BBC Blog Network

User Profile

PeterKlaver

Listed below are comments made by PeterKlaver between Thursday, 19th November 2009 and Thursday, 26th November 2009 (2 Hours Ago) .

«Newer
Older»

Creationist leader to visit Northern Ireland 11:46am on 26 Nov 2009 Hello people,

I have absolutely no time to carefully read the lengthy posts that have appeared here since last weekend. Just one small bit, that I mentioned earlier on in the thread, maybe didn't always mention in every post since, but appears to be becoming an issue again in the last couple of posts.

"Yet again, this is just another case of "Maybe". AS Peter has said earlier, my reasoning is rational and intelligible, but maybe it's wrong. Maybe it is. it doesn't seem wrong. There's nothing irrational about it. it's a cohesive explanation."

What you say seems ok when looking at things from the point of view of our everyday experience. But that is not what things were like in the very early stages of the universe. For example, what we know now suggests that shortly after the Big Bang, the various interactions that we see now were all merged, so e.g. gravitation wasn't separate from the forces that keep solid objects and fluids together. How should we imagine that? I haven't got a clue, and I'm pretty sure no one participating in this thread has. Our reasoning is pretty good for what we see around us, but even then it can go wrong. Bernard mentioned correction from experiment, a very good thing. For the strange conditions near the birth of our universe that becomes hugely more important, as our reasoning becomes less and less reliable.

So fine to apply reasoning to apples falling from a tree, not so fine to attach great certainty to it in areas where it is of little use without verification from observations. I don't think I ever said that the latter was rational, more the contrary.

I'll try to find time this weekend to fully catch up again.
The Great Tennessee Monkey Trial 12:43pm on 25 Nov 2009 Helio,

"people are being led into serious error by people who, frankly, are *stupid* and *ignorant*. Harsh words? Yes, perhaps. But they are certainly justified."

They are, and I can add a few more:

*stupid* and *ignorant* and/or dishonest in the service of their faith.
The Great Tennessee Monkey Trial 5:42pm on 22 Nov 2009 Hello Will,

It wasn't wikipedia for me, but you're very close.:) The NCSE is apparently also hopping along with the wikpedia version:

http://ncse.com/news/2009/11/origin-sesquicentennial-approaches-005154

From Historylink.org

"Murray printed 1,250 copies of the book, all of which were purchased by wholesale subscribers on the first day of availability, November 22, a few days before the official publication date."
The Great Tennessee Monkey Trial 3:52pm on 22 Nov 2009 Sorry to nag Will, but I think it was published on the 24th of November, not the 22nd?

Not that the exact publication date in November 1859 is that important for a momentous book that explained to people in the world (at least those people who didn't use its pages to tear bits of paper and make them into eaplugs, then go 'LALALALA, can't hear you Darwin, LALALALA, praise God! LALALALALA') how the diversity of life on our planet came about.:)
Creationist leader to visit Northern Ireland 2:13pm on 22 Nov 2009 Bernaqrd, post 234,

I already realized (prompted by Grahams posts) that you probably meant something different from how I understood the bit I quoted from you in post 229. I'll therefore skip some parts that are only related to my misunderstanding.

"Right, so you're suggesting that we may never understand, but that it still makes sense to ask what caused it? How does the question make sense if there is no possibility of an answer?"

You may have misunderstood what I said, see the next line line that you quoted from me. I'm saying that he prospect of never being able to explain the origin of the universe is no reason to postulate something out of thin that air that doesn't require an explanation, just to get rid of the unmanageable infinite series of causes.

"Or that "it makes no sense to ask". That, in fact, is just what I have eben saying."

Yes, but not explaining why it would not make sense to ask. One could follow grokesxs posts 206 and suspect that the eagerness to drive for that answer derives from the desire to wish some rational basis for belief in god into existence.

You then mention Grahams posts a few times. Feel free to copy-paste bits from his posts if you like. But please formulate your own responses. I'm not having another round as with Graham on the god and science thread where I'm told 'my position is as stated in [insert ref to someone elses text]'. Especially since the text referred to sometimes didn't contain the relevant bits is was claimed to have (if any at all). So if I'm having a discussion with you, then YOU please formulate what your own position is.

You then say a couple of things about (if I understand you correctly, I'm not sure I do) the series of causes being intelligible or not. I'm quite sure I don't follow you there actually.
Let's make an analogy to positive, integer numbers (that mathematically comprise N), so 1, 2, 3, 4, .....
And let's also consider all integer numbers (that comprise Z) .....,-3, -2, -1, 0 , 1, 2 ,3, ....
N has a starting point (1) where you can't give an answer to the question 'what precedes it in the series'. Z doesn't. But regardless of whether we are in N or Z, if we ask 'Where do get to if we move 4 places forward from 3' the answer is 7. Whether the preceding chain is infinite or has a starting point without a preceding number is irrelevant.
In the spirit of the example above, I don't get your point about understanding of most things requiring some conditions of the things preceding it. Perhaps you could rephrase or clarify that part.
Creationist leader to visit Northern Ireland 1:17pm on 22 Nov 2009 Bernard, post 227,

I see that the quality of what was so far an interesting discussion has gone down.

"I must say, given the time you've taken I expected a more thorough reply than a simple restatment of your misapprehensions.

You don't seem to be making any argument, but I'll try to construct what I can of it."

I can't help notice that the change in tone on this thread occurred after I voiced criticism about your YEC-like methodology on the other thread.

Regarding the certainty with which you expressed yourself previously you said

"I'd like to see evidence of this certainty, Peter, if you would. Given that my position is, in fact, that there is no real conclusive argument proving the existence of God, I think this is highly unlikely."

See e.g. your posts 33, 44, or the latter part of post 84. I haven't re-read all your posts in this thread or the other threads where you were on about transcendence. There's plenty more examples of where you state things sounding quite certain and without any reservation.

"I'm sorry, but post 90 was one of yours...can all of our problems be because you're mixing up my posts with your own?"

Duh. The key word in what you replied to ("I think the crucial bit around post 90.") is the word 'around'.

With the posting rubbish left out for the refuse collectors, let's return to the more fruitful discussion shall we? You repeatedly claim to have evidence for an external cause to the universe, e.g.

"What? The evidence was that every intelligible thing in the universe has a cause other than itself. This is the verifiable evidence borne out in the entirety of human experience."

That's empty. Saying 'it's human experience' is not valid as evidence. Some things in the physical world work absolutely counter-intuitively. There are things where our experience would make us draw conclusions that are just plain wrong. See e.g. the links I posted for Graham a few times about experiments with very bizarre outcomes that some people would hardly believe because they go against everything we experience with our senses.
Even if reasoning were accepted as a form of evidence, you're still not any further, as it is not difficult to interpret what we see around us in a way that goes against the thing you wish to reason into existence. You say "The evidence was that every intelligible thing in the universe has a cause other than itself." I could add a few words and make it "The evidence was that every intelligible thing in the universe has a cause other than itself in the universe". We don't see anything around us that didn't come from something else in the universe. You see, I could then go from there to claim that whatever caused the Big Bang will fall in that as well. I'll not explain anything what the 'thing prior to the Big Bang' thing is, just as your word 'transcendent' doesn't explain anything. And voila, my position, which points in the exact opposite of yours, has achieved equal credibility status (about none, though what I say may turn out to be correct), interpreting the same observations.
I hope that from the previous paragraph you understand that you don't have any evidence. It is reasoning that might well prove correct, or it might just prove incomplete and wrong. I accept that what I put up in the previous paragraph amounts to nothing. You should accept the same or your position. If you want to claim evidence, then give some examples. The very broad 'whole of human experience' point absolutely won't do. It is quite fallible and so broad and non-specific that it can be bent into just about any direction. If you want to claim evidence then provide some examples that are not subject to large steps of interpretation that can make it point in various different directions. It would of course be helpful in that regard if you don't point to things only concerned with some things in our universe transforming into other things, but something actually related to something outside our universe, as that could not so easily be held up in support of my counter-explanation.

Your post then made various repeats, mostly saying again that you do have evidence. See above in response to that. You then said

"Which is unreasonable - my view, based on the evidence of the entire causal history of the universe, or your view, based on - well, apparently based on the possibility that we can't be certain, so ANYTHING might be the case?"

Well, you get at least part right. You don't have any evidence but you're right that since I (and others) have as little evidence as you (none), there are multiple options that can't be ruled out.

Then near the end you said, regarding the characteristics of the 'other'

"Well, of course, transcendence is pretty much the defining feature of the Abrahamic, monotheistic God. So it certainly does resemble it in that respect. "

I'm not too familiar with the vedic scriptures, but would you care to explain why the Abrahamic god fits the bill better than the creator god Brahma? Or the FSM for that matter?
Bishop calls for free speech on ordination of women 10:33am on 22 Nov 2009 And the Christopher McCamley of that blog is definitely our mccamleyc. Sorry to break the bad news to you RJB (although you already new as well as any of us). Here is mccamley linking to his own blog in a previous post here on W&T:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/ni/2009/05/how_good_is_citizen_kane.html#P79400700
Bishop calls for free speech on ordination of women 8:30pm on 19 Nov 2009 RJB,

You forget to mention in your list that Graham will invent an 'ism' for you, henceforth referring to the views on wine expressed in your posts as 'RJBism'.
Don't label me ... 11:19am on 19 Nov 2009 You seem to have missed the point Bernard (my emphasis added):

"I don't know of ANYONE who was forced into attending church or observing religious ritual after the age of childhood."

Also, I think the "humanists would have berated my father for indoctrinating me to like football." bit is a bit lame.
Don't label me ... 10:31am on 19 Nov 2009 As someone who was brought up as a Catholic, never asked for that, stopped caring about it while still young, yet was kept in it for longer than I wanted, I warmly agree with the message of this campaign.

«Newer
Older»

^ Back to top

BBC MMVI

The BBC is not responsible for the content of external internet sites

BBC.co.uk

BBC Blog Network

Find and talk to the BBC's bloggers.

User Profile

PeterKlaver