Interesting documentary on C4: The Root of All Evil?

ClubMan said:
Either way models are generally not static and are subject to change, refimnement and, sometimes, contradiction.
Click to expand...

If this is the case how can you not accept that there is a possibility of a supreme being

I am just asking how you can dismiss a possibility with no evidence to support your ascertion

Their is an arrogance in assuming that becasue you cannot understand how something could happen that it could not have happened that has plagued and prevented scientific discoveries/furtherings for centuries

Berlin said:
None of us here can prove or disprove anything in this regard yet.
Click to expand...

So how can you state that a particular outcome is preposterous?

If both of you are stating your personally held opinions, then fair enough,
but they are no more valid (without proof) than anyone elses

And you can state all you want about your logic but no scientific discovery has ever been made (with maybe the exception of pencillin)without some element of faith or belief in something that could not otherwsie/at the time be proved

stuart@buyingtolet.ie
 
stuart said:
If this is the case how can you not accept that there is a possibility of a supreme being
Click to expand...
In my view, based on the lack of any evidence supporting the existence of supernatural beings or events, the probability is zero. We're into the same old "can't prove a negative" territory here. Just because there is no evidence to support something is no reason to assume that it could exist. I might just as well believe in Russell's celestial teapot as God or fairies or Unicorns etc.
 
To paraphrase Douglas Adams' famous quote — if it doesn't look like a duck, and doesn't quack like a duck, we have to consider the possibility that there may in fact be no small aquatic bird of the family anatidæ out there.

This is of course heresy, for which the Duck will surely punish me unto eternity.
 
Pehaps I have a certain arrogance, but then perhaps (if Stuart is correct) I was cast in the image of a God who demands that we all worship him?
 
Berlin said:
Pehaps I have a certain arrogance, but then perhaps (if Stuart is correct) I was cast in the image of a God who demands that we all worship him?
Click to expand...
Surely you mean the Flying Spaghetti Monster? There is no evidence to disprove His existence so you have to accept the possibility that He may exist or face the consequences!
 
Stuart wrote;
And you can state all you want about your logic but no scientific discovery has ever been made (with maybe the exception of pencillin)without some element of faith or belief in something that could not otherwsie/at the time be proved
Click to expand...

A valid point. Scientists too have their 'beliefs' - but the crucial difference is what happens next, and this is where religion and science diverge. With science, for the belief to be accepted, it is REQUIRED to become a hypothesis which can be tested specifically TO PROVE THAT IT IS FALSE. If the evidence cannot show that the hypothesis false, then the hypothesis is accepted as true. The test must also be repeatable independantly, and get the same result. The initial belief then, after this process, becomes evidence-based truth. If a scientist states something, but only as a belief , it has no standing, and cannot be taught as truth, and just remains an unsubstantiated hunch.
Religious faith takes the opposite approach. Evidence is not required and no testing is encouraged or sought. Its very 'mysteriousness' is reveered, and teaching to pass on the belief is actively encouraged.
 
Both programmes are being repeated on Channel 4 tonight, or more accurately tomorrow morning, at 2.50am to 4.50 am.

Brendan
 
On a related topic, check out Horizon this Thursday, BBC2 9pm about "Intelligent Design";

"A War on Science: Horizon tells the story of how one of science's greatest theories is facing one of its greatest threats. The theory of evolution is under attack from a controversial new idea."
Click to expand...
 
Thanks redstar - hadn't heard about that one. I often find Horizon too much like tabloid science/science lite but will watch it anyway if I can.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top