Surefire ways to prove God exists
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
30-10-2013, 07:13 AM (This post was last modified: 30-10-2013 07:52 AM by Cathym112.)
RE: Surefire ways to prove God exists
(29-10-2013 05:23 PM)Cathym112 Wrote:  On a purely humanitarian standpoint - I agree. However, can you imagine the ramifications if this was actually achieved? People, animals, plants, etc., need to die in order to make room for new life. If no one died early, and everyone lived to ripe old ages of 90, we would populate ourselves into extinction. Not just us - deer, rabbits, plants - everything. There is a purpose for massive wildfires that destroy everything in its path - rebirth.

(30-10-2013 12:33 AM)Chippy Wrote:  You can't form that conclusion in the absence of any reference to birth rate. Even if the human lifespan averaged 90-years it would only be a problem if we were constantly reproducing above the replacement rate. Those same factors apply to all animals.

Like I said in my previous post, people make assumptions without defining every single parameter and preambling every single assumption. Otherwise the conversation doesn't really go anywhere.

The birth replacement rate is currently calculated with the assumption that not every single person lives to the age 90 and above. Since we are limited in fertility to a certain age range, the current replacement rate of 2.1 is calculated to sustain the population.

however, When you increase the life expectancy, reduce overall mortality by the levels that were suggested, the replacement rate actually decreases. That doesn't stop people from fucking, though....not on any meaningful scale.

I'm not citing these studies because you are smart enough to look them up on your own, but there is a direct relationship between the supply of nutrition and the increase of population. More food = more fucking and more babies.


(30-10-2013 12:33 AM)Chippy Wrote:  Regarding plant life you are entirely wrong. The eucalypt trees in Australia's old-growth forrests are as old as 1000-years and the forrests in which they reside are hosts to stable populations of (diverse) flora and fauna. The old-growth forrests haven't experienced any disaster and they are fine.

Thank you for making the argument from exception. While there are some ecosystems that maintain stability and do not require fire for destruction, these ecosystems are not the norm. Forests (spelled with one R by the way), require a periodic clearing in order to flourish. Particularly for parts of the forest floor to flourish, the trees need to be cleared.

(30-10-2013 12:33 AM)Chippy Wrote:  There is no evidence that all ecological systems require periodic mass death.

I never said anything about mass death. I never said anything about ALL ecological systems either.


Quote:Further, there would be no economy as you know it.

(30-10-2013 12:33 AM)Chippy Wrote:  Yes there would. Aggregate supply would grow to meet aggregate demand as much as the production-possibility frontier permits. Then when supply shortages start prices will rise proportionally.

Is wikipedia where you got your education in economics? I'm sorry, my friend, but you couldn't be more wrong. Economics does not exist in a vacuum. Part 1: If everyone (globally) has enough food, Shelter, and poverty is eliminated, no need for medical treatment since there is no more disease, as the assumption made, there would be no need for any substantial trade. Banana Republics would no longer have that one export to support their economy since the importing county would already have enough of their own and thus no need to import.

Why do you work? You work so you can pay for food, shelter, and clothing for yourself and your family. In order to truly eliminate world hunger, Everyone would need to have free access to food in order for the assumption to work. Same with shelter, etc. When you have everything you need, there is no need to work to achieve those things. No one would clean up shit because the only way to get someone to do menial work if the incentive is no longer there. This is why socialism doesn't work - the incentive is removed.

People can still trade for efficiency, however, if we outsource our labor to india because labor is cheaper, it frees up time, money and manpower to focus on innovation. What is the point of medical innovation, DNA sequencing? No point. No need for medical innovation (you seem to have an incorrect assumption that medical advancements do not have a ripple effect into other areas of commerce - they very much do)

Now, while its true that the technological industry would not suffer as greatly as the agricultural industry, you cannot support the economy on 1 industry unless you are suggesting that every economy become a banana republic.

Part 2:

Aggregate supply growing to meet aggregate demand has a name. Its called equilibrium. And once a particular industry reaches equilibrium, then innovation cannot occur. Lets break this down simply for you, my little down syndrome monkey.

Assuming a competitive market, The price of Ipads.

[Image: image010.jpg]


Now, as supply and demand meet each other, that is your sweet spot of equilibrium. However, innovation costs money. Now the price needs to be moved, effectively jiggling the equilibrium. Equilibrium can be reached, but it can never STAY there for a substantial time period if you also want innovation and change.



Quote:and no one would work.

(30-10-2013 12:33 AM)Chippy Wrote:  Yes they would. They would be working towards satisfying aggregate demand. The economy will be at full capacity so there would be full employment.

Why would anyone work? You have all the free food and shelter you need. As stated above, the only reason you work is so that you can have money to buy the 3 essentials. Food, Shelter, and Clothing. In order to truly end global world hunger, where NO ONE starves, you would need to have the assumption of free access to food. Same with shelter.

When you remove incentive from working, no one works. That's why socialism fails all the time, every time. People only do the things that will make them ultimately happy. Do you think the guy driving your garbage truck really loves doing it for the sake of doing it? If so, he is the minority because no one likes picking up shit.

In part of India, the workers who clean the fecal waste from the public toilets is the lower caste members because no one wants to clean up shit. That handful of fecalpheliacs is not enough to clean up the shit of the entire population.

So....no one would work jobs because no one would need money, and certainly not nearly as much money since at least 2 of those needs are satisfied.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-10-2013, 07:13 AM
RE: Surefire ways to prove God exists
(30-10-2013 06:56 AM)Chas Wrote:  
(30-10-2013 06:30 AM)Chippy Wrote:  Boo-hoo. Wash the sand out of your vagina and learn to pick your fights.

Maybe you could work on not being an arrogant dickhead. Consider

I love the smell of irony in the morning. Tongue

[Image: klingon_zps7e68578a.jpg]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-10-2013, 07:23 AM
RE: Surefire ways to prove God exists
(30-10-2013 07:13 AM)houseofcantor Wrote:  
(30-10-2013 06:56 AM)Chas Wrote:  Maybe you could work on not being an arrogant dickhead. Consider

I love the smell of irony in the morning. Tongue

Not enough Gwynnies this morning? Consider

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-10-2013, 07:28 AM
RE: Surefire ways to prove God exists
(30-10-2013 07:23 AM)Chas Wrote:  
(30-10-2013 07:13 AM)houseofcantor Wrote:  I love the smell of irony in the morning. Tongue

Not enough Gwynnies this morning? Consider

The spawn is hogging the TV. Watching Latifah. Weeping

[Image: klingon_zps7e68578a.jpg]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-10-2013, 07:44 AM (This post was last modified: 30-10-2013 07:47 AM by Cathym112.)
RE: Surefire ways to prove God exists
I'm not suggesting that chippy dumb down his arguments, not at all. But the level of insipidly pernicious communication is only helpful if he wants to end the conversation.

Richard Dawkins is brilliant. serious brainpower. But when Many read his book - They were rather turned off by his by verbiage...that if he somehow used uncommonly used adverbs, adjectives and nouns like "infelicity" it would prove how educated he was. My economics professors never once used infelicity. He would simply say "improprieties"

It's worth noting that while he can dish out the criticism, the sand in his vagina prevents him from taking it.

A little rudeness and disrespect can elevate a meaningless interaction to a battle of wills and add drama to an otherwise dull day - Bill Watterson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-10-2013, 07:45 AM
RE: Surefire ways to prove God exists
(30-10-2013 07:28 AM)houseofcantor Wrote:  
(30-10-2013 07:23 AM)Chas Wrote:  Not enough Gwynnies this morning? Consider

The spawn is hogging the TV. Watching Latifah. Weeping

False goddess. Angry

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-10-2013, 07:50 AM
RE: Surefire ways to prove God exists
(30-10-2013 07:44 AM)Cathym112 Wrote:  I'm not suggesting that chippy dumb down his arguments, not at all. But the level of insipidly pernicious communication is only helpful if he wants to end the conversation.

Richard Dawkins is brilliant. serious brainpower. But when Many read his book - They were rather turned off by his by verbiage...that if he somehow used uncommonly used adverbs, adjectives and nouns like "infelicity" it would prove how educated he was. My economics professors never once used infelicity. He would simply say inappropriate.

And that would be an infelicitous use of the word. Big Grin

Dawkins's language is precise and erudite. English probably has more words than other languages and that gives it power, flexibility, and precision.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-10-2013, 08:07 AM
RE: Surefire ways to prove God exists
(30-10-2013 07:50 AM)Chas Wrote:  
(30-10-2013 07:44 AM)Cathym112 Wrote:  I'm not suggesting that chippy dumb down his arguments, not at all. But the level of insipidly pernicious communication is only helpful if he wants to end the conversation.

Richard Dawkins is brilliant. serious brainpower. But when Many read his book - They were rather turned off by his by verbiage...that if he somehow used uncommonly used adverbs, adjectives and nouns like "infelicity" it would prove how educated he was. My economics professors never once used infelicity. He would simply say inappropriate.

And that would be an infelicitous use of the word. Big Grin

Dawkins's language is precise and erudite. English probably has more words than other languages and that gives it power, flexibility, and precision.

I agree. He has a lovely command of the English language...however, I'm referring to communicating to the masses. Do you use the word irreligiosity in everyday speak? Or tergiversation? Or logomachist trickery?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-10-2013, 09:12 AM
RE: Surefire ways to prove God exists
Chippy vs. Cathym112.

One treats this place as a debate forum;

The other treats this place as a community.

Each are following different rules.



Who is right? GO!

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-10-2013, 09:36 AM
RE: Surefire ways to prove God exists
(30-10-2013 09:12 AM)DLJ Wrote:  Who is right?

[Image: david-tennant-dr-who.jpg]

Right. Thumbsup

[Image: klingon_zps7e68578a.jpg]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: