Surefire ways to prove God exists
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
31-10-2013, 01:13 AM
RE: Surefire ways to prove God exists
(30-10-2013 03:41 PM)Cathym112 Wrote:  That's the bully argument that goes something like this: a bully hits a kid on the playground. The kid falls down and starts crying. The teacher runs over and asks the bully, why did you hit that kid? He says, I hit him because he was crying? The teacher says, he is crying because you hit him. The bulky replies, right, and if he keeps crying I'll hit him again.

How is that analagous?

Quote:Justifying your actions based on the results that you caused is downright capricious and pernicious.

Are you sure that is what you want to say? Actions are usually justified with reference to the results they produce, e.g. I remove the pan from the stove to prevent the oil catching fire and if I am asked why I removed the pan I will say that I did so to prevent the oil catching fire; I treat a patient's wound to prevent it from becoming infected and if I am asked why I sanitised the wound I will say I did so to prevent it from becoming infected; when the wound heals and again I am asked why I sanitised it I will say I did so to prevent it getting infected and so that it would heal as it has. In all of these cases I am justifying my actions on the basis of the result I caused. How is that "capricious and pernicious"?

Quote:But, nonetheless, why god hides is still not answered.

There is no "nonetheless" here. You haven't raised a cogent objection.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
31-10-2013, 02:21 AM
RE: Surefire ways to prove God exists
(30-10-2013 09:32 PM)sporehux Wrote:  [Image: derailed-train-derailed-thread-demo.jpg]

This topic, this forum; surely you didn't expect there'd still be rails? Angel

[Image: klingon_zps7e68578a.jpg]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
31-10-2013, 05:07 AM (This post was last modified: 31-10-2013 06:03 AM by Cathym112.)
RE: Surefire ways to prove God exists
Chippy - concentrate please. No

You have ADD? You forget why this derailment started? let me bring you around full circle to where you told me that the economy wouldn't be effected. See below. Don't forget your ABCs, because you clearly can't read.Laughat


(27-10-2013 09:01 PM)Rahn127 Wrote:  No more rapes, no more murders, no more starving kids, no more disease or cancer or any illness at all.
The entire way that many animals have to kill other animals in order to survive. Let's bring that to an end.

Killing 250,000 in a typhoon and saving 1 kid as your miracle ain't gonna cut it.
Save all 250,000 by stopping the fricken typhoon.

(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. Further, there would be no economy as you know it. Money would be useless, and no one would work. Infrastructure would collapse not only under the added weight of addition people, but from the lack of maintenance .


See, Einstein, The assumption was made for no illness, no cancer or disease of any kind. Animals no longer kill other animals for food. We exist purely off plant life. No more rapes, no more murders, no more natural disasters and no more world hunger. Care to amend your responses to me so that you don't show everyone how idiotic you sound?Drinking Beverage
No? Okay, moving on.

(30-10-2013 07:05 PM)Chippy Wrote:  We aren't talking about stopping people from fucking we are concerned with their reproduction. Given the availability of birth control and abortion shortages and increasing costs of living will reduce the birthrate. In many parts of the world (including Australia) the birthrate is below replacement level because of cost of living pressures.

Excuse me, Mr. You need to define every parameter. Goose, meet Gander. No one said anything about the cost of living. Further, considering the parameters that were established, there would be no more birth control because there are no more doctors, (why? There is no disease and no murder) Therefore, no more medical industry and more importantly, pharmaceutical industry. *Cathy pats chippy on the head* It's ok, honey. We all make mistakes sometimes.

Quote: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.


(30-10-2013 07:05 PM)Chippy Wrote:  Why would there be no disease? Why would every country have all the goods and services that they need? If Indonesia doesn't currently have sufficient land to farm beef cattle how would it come to eventually not need to import it? You are just making stuff up in a vain attempt to salvage your idiotic argument.

*sigh* Rahn127 stated that proof of god would need to be no more murder, no more illness and disease of any kind. No more world hunger, no more rape, murder or natural disasters. I stated that I agreed, but asked the question about the ramifications if this was actually achieved. You jumped all over my shit about it, telling me I was squalor scum because I understood economics and you didn't.


You are a moron. You started this argument by responding to a comment I made (not even to you, I might add). These weren't my hypotheticals, they were someone else's. They established that there would be no more disease. And in order to end world hunger, everyone needs free access to food otherwise the assumption doesn't work. (those who don't work, can't eat) You know nothing about economics. Nothing. That is obvious, so read up before you open your mouth.

I'm not going to respond to any more of your points because you have no idea what you are talking about. When you can explicitly describe John Nash's Global Trade Theory and Game Theory, then you can talk economics with me. (and I'll know if you use Wikipedia, its not entirely accurate regarding Nash).

holy monkey. I've never met anyone in my life who presents himself as an intelligent person, only to have his cover completely blown by Wikipedia....That was an awesome experience! Bowing
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Cathym112's post
31-10-2013, 05:33 AM
RE: Surefire ways to prove God exists
Have you ever had that twilight zone moment when someone responds hostilely to a comment you made to someone else, then a battle ensures, and then that hostile person completely forgot why they started the unnecessary battle in the first place ("Who the fuck said anything about...?")

It seriously makes me want to grab a rubber hose and start Beat_stick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
31-10-2013, 07:06 AM
RE: Surefire ways to prove God exists
Hey there. I'm new here. English is not my first language, so pardon any misspelling or grammar mistakes.

At first I thought that Cathym112 was an idiot. Then I read back to observe the premise for the argument. Sorry, Chippy, you do not understand economics. She is completely correct. If world hunger, natural disasters, and illness of any kind were eliminated, there would be no more economy for global trade.

I don't know how to include cartoon in my response, but I'm shaking my head at you, Chippy.

I have been an economist for close to 27 years. My (sorry, I do not know how to say in english) area of study is global trade as it relates to incentive, and human conditions. I have a doctorate in Economics and a doctorate in psychology. I also work as an advisor to the World Health Organization.

I will say that psychologically, chippy presents with extreme insecurity regarding his inflated sense of intelligence. When people attack other's arguments without addressing the actual argument, it suggests that they cannot answer the question themselves so they distract from the actual argument with a diversion of sorts. He does this in hopes that no one will notice. Its also known that inflated and often incorrect use of english using sophisticated words as a precursor to an argument, is further facilitated by that insecurity. Intelligent people can talk to other intelligent people using plain english and without condescension.

Either way, I am excited to have found this website and forum. As you say, Let the games begin!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
31-10-2013, 07:45 AM
RE: Surefire ways to prove God exists
(31-10-2013 05:07 AM)Cathym112 Wrote:  let me bring you around full circle to where you told me that the economy wouldn't be effected.

I didn't say the economy wouldn't be effected, I said that overpopulation wouldn't automatically cause an economy to collapse and that ecological systems do not require periodic mass death for their continuation.

Quote:Care to amend your responses to me so that you don't show everyone how idiotic you sound?

No. You made the claim that all ecological systems require regular mass death and I objected to that.

Quote:Excuse me, Mr. You need to define every parameter. Goose, meet Gander. No one said anything about the cost of living. Further, considering the parameters that were established, there would be no more birth control because there are no more doctors, (why? There is no disease and no murder) Therefore, no more medical industry and more importantly, pharmaceutical industry.

That wasn't my concern and is irrelevant to your claim that all ecological systems require mass death. That is what I was concerned with not your bullshit debate about some imaginary Utopia.

Quote:*sigh* Rahn127 stated that proof of god would need to be no more murder, no more illness and disease of any kind. No more world hunger, no more rape, murder or natural disasters. I stated that I agreed, but asked the question about the ramifications if this was actually achieved.

I don't give a shit what Rahn127 posted, I wasn't responding to that.

Quote:You jumped all over my shit about it, telling me I was squalor scum because I understood economics and you didn't.

Yes I objected to your unsubstantiated claim about ecology and I stated that an overpopulated nation-state would not automatically experience economic collapse. I told you that your mind was an impoverished slum after I vaporised your idiotic argument about The Matrix and philosophy--that discussion had nothing to do with economics.

Quote:You started this argument by responding to a comment I made (not even to you, I might add).

Yes and you blindly assumed that I was participating in that debate, which I wasn't.

Quote:These weren't my hypotheticals, they were someone else's.

And I made no reference to those hypotheticals until you repeated them even though they were irrelevant to the the comment that I made, which was an objectiont to your claim about ecological systems. Those weren't my hypotheticals either and none of the comments I made were in the context of those hypotheticals. On the one hand you acknowledge that I wasn't talking about those hypotheticals and then on the other hand you refuse to make that acknowledgement in order to try and score a point.

Quote:They established that there would be no more disease. And in order to end world hunger, everyone needs free access to food otherwise the assumption doesn't work. (those who don't work, can't eat)

I don't care about that. That was irrelevant to the point that I had made. I addressed your statements in relation to the overpoulated economy I referenced in my first post not the Utopian world you were bitching about.

Quote:You know nothing about economics. Nothing. That is obvious, so read up before you open your mouth.

You are a fucking idiot. So you referenced a graph of equilibrium in AD and AS and that has established you as an economics expert? And your comments in relation to that were just idiotic. What the fuck does innovation have to do with anything that was discussed and who said that macroeconomic equilibrium is static?

Also your comments were entirely irrelevant. At no point in my discussion with you did I make any comments about the hypothetical utopia, yet you have responded to me as if that is what I was doing. You can't make up your mind whether I was or wasn't commenting in relation to the hypothetical utopia because you want to try and assume I was somehow doing both so you can claim that I don't know anything about economics AND that I failed to follow your argument with Rahn127. Both can't be true.

Neither are true. I wasn't participating in your argument with Rahn127.

Quote:I'm not going to respond to any more of your points because you have no idea what you are talking about. When you can explicitly describe John Nash's Global Trade Theory and Game Theory, then you can talk economics with me.

I can describe both of those and more and my central point regarding ecology has nothing to do with economics.

Quote:holy monkey. I've never met anyone in my life who presents himself as an intelligent person, only to have his cover completely blown by Wikipedia....That was an awesome experience! Bowing

What are you talking about? You can't get your narrative straight. If my comments were made without any regard for what Rahn127 had posted then everything I posted was correct and your responses are irrelevant. You are trying to exploit both possibilities simultaneously, i.e. I was responding to you with Rahn127's hypotheticals in mind and I was also responding to you in ignorance of Rahn127's hypotheticals. The two are mutually exclusive. At the beginning of your post you suggested I had no knowledge of Rahn127's hypotheticals and by the end of the post your position implicitly shifts to me knowing Rahn127's hypotheticals and responding to those.

I wasn't responding to Rahn127's hypotheticals. I was responding specifically to your claim regarding the claimed necessity of regular mass death in ecological systems. I then extending my objection to an economy in the context of overpopulation. Then in response to that you launched into describing Rahn127's utopia as if I was referring to that. I have given no thought to anything that you have said about how a macroeconomy would operate under the conditions specified by Rahn127 and I have posted nothing in relation to that. That wasn't my concern, I don't care about that. Everything that I have posted in this thread concerns the homeostasis of ecological systems and secondarily what the macroeconomics of an overpopulated nation-state are, and everything I posted in relation to those concerns is correct.

You introduced the confusion by assuming I wanted to take part in your silly argument. Why would I talk of food shortages and rising prices in my first post if I was stating my position in relation to a utopia in which everyone has all the goods they want and need? You don't need to have studied economics to understand the concept of food shortage vs. all the free food you can eat. You are an idiot.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
31-10-2013, 07:49 AM
RE: Surefire ways to prove God exists
interesting
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
31-10-2013, 07:55 AM
RE: Surefire ways to prove God exists
(29-10-2013 05:23 PM)Cathym112 Wrote:  
(27-10-2013 09:01 PM)Rahn127 Wrote:  Point out the shit that needs to be done to make this world a better place and the stuff you point out actually gets taken care of.
No more rapes, no more murders, no more starving kids, no more disease or cancer or any illness at all.
The entire way that many animals have to kill other animals in order to survive. Let's bring that to an end.

Killing 250,000 in a typhoon and saving 1 kid as your miracle ain't gonna cut it.
Save all 250,000 by stopping the fricken typhoon.

The easiest way to prove god exists is IF he actually existed, you could point right to him. You could detect him as easily as detecting the sun.

To prove a god exists, you would have to create the god and then point to it.

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.

I'm sure there is a better system to live than the brutality of death, I just can't imagine one.

Further, there would be no economy as you know it. Money would be useless, and no one would work. Infrastructure would collapse not only under the added weight of addition people, but from the lack of maintenance .

(30-10-2013 12:33 AM)Chippy Wrote:  
(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.

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.

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.

Quote:I'm sure there is a better system to live than the brutality of death, I just can't imagine one.

There is no evidence that all ecological systems require periodic mass death.

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

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.

Quote:Money would be useless,

No it wouldn't, it would serve the same purpose that it does today.

Quote:and no one would work.

Yes they would. They would be working towards satisfying aggregate demand. The economy will be at full capacity so there would be full employment.

Quote:Infrastructure would collapse not only under the added weight of addition people, but from the lack of maintenance .

No it wouldn't. Public works would be funded by the taxation revenue generated by the full employment of the at capapcity economy.

A society/economy will only collapse due to overpopulation if its means of production are destroyed by the overpopulation (e.g. all arable land is destroyed by pollution) and if it can't import to satisfy its aggregate demand at at least subsistence level.

Quote:What are you talking about? You can't get your narrative straight. If my comments were made without any regard for what Rahn127 had posted then everything I posted was correct and your responses are irrelevant. You are trying to exploit both possibilities simultaneously, i.e. I was responding to you with Rahn127's hypotheticals in mind and I was also responding to you in ignorance of Rahn127's hypotheticals. The two are mutually exclusive. At the beginning of your post you suggested I had no knowledge of Rahn127's hypotheticals and by the end of the post your position implicitly shifts to me knowing Rahn127's hypotheticals and responding to those.

I wasn't responding to Rahn127's hypotheticals. I was responding specifically to your claim regarding the claimed necessity of regular mass death in ecological systems. I then extending my objection to an economy in the context of overpopulation. Then in response to that you launched into describing Rahn127's utopia as if I was referring to that. I have given no thought to anything that you have said about how a macroeconomy would operate under the conditions specified by Rahn127 and I have posted nothing in relation to that. That wasn't my concern, I don't care about that. Everything that I have posted in this thread concerns the homeostasis of ecological systems and secondarily what the macroeconomics of an overpopulated nation-state are, and everything I posted in relation to those concerns is correct.

Actually, Chippy - as you can see here from your responses - you absolutely responded to this argument, using Rahn127's premise. Get your shit in a pile and learn how to debate.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
31-10-2013, 07:57 AM
RE: Surefire ways to prove God exists
In terms of following "serious debate rules" Chippy is an epic fail.

When he was proven wrong, he backed out of the argument by saying he never addressed that issue. You did. several times. its in writing...just read back.


BURN
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
31-10-2013, 07:58 AM
RE: Surefire ways to prove God exists
(31-10-2013 05:33 AM)Cathym112 Wrote:  Have you ever had that twilight zone moment when someone responds hostilely to a comment you made to someone else, then a battle ensures, and then that hostile person completely forgot why they started the unnecessary battle in the first place ("Who the fuck said anything about...?")

Again you can't get your story straight. These are the two positions you are dithering between:

(1) I was responding to your comments in relation to Rahn127's hypothetical utopia and I was incorrect in what I stated were the macroeconomic implications of that utopia;

(2) I was not responding to your comments in relation to Rahn127's hypothetical utopia and I failed to follow the flow of the argument.

You are trying to derive a benefit by simultaneously upholding both (1) and (2) even though they are mutually exclusive possibilities.

Neither (1) or (2) are correct. (1) originates from your presumption and (2) from your desperation.

I re-iterate. I was ignoring your argument with Rahn127 and was unconcerned with the hypothetical utopia. My points were two and I stand by both of them:

(i) most ecological systems do not require regular mass death to survive; and
(ii) a society's economy will not automatically collapse simply because that society is overpopulated.

I can give you evidence and theory for (i) and (ii). I can't make it any clearer than this. If you still refuse to concede that this is what I have been saying all along then you are just trying to score a cheap point.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: