Interesting documentary on C4: The Root of All Evil?

Re: Interesting documentary on C4 tonite ...

I'm going to have to leave this thread alone, but please understand this, at no time am I trying to dispute your arguments (you're entitled to your beliefs), I'm not saying big bang is wrong just because is hasn't been tested.
I'm saying that I should also be allowed to argue that my belief is based on logic and not blind faith.
Cheap dig with the line "Do you believe in everything that can't be explained or disproved by science? If not why do you just pick one, God, rather than all the others?" No, I don't believe in everything that can't be explained or disproved by science. I didn't know that just because I decide to believe in God that everything else comes with it or is it that you just decided to make a generalistic, sweeping statement to paint me as a wacko who believes in all sorts of weird things. Great way to debate what had been an interesting discussion until you and others decided to dump things on my side of the argument that I haven't said or laid claim to. What next, writing in caps lock so that I can't be heard?
 
Re: Interesting documentary on C4 tonite ...

icantbelieve said:
Cheap dig with the line "Do you believe in everything that can't be explained or disproved by science? If not why do you just pick one, God, rather than all the others?"
Click to expand...
It's not a cheap dig - it's a direct reference to something that was mentioned in the programme that this thread is about and it is also the logical extension of believing in on mystical being - that one should really believe in them all.
I didn't know that just because I decide to believe in God that everything else comes with it or is it that you just decided to make a generalistic, sweeping statement to paint me as a wacko who believes in all sorts of weird things.
Click to expand...
I consider belief in God illogical and so a it weird so I lump this in the same category as the other things mentioned above and in the programme. Why, of necessity, should belief in one mystical being be elevated above all others? This too was an issue raised in the programme.
Great way to debate what had been an interesting discussion until you and others decided to dump things on my side of the argument that I haven't said or laid claim to. What next, writing in caps lock so that I can't be heard?
Click to expand...
I don't see where I have misrepresented what you have said in my responses. Not sure about anybody else. Nobody is preventing you from participating in this discussion. You are the one who is unilaterally threatening to withdraw.

Just curious - did you watch the programme?
 
Re: Interesting documentary on C4 tonite ...

Something to consider when trying to logically explain the existence of God or 'supreme being'.

If complexity (ie life) implies intelligent design and hence an intelligent designer then an intelligent designer must be a super complex sentient life-form which implies intelligent design and hence a higher-level intelligent designer ..... etc , etc ad infinitum. An infinite number of 'Gods'.
 
Re: Interesting documentary on C4 tonite ...

There is no point in attempting to construct a logical argument for the existence of God. That's why they call it faith.
I'm saying that I should also be allowed to argue that my belief is based on logic and not blind faith
Click to expand...
and others should be allowed to disagree with you. That's freedom of speech (something that all major religions are against!).
I didn't know that just because I decide to believe in God that everything else comes with it or is it that you just decided to make a generalistic, sweeping statement to paint me as a wacko who believes in all sorts of weird things.
Click to expand...
Where does religion stop and superstition start? One persons logical God is another’s idol or blanket of ignorance. Anyway, why get so hot under the collar at what ClubMan (and others) think? You are perfectly entitled to your beliefs and you are in good company; most of the world believes in a God of some sort.
 
Re: Interesting documentary on C4 tonite ...

There was also a good interview with Dawkins in yesterday's Sunday Tribune Life/Living (?) supplement which had a lot of other interesting reading for a change...
 
Re: Interesting documentary on C4 tonite ...

I missed it all, I was in America for a few days, the land of intelligent design.
 
Re: Interesting documentary on C4 tonite ...

I mean most of these scientific statements about what happened are just theories
Click to expand...

ClubMan said:
Precisely - they are just theories that are subject to refinement and change in some cases. However they are the best and most logical models by which we can explain things (e.g. big bank, evolution).
Click to expand...

This is a very informed viewpoint on the big bang theory you hold

Can you elaborate on your experience/knowledge in relation the "big bang" theory which allows you confirm that it is the most logical of theory on how the universe was created?
And I am not looking for links to websites explaining it
I am asking for your rational for believing it

Personally, apart from the odd mention on Tomorrow's World in the 80's I wouldn't know much about it

stuart@buyingtolet.ie
 
Re: Interesting documentary on C4 tonite ...

stuart said:
This is a very informed viewpoint on the big bang theory you hold

Can you elaborate on your experience/knowledge in relation the "big bang" theory which allows you confirm that it is the most logical of theory on how the universe was created?
And I am not looking for links to websites explaining it
I am asking for your rational for believing it

Personally, apart from the odd mention on Tomorrow's World in the 80's I wouldn't know much about it

stuart@buyingtolet.ie
Click to expand...
To be honest I don't have the time or inclination to go into a long treatise on the subject especially when others have done it much better than I ever could. I'm sure that you can find a decent book on the matter if you look around and are genuinely interested.
 
Re: Interesting documentary on C4 tonite ...

ClubMan said:
To be honest I don't have the time or inclination to go into a long treatise on the subject especially when others have done it much better than I ever could. I'm sure that you can find a decent book on the matter if you look around and are genuinely interested.
Click to expand...

I am not asking you to explain it to me

As I said I wouldn't try to understand the full details of the "big bang theory" as I am sure there is possibly a knowledge lot of quantum physics required and a whole lot more that I wouldn't be able to comprehend

I am just asking what understanding of the subject you hold that allows you to contradict someone's belief that they can come to a logical conclusion that there is a god compared to your belief in that theory

So do you have a detailed understanding of all the necessary subjects required to be able to conclude that that theory is a logical conclusion of facts that are understood/proven or do you just like the idea of the theory?

I am only asking to back up your asscertions and clarification of your conlusions
 
Re: Interesting documentary on C4 tonite ...

stuart said:
I am just asking what understanding of the subject you hold that allows you to contradict someone's belief that they can come to a logical conclusion that there is a god compared to your belief in that theory
Click to expand...
I have a basic understanding of the concepts involved which allows me to conclude that the big bang is a much more plausible and logical explanation for the origin of the universe than attributing its creation to the actions of some mystical being. There is, by definition, simply no logical way to arrive at the latter conclusion since it de facto requires a leap of faith. I challenge anybody to contradict me on this key point - i.e. to show how one can logically arrive at the conclusion that the universe was created by a mystical being. Even better if you can attribute it to God rather than the Flying Spaghetti Monster or any other mystical being(s). In my opinion even a basic understanding of the main concepts involved in explaining the big bang etc. is more than sufficient to make a stronger case for that explanation than the blind leap of faith required to believe in creation by a mystical being or beings.
 
I would imagine that there are very few of us who fully understand the Big Bang theory. I certainly would not claim to. However, limited though my understanding may be, I still find the alternative notion of creation by "God" to be preposterous. Mankind (myself included) has a hard time grappling with the idea of infinity, so God is a useful tool for explaining this and all the other (for now) inexplicables in our world. Also, God is a pretty handy mechanism for controlling or ordering human behaviour, sometimes for good, sometimes the opposite. As Voltaire said - If God did not exist, it would be necessary to invent him!
 
Clubman said:
I have a basic understanding of the concepts
Click to expand...

Personally I would not find a basic understanding enough to make a logical conclusion that something is correct and that all other possibilities however unplausible to me are incorrect

Berlin said:
I would imagine that there are very few of us who fully understand the Big Bang theory.
Click to expand...

I think the word understand is very important here

Why if you believe in something that you do not understand and that cannot be proved should you find the idea of there being a god "preposterous"



stuart@buyingtolet.ie
 
stuart said:
Personally I would not find a basic understanding enough to make a logical conclusion that something is correct and that all other possibilities however unplausible to me are incorrect
Click to expand...
Forget about the big bang for a minute. Even a basic understanding of what is required to conclude that a mystical being created the universe is enough to realise that to do so is not logical. Those who believe and claim that their beliefs are logical are kidding themselves. At least if they attribute their beliefs to (blind) faith then they are being honest. Most if not all religious movements explicitly require this suspension of critical/logical faculties so logic goes out the window. Anyway, having dispensed with the plausibility (from a logical point of view) of a mystical creator one can then look at the alternatives that are grounded in science, fact, logic and evidence. Even by default the big bang etc. would have to be considered. Having a basic understanding of the concepts involved is sufficient for most people (including me) to consider this the most plausible explanation for the origin of the universe.
 
ClubMan said:
Having a basic understanding of the concepts involved is sufficient for most people (including me) to consider this the most plausible explanation for the origin of the universe.
Click to expand...

But most people do not believe in the big bang theory so maybe it is not sufficient evidence

clubman said:
that are grounded in science, fact, logic and evidence
Click to expand...

But most scientists believed that the earth was flat until proved otherwise
It is very easy to ground something that seems obvious in science, fact, logic and evidence

Until gravity was identified and that the earth was round I am sure it was foolish to consider that it wasn't

stuart@buyingtolet.ie
 
stuart said:
But most people do not believe in the big bang theory so maybe it is not sufficient evidence
Click to expand...
Can you provide some evidence that this is the case please? If the people who don't believe in it are mostly religious believers then that most likely means that the theory clashes with their illogical religious beliefs.
But most scientists believed that the earth was flat until proved otherwise
Click to expand...
Most people believed that the Earth was flat. Science was largely in its infancy - at least in Europe - at the time. To say that most scientists believed that the Earth was flat is arguably somewhat misleading. Either way models are generally not static and are subject to change, refimnement and, sometimes, contradiction. However show me the model for a mystical being created universe that makes logical sense and I'll be happy to review it.
Until gravity was identified and that the earth was round I am sure it was foolish to consider that it wasn't
Click to expand...
Yes but I don't really understand your point. Are you using this as a reason to dismiss as completely flawed the current best scientific model that we have for something at any point in time?
 
Why if you believe in something that you do not understand and that cannot be proved should you find the idea of there being a god "preposterous"
Click to expand...

I have not said that I understand or believe the Big Bang theory. What I have said is that I personally find the concept of the existence of a God/Creator preposterous. That is my opinion. I don't presume to know all the answers, and I cannot prove that God does not exist. Is it possible to prove a negative? None of us here can prove or disprove anything in this regard yet. What we can do however, is hold opinions. Mine happens to be that there is or will be a scientific explanation of the beginning of the universe as we know it. I also find it amazing that this argument always seems to end up with the scientific side having to disprove the existence of God. Why can't the religious side prove his existence?
 
Since we're citing 18C French philosophers ;) — Voltaire's well-known quote, in [broken link removed], is actually an argument in favour of belief in a Deity, however unprovable:
If the heavens, stripped of his noble imprint,
Could ever cease to attest to his being,
If God did not exist, it would be necessary to invent him.
Let the wise man announce him and kings fear him.
Kings, if you oppress me, if your eminencies disdain
The tears of the innocent that you cause to flow,
My avenger is in the heavens: learn to tremble.
Such, at least, is the fruit of a useful creed.

But you, faulty logician, whose sad foolishness
Dares to reassure them in the path of crime,
What fruit do you expect to reap from your fine arguments?
Will your children be more obedient to your voice?
Your friends, at time of need, more useful and reliable?
Your wife more honest? and your new renter,
For not believing in God, will he pay you better?
Alas! let's leave intact human belief in fear and hope.
Click to expand...
I prefer Montesquieu's more cautious but ultimately more rational take:
There are philosophers who distinguish two creations:that of things, and that of man. They cannot believe that matter and created things have been in existence only six thousand years;that during all eternity God delayed His works, and only yesterday began to use His creative power. Was it because He could not, or because He would not? But if He could not at one time, neither could He at another. It is then because He would not; but, as time does not exist for God, if it is granted that He willed a thing once, He willed it always, and from the beginning.
Persian letters (1721), letter 114.
Click to expand...
 
Berlin said:
II also find it amazing that this argument always seems to end up with the scientific side having to disprove the existence of God. Why can't the religious side prove his existence?
Click to expand...
To be fair I don't think that stuart is necessarily on the religious side from what he's posted. Ultimately this discussion comes back to one of Dawkins' main points - that people should think for themselves and look at the facts, supporting evidence and logic in things rather than just taking them for granted. I can see what stuart is getting at in this context in terms of most peoples' limited understanding of big concepts like the big bang. However I am happy that my own limited understanding is sufficient for me to accept this as the best explanation for the origin of the universe and infinitely better than depending on a Deus ex Machina explanation. stuart's challenges are largely fair enough in my opinion. It forces people like me to think. However what is also fair enough under this approach is not to give intrinsically illogical religious beliefs any greater weight just because they are held by many or based on historical books etc. but to challenge these too. Dawkins takes a fairly blunt approach in this respect.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top