TonyPrep
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Of course, there’s nothing wrong with living in Mom’s basement for any length of time. More “kids” need to do that.
In my early readings about peak oil, Twilight in the Desert and all that, I did often come across the “fact” that Saudi Arabia had very low costs of production (less than a dollar a barrel), though that was in the days when the big fields were still producing easily, without extra encouragement. Whether it’s $2 a barrel or $5 a barrel, I suspect the actual production costs are still low there because most is still regular conventional oil (as I understand it). But it’s largely irrelevant if the country depends for almost all its finances from oil and needs $90 to sustain its spending. So $2 may be creative accounting but it doesn’t really matter.
Ilargi, you questioned the difference between the graph showing a Saudi Arabia break-even price of about $90 and the production cost of $2 stated in the article. As I understand it, the graph is not about production costs but about the price the country needs to sustain its spending programme. So SA needs $90 pb to keep its populace subdued but only needs $2 to break even on actual production costs.
Oh dear, you spend lots of time, quite rightly, telling us that there is no good evidence for anything that happened to MH-17, then this. Personally, I don’t think we’ll ever know exactly what happened to that flight and I’m not prepared to believe either side just because I want to.
Looks like we get one story from the mainstream media and we get the opposite story (directly or implied) from the awareness sites, like this. I’ve no idea which to believe or if the real story is somewhere in the middle. I do worry, though, that some sites like to take the opposite line to the official western view, whatever that view is.
Small point: “Which means the involvement of such a rocket is merely a theory, nothing more.” Scientifically speaking, it’s more an hypothesis. A theory usually has some evidence behind it, or at least some sound rationale and a way to test it.
It’s amazing how the conspiracy theories start to creep in immediately, once this sort of thing happens. Illargi probably has it right, that we don’t know and don’t have much evidence to judge. I note only that the investigators apparently have been hampered by separatists. That does seem odd for a group that would have nothing to hide. But, then again, I only have mainstream news to go by and that is notoriously unreliable.
Looks like Koanga Institute have managed to hold on to their land for a few decades at least. That’s good news. I’m not sure about the full deal and the fate of the ecovillage itself, though it, too, seems to be OK.
I don’t think sea level rise from the WAIS is much of an issue, over the timescale estimated. I think society and food supply will be organised much differently by the time it’s a significant factor, plus we won’t be supplying any food to the rest of the world. However, I understand that, due to local factors, SLR may be higher in New Zealand than many other places. I don’t think we have much crop land around the coasts, anyway.
Thanks, Nicole. I hope the institute can be saved, though I’m a bit unsure about their funding needs. In her latest talk, she seemed to mention 300,000 within 3 weeks (now 2 weeks) but I’ve also seen 700,000 by the end of June. I think this lack of clarity makes it difficult for potential donors.
Kay has stated that she doesn’t think she has the energy to start over again, somewhere else but I hope she considers your offer, if they can’t keep going where they are.
Yes, family arrangements are complicated. I’d only say that we were considering going back to the UK, if our daughter had not decided to come out to NZ permanently. But that was just us. I think it’s a real shame that for this last brief period in human history, a good portion of us seem to think it’s fine for families to spread all over the globe (or even just all over a country – as our condition makes long distance travel rare, anything over a few 10s of kilometres might as well be in another country). Once they get bedded in, wherever they are, there will be no shifting them. Anyway, I hope it all works out for you.
Interesting stuff. I’m a bit confused over who has come (or will be coming) to NZ with Nicole and what she is doing with her property in Canada, on which I understood she had done a lot of work. Is Ilargi part of the package. (I had always imagined they were partners).
I moved out to NZ (from the UK) about 9 years ago and we had some trouble getting our daughter (then 18/19 years old) to come and actually stay. Thankfully, that worked out; I can’t imagine being split from my family by half a planet, as we head into a very uncertain future, but certainly one in which long distance travel, across oceans, will be very rare and very slow, at best. Sadly, our wider family is still in the UK and that is a great cause of sadness.
Yes, NZ has much going for it during the decline, if our politicians don’t completely mess things up, and I just hope they don’t have time to do so.
We did consider an “eco village” a couple of years ago, Kotare Village (which houses the Koanga Institute – an important heritage seed saving organisation, among other activities). It didn’t really work out for us (mainly due to family related issues) but I was surprised that it didn’t fill up quickly, as it has the Koanga Institute (run by Kay Baxter) with Bob Corker, two very experienced permaculture teachers. They are using a Community Land Trust model but are having difficulty raising money to buy the land they currently occupy. It would be a heritage seed tragedy if they fail to meet their funding objectives (the current land owner now wants to sell but have given Koanga first option, with time limits). I mention this in case anyone is interested in joining and can help out. Check out their Web site.
Actually, we almost ended up not too far from Atamai, in Hira. Sadly, it was at a big lull in the property market and we couldn’t sell our land, which we needed to do to buy a Fraemohs home there. Oh well. We’re now trying to do something with our 3000 square metres and home near (60 kms) Auckland.
Good luck, Nicole, and all at Atamai. However, I sincerely hope that your cabin is not ‘about 20″ by 10″’, as you stated. 20 inches by 10 inches is surely too small, even for you!
It’s pretty clear that the earth, as a whole, is warming. It’s pretty clear that humans have become the prime cause (particularly since the 1970s – the IPCC report documented that the warming since 1950 is pretty much all human caused). It’s pretty clear that the deniers have won the battle of minds (where is there any significant actions to alter BAU?) and that seems mainly because they can lie, whilst those with scientific evidence on their side (the 97%) use the science.
CO2 levels will continue to increase and positive feedbacks will continue to ramp up. I’m not sure how to prepare for what’s coming, but do what you can.
I haven’t seen the final report yet but I’m glad to hear it.
yes, Mann was just concentrating on when the temperature would pass the mythical dangerous level. It’s certain that more warming would follow. What actually gets locked in depends on ECS, which is still unknown but with some soundly based estimates.
I’m keeping my fingers crossed that the final draft doesn’t contain that unlikely estimate. Michael Mann (he of the oft validated hockey stick) now estimates that the politically dangerous temperature of 2C above preindustrial will be passed by 2036, and that is through what we’ve already released, due to delays in the earth’s systems. That’s for BAU, of course, but who expects anything else until at least 2020?
If the impression is that the global economy will suffer by only 0.2%, by 2100, there is no chance of even a far too late deal in 2015, to be implemented in 2020. Why bother, for a measly 0.2%? Looking at the purely economic cost is crazy but I can’t see the economic impact being that small, unless continuous rebuilding activity after a continuous stream of weather catastrophes “compensates” economically for the wreaked lives of millions (ignoring whether or not rebuilding can go in the the light of the climate impacts).
Yup, the consequences of stopping climate change (if that were possible), or even of minimizing it, need to be described. Have at it!
By the way, on one of Jay Hanson’s sites is this little paper from David Wasdell (PDF). It would seem that the arguing is indeed pointless, because we have already committed future generations to dangerous climate change, and then some.
I was thinking that Nicole’s remarks were very human centric (instead of blowing up dams, use that embodied energy for something “useful”, or permaculture regenerates the soil to provide humans with more food) but her further explanation about how permaculture fitted in was much better (humans are just part of the ecosystem).
On climate, although scientists can’t be exact about the outcomes of, say 400 ppm CO2, neither can economic or financial analysts be exact, quantitatively, about what certain economic conditions will lead to. Actually, we do have some semi-empirical evidence to give us a very good guide on what to expect from climate forcings, the paleoclimate evidence. I think it’s enough, or should be, to focus people’s attentions on the issue. We’re now at about the highest surface temperature (ignoring other warming for now) in the Holocene, with more built in. That’s also fairly quantitative.
Nicole,
Thanks for answering. One aspect of this site is to do with personal responses to our predicament. If one doesn’t talk about climate change and other environmental issues, then the individual responses may not be right. I’m not just talking about having an effect on the march of climate change but on what each individual does to become as resilient as possible against the changes (economic and environmental) that are coming. As I’ve said, much is known about climate change, perhaps far more than your article might imply. If your readers don’t think they need to consider climate change then they might not be best prepared for what is coming.
Insofar as how people’s responses may affect any of the issues that comprise our predicament, you’re right in that, individually, we can’t do anything about climate change but that applies to the economy also. Individually, we are powerless to impact the global, or even national, picture but it has to be better to know, and discuss, all the issues in order to come up with an individual response.
Another reason for not keeping quiet on climate change is that, although you may be quite certain about the order in which the converging crises will affect individuals (although most of them already are), it’s impossible for you to actually know the order. So people need to talk about all of the issues and then decide their best course of action, with as complete a set of information as possible.
Regarding global dimming, I’m not sure what your point was with that but research last year suggests that human caused aerosols may not have as big of an impact as previously thought (it was thought to roughly cancel out the non-CO2 greenhouse gases, currently). The impact may be about half. This would mean less of an acceleration in warming if coal burning stopped tomorrow.
Of course, even though I agree that we can’t do anything about climate change (just as we can’t do anything about the debt situation, and so on), collectively, some scientists think it is possible. James Hansen, et al, published a paper last year outlining the dangers of doing nothing and the possibility of doing something. If he’s right, there may be benefits in getting a change of heart about taking action.
We can complain about the financial situation and achieve nothing, just as we can complain about greenhouse gases and achieve nothing. We can, however, take these things into account in judging our own personal responses to the crises.
BTW, I agree with you re- Guy McPherson. I have a lot of respect for what he’s done but he can really lay into people who don’t agree with him, unjustifiably. He doesn’t always do that but far too often in my opinion.
I got to the climate change section and was nodding my head up to then. But Nicole’s assessment of climate change seemed very wrong to me. There was no denial, of course, but very much a playing down, reminding me a bit of Judith Curry’s contrarianism (<i>we don’t know enough to say anything for certain so any actions we take might be counter-productive</i>). Actually, we know quite a bit. The research last year was almost all bad (the situation is worse than we thought). The work of James Hansen, in particular, has shown that (based on semi-empirical evidence, not models, which he accepts have limited, but useful, value) climate sensitivity is at least 3C (others’ recent work suggests 3C should be the low end of estimates) and that 1C is likely the warmest we can go (though temporarily to 1.1C) to avoid dangerous climate change. We’re already at 0.85C-0.89C. It’s not to hard to paint a picture that we’re already in dangerous territory, so to suggest the effects of climate change are far off, as Nicole has, is just wrong.
I would say that the ability of governments and national banks to paper over the cracks has taken most of us (in the reality camp) by surprise. We know a lot about climate change but we don’t know how long governments can pull the wool over our eyes and pretend that the economy is showing signs of recovery (after all, stock markets are booming – though I’m keeping my eyes open following recent declines – and government agencies produce estimates of current growth). I think Nicole is wrong to largely ignore climate change (just as Chris Martenson is) and a better consideration of possibilities there could alter her view of actions (“could”, not “will”).
Personally, I now think environmental degradation, in general, and climate change, in particular, is very much the central predicament we need to focus on and has just as much chance of impinging on our societies abilities to function, just as much as financial matters, though the environment is far, far, more important to us all.
Nicole, I’m not sure about the example of the Worgl scrip. Could such a currency have a similar effect in a market town during the next major recession/depression, do you think? Will the contraction of the global economy and global financial system have an impact on the efficacy of such a local currency? Would the combined effects of financial meltdown, resource scarcity, collapsing delivery systems and, possibly, climate change not severely constrain what is possible with local currencies?
Some of the other (current) examples are, perhaps, a bit more relevant but they are operating within a global environment that, presumably, will be very different from what we will face in the future. I just can’t figure out if any local currency started now will continue to operate smoothly in the future that is facing us. The examples were/are a response to the situation of the time; why is it necessary to get any going now before they are strictly needed, especially as we may not be able to predict the infrastructure that will be available to support any particular local currency.
I’m not sure why my previous comments were removed, though it would be good to know.
I get the impression that Laurence doesn’t believe that societies will break down completely, is that right? He talks of local economies and currencies, of technologies (including robots) helping us to adapt. He sees lots of activity in these areas. Does he foresee a kind of gentle powerdown (but not technology down) for everyone? I’ve been thinking in terms of crisis and ultimately a very different set of communities.
I’m not trying to impose my choice on anyone but nature will have the last say.
If some retained earnings are needed for the business that that should be priced in, also. But clear profit drives growth. Let’s just take the fictional hypothetical world where there is only one product that can be bought. Charging more than the overall cost of producing that product means that the extra money can only be spent on … buying more of that product (and making the extra, of course), thus growing the economy and wrecking the planet.
So far as I can tell, profit will result in growth, so there will not be any profit at some point (since growth is unsustainable). However, I’m not optimistic that humans can ever learn that lesson, so, following a large contraction of people and economies, profit (of some sort) will probably wiggle its way back into the minds of the greedy.
Profit should always have been a dirty word. If you charge more for your goods and services than they cost (including costs of living for the providers), then growth is the outcome. And we all know where growth leads.
I cringe at the notion that “anyone can reach the top” if they apply themselves. What that meaningless phrase doesn’t capture is that not “everyone can reach the top”, otherwise, there would be no “top”. Thus we have inequality, which is growing.
Good point, Barak. Personally, I’m still waiting for Nicole’s Auckland gig to be finalised – it’s been TBA for months. I’m beginning to think it might be cancelled, even though I’ve waited nearly two months!
Good post, though, Ilargi and, as an ex-Brit, I’m sure glad I don’t live there any more, though that clown’s actions affect us all.
Nicole said, in the podcast, that oil prices are going to crash. Really? Natural gas prices crashed in the US, because of shale gas hype but I don’t think they crashed around the world. Oil is much more transportable than natural gas and there is a much narrower band for the price of similar grade oil around the world than there is for natural gas. We’ve had shale oil hype for long enough now, and with a real rise in US output, that we can see the effect it will have on oil prices. It may be that oil prices would have been higher without all the hype but I very much doubt a crash in prices now, purely because of shale oil hype.
Sorry about the off-topic but, from the podcast, I see that Nicole has finally gotten away from New Zealand. I’ve been waiting for her last talk in Auckland (just up the road) TBA but I see that won’t happen now. 🙂 Could you delete the details about the A/NZ tour? Thanks.
Gravity, check the data. Surface warming has continued since 1998, though much more slowly. However, total warming has accelerated as the oceans have taken up an increasing proportion of the heat. That means more surface warming later on – there is no get out of jail free card, CO2 (and other greenhouse gases) traps heat meaning the surface has to warm to get the energy equation into balance. There are other factors at play, too, none of them make nice reading.
This lack of warming meme has been repeated so many times than the repeaters are actually beginning to believe it. Check out the facts, not the wishes.
Good interview. However, I’m not sure that Nicole’s assessment of the Auckland housing market is quite right. Yes, there is a belief that property is a safe bet and a good investment, long term; our housing downturn wasn’t quite as bad as some other places. But ownership of multiple properties doesn’t mean that there isn’t a lack of houses. The houses are lived in, they aren’t bought simply to sit idle; that wouldn’t be a safe investment. It’s the draw of Auckland for immigrants that is exacerbating demand.
However, it’s definitely a bubble, but one that might blow for some time, unless there is a general global contraction.
Nicole, what do you make of S&P raising Greece’s credit level, for its sovereign debt, by 6 levels?
S&P said:
The upgrade reflects our view of the strong determination of European Economic and Monetary Union (eurozone) member states to preserve Greek membership in the eurozone.
The outlook on the long-term rating is stable, balancing our view of the government’s commitment to a fiscal and structural adjustment against the economic and political challenges of doing so.
Dave Cohen is also discussing the debt issue on his blog:
https://www.declineoftheempire.com/2012/11/us-household-debt-is-totally-out-of-control.html
ashvin post=5978 wrote: Yeah, I think this is a powerful argument for the existence of god. The fact that we have moral conscience and the capacity to develop a relationship with the concept of god does not make much sense in terms of philosophical naturalism, but makes great sense in terms of theism.
Except that each person’s idea, of what is moral, may be, and is, different. Morality works perfectly well without a concept of God, since it makes sense to generally get on with other people.
ashvin post=5980 wrote: How could it not be of relevance to us who our Creator is and if/how we can establish an eternal relationship with him? The truth should always be relevant, and especially metaphysical truths.
Well, this is redefining my point so that it can be answered from a faith view. It is simply your assumption that there is a possibility of establishing an eternal relationship with him, probably because some old writings (brought together in the 3rd or 4th century) have been understood to give that meaning. Leaving aside a book that wasn’t available to most generations of humans on this planet, the fact of a God would be interesting but there is no evidence (and, indeed, doesn’t seem to make much sense) that this creator being would prefer his creations to act one way rather than another or that those creatures should, or can, worship, love the being that created them for his own purposes.
ashvin post=5979 wrote: There is no contradiction between a being that cannot be a certain way and that being’s omnipotence. An all-powerful God can be incapable of being illogical or immoral, because logic and morality are a part of his very essence. Unlike the laws of physics, logic and morality are eternal because God is eternal.
But God is everything, otherwise there would be something that is outside of God and, therefore, some space (for want of a better word) that encompasses both God and those other things. God would then become just one aspect of something bigger. If we can see that something is logical or illogical, how did we obtain that knowledge? Is illogic something that exists or is it imaginary? If it exists, then God created it (within himself, since there is, supposedly, nothing else) and so is perfectly capable of exhibiting illogic. However, as I said, the definition of logic or illogic is meaningless when applied to God – with God, there is no way to judge something logical or illogical, since judging requires some alternatives and something external to the thing being judged.
When thinking about every aspect of what the Christian god is supposed to be, none of it really makes any sense. Religious beliefs that include a creator, interventionist, god make much better sense if that god is just one being in a greater sphere.
Supergravity post=5972 wrote: it wouldn’t do to suddenly shift elementary logic mid-universe, it would confuse the audience and disenfranchise the participants.
Though this assumes that there was some reason for God to impose laws that make the universe understandable by humans. It kind of begs the question of God’s existence. If God exists, then of course God did that because that’s what we’ve got. However, if God doesn’t exist, then the point is moot. There seems to be no reason for God to make the universe in any particular way.
Supergravity post=5972 wrote: The moral preference arises because God wouldn’t simply do things unto Himself, but affect His creations, with moral consequences He might care about [His creations might care about] [He would care for His creations separate from Himself and identical to Himself, a minor paradox]. This option might allow for an objective distinction between good and evil, especially under omniscience.
Its preferable to assert that God is a function of morality before asserting that morality is a function of God.
The very terms “morality”, “good” and “evil” have no meaning for God (assuming it’s the only God) because there is nothing to judge these things by other than God itself and there can’t be anything other than God as that implies God is inside or, or beside, something else that did not emanate from God.
So what you say is “preferable” is only preferable to you, there is no objective preference given that those terms previously mentioned are meaningless to God.
However, you raised an interesting point about God doing things unto himself. Does that make sense? If those things affect God, in any way, it implies that God has changed himself and is a different God than before such an action. This removes the “all” bit of God’s attributes. If God can’t affect himself, what is the point of his doing anything?
Supergravity post=5972 wrote: On the contrary, everything would be logical from God’s perspective. Semantically, the word ‘perspective’ implies a logical frame of reference, but in a subjective mode. God’s possible perspective would be the only logical frame of reference which is truly objective [disregarding the holy spirit].
I’m not sure why you separate out the holy spirit, as though there is something else, apart from God, that was not created by God. However, I disagree about everything being logical from God’s perspective. Everything just “is”, from God’s perspective. And that must apply to time, also. God can neither be logical or illogical – these are human traits, possibly created by God.
Supergravity post=5972 wrote: God could only invent or manifest things which He already contains, if He came up with logic as a good idea, He must have a logical mind [because logic is creative?].
Again, “good” idea implies some yardstick that can be used to determine goodness or badness. Everything God does is just everthing God does. Even the notion of inventing or “came up with” don’t make sense in some state of being that is timeless, since it implies a time when the thing invented or made didn’t exist.
Actually, thinking about this (including what you said about God only being able to “invent” what he already contained), the universe must have always existed as part of God, thus making the concept of God irrelevant to us.
Supergravity post=5972 wrote: God would at least have a creative desire
Desire implies lacking. God cannot have desires.
Supergravity post=5972 wrote: we mortals can have only limited understanding as to what an unlimited force and unlimited logic looks like, and why such infinity would choose to limit itself for the convenience of others.
Where did these “others” come from? Why would God create the others so that he could limit himself for the convenience of them?
Supergravity post=5972 wrote: I’ve been working on such arguments myself, but it is notoriously difficult to disprove the existence of God by an appeal to logical paradox, if He exists, He would be insufferably paradoxical.
I’ve refined the question to whether God’s existence is of relevance to us. As any attributes or actions of God appear to be almost impossible to understand, if they mean anything at all, I tend to think that it comes down to whether we should even consider the existence of God or why our individual or collective actions should be guided by some people’s notions of what God might or might not want. As I’ve already mentioned, the idea of God wanting something seems ridiculous, since he has, indeed is, everything already.
ashvin post=5946 wrote: The “rules” of logic are not laws like gravity. Logic is not something God created, but something that applies to him by his very nature. God cannot be illogical or immoral any more than he can choose not to exist.
Right, so there are limits to God’s power, at least from a human perspective (since you have just stated that there is something God cannot do). I actually agree that God, assuming there is one, cannot be immoral because God can’t possibly have any morals; there is nothing else for God to judge right and wrong; everything God does would just be what God does. For a similar reason, God cannot be illogical because, since God is all there is, there is no logic, from God’s perspective. What we call logic would be something God invented and cannot apply to God, unless God wanted to impose some rules on itself. But that makes no sense because God can’t really have wants or desires since that implies a lacking of something, which cannot possibly apply to God.
I agree that God cannot be illogical, i.e. he is not exempt from rules of logic.
This makes absolutely no sense to me. You now seem to be saying that God is subject to some laws or limits, which means that God is not God. If God really is God, then it is all powerful and can do whatever it wants. Mind you, the notion of God having wants is another illogical (to me) notion. Where did these wants (desires) come from?
Almost every aspect of a creator interventionist God is illogical and impossible for humans (or at least this human) to understand. I’ve thought about these things for decades. The irrationality of it is what caused me to lose my faith, once I actually started to question what I believed.
Now we have the idea that suffering may be necessary, even though we don’t suffer equally and some may not even suffer at all when suffering is measured against the average suffering.
Sorry, it’s all illogical. Faith is something one has or one doesn’t have; it’s not explicable and cannot be objectively rationalised.
Ashvin, you really are misrepresenting the science of the early part of the universe but this is hardly the place for such a discussion. I see myself decades ago following a similar tack (though the science wasn’t as developed, of course) until something clicked in me. Perhaps it can be picked up again at a suitable point on your new blog.
Thanks for engaging.
ashvin post=5676 wrote: The skeptics fought big bang cosmology tooth and nail for many decades, because they didn’t want to accept that space, time, matter and energy has a beginning, just as the Bible describes.
I’ve heard this line of argument before but I must say that, as someone who has been interested in science for most of his 58 years, and devoutly religious for about a decade of that, I don’t recall such a fight by sceptics. The so-called Big Bang Theory wasn’t, and isn’t, even a theory. What scientists postulate is a phase of (almost) incredibly rapid expansion. The phrase “big bang” is just some way of visualising the “time” before the inflationary period. Research and hypothesising into that unfathomable period continues (I suspect it will continue for ever).
ashvin post=5676 wrote: However, in 1992, it basically became impossible to dispute that there was such a beginning.
Mmm, although I stopped reading much about the fabric of space and time about 5 years ago, I don’t recall anything definitive about their having to have been a begining; such musings are still the subject of much theorizing and research. But, Craig is reasoning based on the idea that either something (the universe) was infinite, which is scientifically crazy, or that something had a begining and therefore must have been created by something else that was infinite. That is, we get into a loop because, of course, infiniteness is crazy, so the creating something must have had a begining and been created by something that is infinite ….
ashvin post=5676 wrote: Plenty of scientists would agree with that… only atheist scientists would still be skeptical.
Almost all scientists are atheist (or, at lease agnostic), but I feel sure that most scientists would agree that matter does spontaneously get created.
ashvin post=5676 wrote: Supernatural events does not mean reality is not discoverable, it simply means that science is limited in its explanatory scope and power, and we must rely on other fields of knowledge to discover a greater extent of reality. However, even supernatural hypotheses can be tested and supported by science. For example, the Biblical hypothesis that life did not originate through natural abiogenesis, but rather it was created very early in Earth’s history in the absence of prebiotics (at just the right time), under relatively hostile conditions, very rapidly and abundantly. If those conditions prove to be true, then the Biblical model gets a lot of support over natural models which have become less and less likely as the scientific evidence mounts.
I’m not sure what science supports creation of life. There is some interesting research about origins of life at the university of Edinburgh (I think) where life becomes almost inevitable on a warm wet rocky planet, though I doubt we’d ever get to test that hypothesis. Supernatural events can’t be supported by natural science, by definition. If it is supernatural, it has no natural explanation. Consequently, supernatural events and God interventions in our world would make natural science impossible to carry out. But we do carry it out so, currently, there is clearly no evidence of supernatural events.
ashvin post=5676 wrote: Astronomers now have the capability to directly observe the earliest moments of creation by looking out into the Universe. As already stated, we definitely know that space, time, matter and energy came into existence.
You’ve stated that but we certainly don’t definitely know that. What we do think we know is that what we think of as space and time now may have had changing characteristics in the distant past (e.g. the speed of light may have been different in the distant past). Indeed, time is a mysterious property that science continues to debate deeply (e.g. scientific theories don’t distinguish between time going forward and time going backward). I’m not sure what you mean by the “earliest moments of creation” but astronomers can certainly not directly observe anything beyond cosmic background radiation and very early galaxies (as seen in Hubble Ultra Deep Space photos). They cannot directly observe the “earliest” moments of the rapid inflation phase.
ashvin post=5676 wrote: The ultimate cause cannot be a created entity or force, but rather it must be uncreated and eternal. It must be capable of existing completely outside of our spatiotemporal dimensions.
But if it was completely outside then it can’t operate inside. That is, it could only have created the conditions in which the universe was “created” but not actually have created it. Consequently, it would be impossible to determine that something completely outside of our spatiotemporal dimensions had created the conditions for those dimensions to come into existence.
ashvin post=5676 wrote: The primary question is whether this is some kind of mindless uncreated force, or it is an intelligent designer. I may not get you all the way to the Christian God, but other scientific evidence is capable of doing that (fine-tuning of Universe, origin of life, origin/development of humanity, etc.), and then of course we must look to fields that go beyond scientific reach.
Well, I would regard the primary question as being whether this hypothesised being should result in any impact on our day to day lives (and the lives of other species). Is this creator interventionist, does it requires certain behaviours of the creatures it created, that aren’t built in to those creations and, if so, why, and how are those behaviours supposed to be manifested if they were not already built in? A supplementary question might be why is the message of what we’re supposed to do so obscure and out of reach of so many (both in the past and now), why are the messages that are supposed to be there now able to be interpreted in so many different ways?
“He clearly states these are 3 reasons why people should even care about the existence of God. Are you arguing that, if the Christian God does exist, it would not make difference to peoples’ lives?“
No, but Craig is not arguing the reverse; he doesn’t say “Christian God”, he says “God”. In any case, his reasons are really the same reason, stated different ways and presupposes that the lives of everyone are tedious and miserable unless they believe in a (Christian) God. This obviously makes sense to him but to no one else. If one doesn’t believe, then those reasons are not reasons at all.
“Nope, not true. As you already know, he started with reasons why the debate even matters, not reasons why God exists. So he is not starting off with the conclusion he intends to prove.“
In which case, it is badly written because it surely seems that way to me. If I go to read an article titled “Does God Exist”, then why would the reasons (or his reasons) for wanting God to exist matter? Let’s first figure out if God exists and then figure out what that means, either way. In fact, to my mind (I used to be very religious – Christian), the key question is not whether God exists but is God and interventionist God, in any way (e.g. sets rules for our lifestyles or takes direct action in our world).
“I’m not sure exactly what you are saying here, but all scientists have concluded that the Universe (matter, energy, space and time) must have had a beginning.” I don’t think scientists “conclude” in some definitive sense but, this universe, yes. Craig, however, claims that skeptics say that the universe has always been here, which is not true (i.e. it’s not what they claim, generally). He then goes on from that to reason that the universe must have had a begining, i.e. have been created. However, some evolving hypotheses might “conclude” that the universe did not have a beginning but oscillated between collapse and expansion (some calculations show that huge distances are mathematically equivalent to tiny distances, for example).
“The most significant implication is that science can no longer rule out supernatural (or miraculous) causes for material events. Something transcendent of matter, energy, space and time that caused all of that to come into existence is, by definition, supernatural.” I doubt any scientist (or hardly any scientist) would agree with that. Science would always rule out supernatural events because such events would make the world not discoverable (i.e. any single supernatural event would invalidate a bunch of scientific theories because they then couldn’t explain that event). Science could not go on in a world of supernatural events. If you’re saying it can’t rule out a supernatural event only for the “begining” of the universe, then you are kind of agreeing that we don’t have an interventionist God, but something like Loop Quantum Gravity is an example of a way to get past the “beginning” event. Science has also shown spontaneous creation of matter in this universe, including spontaneous creation of space as the universe expands.
“the biggest observation of them all, the ENTIRE Universe, was caused by just that“
The creation of the universe has not been observed and it certainly isn’t known that its beginning (if it had a begining in the way you mean) was caused by some being creating it (and even this would raise the question of what caused that being – God – to come into existence, or was that being “always there”, something Craig finds incredulous for the universe?).
William Lane Craig appears to have debated the existence of God many times. Unfortunately, they are all over two hours and I don’t have time, at present, to check them out. However, I did find an article by him, Does God Exist which I’ve started to read.
He starts off badly, with “three reasons why it makes a big difference whether God exists.”
His first reason is that life is meaningless without God. This is purely an opinion of course and presupposes other questions about God, rather than just existence. It also suggests that those who don’t believe in God must be leading a mundane life, barely making it from one day to the next, which is clearly not true.
His second reason is really just a twist on the first reason, that without God, we must live without hope, hope for deliverance. This presupposes, again, that merely the existence of God means that there is deliverance and also that there is something to be delivered from. Again, it suggests a miserable existence for those who don’t believe in a god.
His third reason is, again, a twist of the first reason; that we can come to know and God and his love personally. Yet again, he assumes that the existence of God means that the type of God William Lane Craig wants to exist is the actual God that does exist.
Having dealt with the absolute necessity that God must exist (i.e. he starts off with the conclusion he is about to “prove”, in order to prime the reader) he launches into the proof. I’ve only read part of the first point but it is again very weak, starting out with misrepresenting the “typical” atheist position (as if there is an atheist position) about the universe. He argues from incredulity that the universe must have had a beginning (though I would think most atheist probably think this anyway, even if the science doesn’t necessarily match up to that) and goes on to make some odd points (“what is infinity minus infinity”) that aren’t really relevant to the topic.
Admittedly, I haven’t read it all yet but if the start is anything to go by, I’m quite surprised you’d point to William Craig Lane as providing a good argument about the existence of God.
I’m currently reading Endgame, by Derrick Jensen. What he says about spirituality, as distinct from religion, makes a lot of sense. I think he sees religion as a toxic mimicry of civilisation, particularly with its hierarchies. I would urge people not to confuse spirituality with religion and to seek a different route from religion, if seeking some spirituality in all of this.
Nicole,
I hope Monbiot does eventually respond but I’ve no expectation of that. However, when you said, “If EROEI falls by a factor of ten, production would have to rise by a factor of ten just to keep supplying the same demand (ie to stand still),” that was surely wrong. If EROEI is 80, then the net energy of 80 units is 79. To get the same net energy with an EROEI of 8 would “only” need something near 90 units of production. That’s not a factor of 10 increase, more like a factor of 1.125. That’s still a huge ask, of course, but the comment just struck me as wrong.
