disagrees?

Compare it to my view, theory, opinion. Mine allows for both worlds, the physical and the "spiritual", to exist without contradicting eachother.




Science teaches us that there are far more dimensions than the 3 we humans are confined too. How can there be a fourth physical dimension? Hard to fathom, but it's there...you will never be able to see it. Does that mean it doesn't exist?? PLEASE ANSWER !

Google Carl Sagan tesseract for a cool explanation. "..but I can show you it's shadow in 3 dimensions".

 

He basically added to Einstein's theory of relativity though he can't claim all the credit as a few other notable scientists work with him on that theory. I remain open to other views as there is no definitive proof of how it all began. For me it's like the old philosophical riddle, "If a tree falls in a forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?" Although there is no proof that the tree made a sound, there is evidence to suggest that when a tree falls it makes a sound.

 

Poppycock, young man.

 

Bloody hell, it's Brian Clough

 

That's exactly the image I wanted to conjure up!

(I also considered 'hogwash' and 'twaddle')

 

 

are you a Jedi?

 

Now you are backtracking. Whey are you arguing in favour and genetics then 'constructs'? If morality is a construct then why even mention genetics?

Besides is not language a construct? Even science?

Who deconstructs the social structuralists? Is not the notion of a 'construct', just another 'construct'?

I never said you won't eradicate them? You are strawmanning me.

Animals don't have morality, just hierarchy, like the Lord of the Flies kids.

 

Your philosophical riddle does not work when applied to the scientists' theories.

Les

 

I wasn't applying it to any specific scientific theory, more as a metaphor of how I perceive the way the universe exists. From what we have observed and currently know, the laws of physics and nature are the same everywhere in the observable universe. We have extrapolated that a tree falling creates changes in air pressure an vibrations, and this is perceived as sound to the observer. So we can assume that all trees everywhere would make a sound when it falls, however, a falling tree will still create vibrations and changes in air pressure even if there is no one there to perceive the sound.

So , for me, science is the most accurate explanation for our existence rather by a deity.

 

No quibbles about the laws of nature and those that we know about physics of course.

Problem is, the theories put forward by the scientists rely on information and observations which have not yet been made or proved to exist. The sound of a falling tree has concrete observations to prove it exists. I know because I have heard it myself. I don't need to keep an open mind about that.

Les

 

These arguments are so poor, it's frightening



Holger Bech Nielsen, a well respected Danish theoretical scientist, who has worked on similar things to Hawking. In what he calls it "The Theory for Everything", he can prove a core of inexplicable laws exist. At the very center of the entire theory. He has dubbed this proof "The Equation for God".

I have attended two of his public lectures. He's a funny man, a wee bit nerdy in a never-grew up way. He is very enthusiastic, and indeed extremely intelligent.

"God" for him doesn't necessarily mean a white-beared old man in the clouds, but he respects that even science cannot explain everything

 

Our universe has four dimensions, 3 of space and 1 of time

 

Scientists make suppositions to support their theory based on information, calculations and observations that they've already carried out. It doesn't necessary prove their theory only how accurate it is. Yes, you have observed a falling tree and the vibrations and change in air pressure and this your ear/brain processes this to what you perceive as sound. So you most accurately assume that a tree falling in another forest must also make a sound, right? If you open your mind to the possibility that if there is no one or creature there to witness the tree falling, there is nothing to process the vibrations and change in air pressure into sound. Therefore we could also assume that sound does not exist, only vibrations and change in air pressure.

 

Just watched another one of his Universe programs.

They are awesome.

They are awesome, because they explain things in a way my Science teacher ?!? missus can grasp now i am a bit of a closet geek to be honest, i likes me a bit of sci-fi and i tend to get stuck into all things to do with stuff like time travel etc etc

A while back i was trying to explain to the missus that time travel is technically possible, but she was having none of it I mentioned about the clocks put in orbit showing a difference to the time recorded on earth, she was having none of it.

Thanks Mr Hawkings for discussing this in your most recent program, although my good lady thinks that putting clocks in orbit proves nothing at all and you need to learn some more science

Bless reminds me of the time i said to her that if she took the bathroom scales to Titan, and stepped on them, she would weigh less, and she was having none of that either.

 

Please do some research before posting.

 

So, if anyone on the "God is cobblers" side has a proper response to this question, please let us hear.




http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KIadtFJYWhw

 

I really cannot think what you are trying to prove!

The descriptive noun "Sound" is an accepted term for the observed sensation when those pressure wave changes which were generated by any means you like cause the eardrums to vibrate in sympathy thus generating electric pulses which are transmitted to the brain so that we can be aware of them and recognise them.

If "Sound" is a name for those effects, how can you say it might be assumed not to exist and just for interest-what is your reasoning for saying that anyway?

Les

 

They were juvenile comments designed to ridicule you, not arguments.

My goodness, this really is revelationary! My only regret is that you hadn't pointed this out earlier! Please, tell me more.

 

Phew! No one ever said that explaining the universe was easy! But this is just my take on it which you may or may not agree with (assuming that you can understand what I'm trying to say!)

Sound is the observed sensation of pressure waves. However, if there is no one to observe the pressure waves, ie, there is nothing to convert those pressure waves, no ear drums to vibrate, no generation of electric pulses to transmit to a brain to process/perceive as sound. Thus you could argue that sound did not exist, but we all know it does because we have observed this to be so.

Though we were not there to observe the beginning of the universe, we could say there was no beginning, but we know through what we have observed and calculated that there was a beginning, and current observations, red shift, background microwave radiation, doppler effect, gravity, supports the "big bang" theory. I remain open to other theories but this one is the most generally accepted theory, until proven wrong or until someone discovers more accurate theory.

There are no empirical observation anywhere that I know of to support that a deity created the universe.

I hope that is clear enough for you, that's is about as clear as I can put it.

 

she must be a really good ****

 

No, you are making out that an atheist view simply dismisses the theist view because we disagree. Well, that's true to an extent, but only in so much as the theist view cannot be backed up. The atheist view is that we accept what is the best theory at present, or undisputed fact in the case of things already proven.

Contrast this with a view that is based upon a single, non-verifiable script that has been proven to be incorrect in several areas.

I think you'll find that its theists who are denying other views simply because they disagree with them




So what? Are you really trying to use the tesseract example to support you rather odd views about God?

We can describe a tesseract mathematically, we can see the influence of sub atomic particles, black holes, the list goes on.

Please describe God in the same way, or show his influence or effect. You can't because it's simply a construct of the human mind.

Your 'view, theory. opinion' allows nothing of the sort of both worlds existing together. All you did was to put God in such a nonsensical manner that no one could refute what you say. You have just dressed up 'faith' another way. Proof is encumbent on the claimant.

Geezer

 

Yes much better thank you. I also accept the likelihood of the big bang theory for all those reasons that you quote. I have already said that, and I am at least as open minded as you probably are.

There is however positive proof that sound does exist if only by empirical methods having watched a tree fall down and heard the result.

My question is very simple, how did the big bang happen in empty space, ie. no mass or energy in the first place? Where did all that material forming the stars and planets etc. come from?

Les

 

I think it's better to think of the Big Bang as a state change, as opposed to the start from nothing. Of course that only moves that question further back I suppose

However, that problem is, well, a problem to atheist and theist alike

Geezer

 

If God is omnipotent and all powerful, could God create a stone so heavy that even he could not lift it? Either he to is limited by laws of physics or there is something that God cannot do.

(question is an omnipotence paradox)

 

Er, surely the believers would say that God could lift any stone no matter how heavy. So the answer does not fit either of your answers and simply avoids them?