The debt level as a percent of GDP was much higher at the end of World War II. The present debt level does not imply that there will be serious consequences. It might happen that there are serious consequences but there don't necessarily have to be serious consequences.
The consequences of our present spending will be determined by the quality of future policy decisions.
Computers work with computable systems of axioms. The Peano axioms of arithmetic, that is the complete set of them, are not a computable system. A computer would not be able to deduce the results from the strong system of Peano axioms that are not computable. Well, so I believe.
Flip a coin 100,000 times and after each flip record whether you got a heads or a tails. After you are done you have a 100,000 long chain of heads and tails written. Now ask a mathematician what the probability that this chain of heads and tails will ever be flipped and he/she will say that it is 1/2^(100,000). But you just flipped this exact same sequence! Amazing.
It would be foolish to argue that God had to be involved because an event of extremely low probability occurred. Likewise, it is foolish to argue that since humans evolving randomly is an extremely low probability event then God must have had a hand it it.
I voted you up because what you write is certainly true. I think he just might be the worst President in history. Andrew Jackson comes to mind because of his genocide of the Native peoples of the United States. What's happened in Iraq is a great human tragedy and I am not prepared to argue with any degree of accuracy that the genocide of the Native peoples outweighs the human tragedy in Iraq. But it is something to consider.
In the sermon on the mount Christ said,
"If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that? And if you greet only your brothers, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that?"
Christians that have an America first attitude are disobeying Christ because they are not doing more than what pagans do. The charge of Christ is one of love and self sacrifice and not just for your neighbor but also for those who hate us and are our enemies. Christians everywhere ought to advocate for policies that are in the interest of justice for all humanity and not to advocate for policies that maintain American power or what is in America's self interest.
George Bush's presidency has been a disaster. Our ruinous war in Iraq has cost the United States $3 trillion. The United States has had a negative savings rate for some time now and deficit spending is out of control. John McCain has promised more wars and to try to maintain the American imperial system.
Another 4 - 8 years of this and the imperial system has a good chance of collapse. This means a decrease in American power and the ability for the United States to act unilaterally and invade other countries at will will similarly be diminished. This is a good thing. This is a good thing for the world and humanity. John McCain represents the best hope for ensuring the demise of the America's empire.
Vote John McCain.
In the U.S., at least, we suffer from having too many laws. As it stands now, we have the highest rate of incarceration after North Korea.
The larger context of the question is whether or not it should be socially acceptable for obese people to eat at fast food restaurants. Obesity rates are highest amongst the poor and the allure of fast food is almost too hard to pass up for poor people. Fast food provides massive amounts of calories per dollar. A poor person does not have the luxury of buying fruits and vegetables and other healthy foods in the same quantities that the middle class and wealthy can. Poor people aren't rich enough to eat healthy.
It is obvious that fast food companies spend millions of dollars researching their concoctions. Almost all of their food is artificial and are primarily sugary concoctions. The food is designed to affect the brain in ways similar to how drugs work. Should fast food restaurants be allowed to serve this filth to anyone? I don't know but let's not fixate on the obese and shift responsibility from the restaurants and a government with unsound social policies.
I just saw your response. There is room for leeway. I was just pointing out that the act of 'believing in Jesus Christ' is not sufficient to be considered a Christian. I used Muslims as an example of people who believe in Jesus Christ but are not considered Christians. Muslims say of Jesus Christ that he was perfect (sin free) but not divine. I wasn't implying that Mormons are not Christians but rather that the argument presented was flawed.
Christ's charge to believers, in a nutshell, is "follow me". Christians are to emulate him and live according to his commands. In the United States this clearly isn't happening on a grand scale. Most churches are little more than social clubs that provide a convenient means of feeling good about one's morality and station in the world without the burden of actually serving the poor, downtrodden, and others in need. Suggestions that believers ought to do more good works are met with declarations that one is saved by grace. The hypocrisy of these sorts of believers is thus exposed. Their goal is to avoid hell not to follow Christ. I believe the real goal of these sorts of believers is to be part of a social club constantly saying that one is saved by grace is a rationalization for not doing anything Christ like. The modern church largely misses the mark.
It does remind us of our identity? Which identity is that? There are Muslims, atheists, agnostics, Jews, Hindus, etc. in the the U.S. The pledge doesn't say anything about this. It doesn't say anything about identity. The native people of the U.S. certainly did not understand and believe in us being one nation.
How do you know that in God's eyes we have a common purpose? When did He tell you this?
It does remind us of our identity? Which identity is that? There are Muslims, atheists, agnostics, Jews, Hindus, etc. in the the U.S. The pledge doesn't say anything about this. It doesn't say anything about identity. The native people of the U.S. certainly did not understand and believe in us being one nation.
How do you know that in God's eyes we have a common purpose? When did He tell you this?
The pledge might remind people of our identity, though I find this hard to believe since it doesn't make any references to our identity, but the question is whether or not this is idolatry. I really don't think God appreciates people pledging allegiance to things other than Him. At least according to my understanding of the Bible. Also, clearly we are not one nation under God as many of the citizens of the United States are not religious. We are not under a theocracy and our laws are not in accordance, necessarily, with the Bible. I believe that saying we are one nation under God is a lie but this is a separate issue.
I don't believe one can have allegiance to God and allegiance to a country. The interests, demands, and principles of the two are mostly at odds with each other. Governments generally seek to preserve the and/or enhance the power of the country they govern. The Christian principle is to do what is best for humanity and not, necessarily, what is in the best interest of the country. America first should never be the rallying cry of a Christian and saying the pledge of allegiance helps to inculcate an America-centric view.
What are you talking about? I did not bring up God in the post you responded to. I like how you define faith to be something 'positively bolstered by ignorance'. It's very convenient to define the word in such a way that there is nothing to discuss. You are free to define words as you want but I gave the definition I am using. It is invalid to attack my argument based on a definition of the word that I am not using, especially in light of the fact that I supplied the definition I am using. I would love for you to reference a dictionary that defines faith as 'a belief that something is true positively bolstered by ignorance'.
We have compulsory education right now but the lawmakers were insightful enough to know that beyond a certain age it isn't feasible to force people to go to school. You say 'all that needs to be done', and thus it is quite clear you haven't really thought about the consequences. How are you going to force a 20 year old to stay in school. Will school be a prison that they can't physically leave until they graduate? If not, who is going to make sure they go? Does a police officer show up in the morning and physically force an adult to go to school? The statement you made, 'all that needs to be done' is way too simplistic.
Feasibility is part of the debate because if it isn't feasible then it shouldn't be done.
What would be the penalty for someone who doesn't get their diploma should it become mandatory? Do we penalize teachers who don't pass enough students? Do we force adults to stay in high school until they complete their degree? Who pays for this and who subsidizes the students while they are in school as adults?
Forcing everyone to get a high school diploma is not feasible.
Faith is a belief that something is true without proof. So obviously my faith that my car's brakes aren't going to give out the next time I drive my car is a belief.
Having evidence that something is true is not the same as having proof that something is true. So, even though my experience with cars leads me to believe that my car's brakes aren't going to give out, this experience does not constitute a proof. I can't prove that the car's brakes will not give out because every time I use them there is a nonzero probability that they will give out.
In a strict sense I can not prove that gravity exists. All I can say is that there is an overwhelming evidence that it does exist and that there are no legitimate competing theories in my mind. Faith is belief without proof. So, I have a measure of faith that gravity exists. Likewise, I have faith that electrons exist. I have never proven their existence myself but I have faith that there isn't some grand conspiracy amongst physicists to make me believe that electrons exists when in fact they don't exist.
Faith is not a dirty word and there are certainly degrees of faith. It doesn't take much faith for me to believe that electrons exist even though I have never proven their existence. It takes far greater faith to say that God exists. We all exhibit faith to some degree in many, many things.
Definition of faith according to Dictionary.com:
2. belief that is not based on proof
I posted an argument that not all faith is ignorance. I used an example of my car's brakes. There is a nonzero probability that they will fail at any given time. This probability is small but it is not zero. I drive my car confident that my brakes aren't going to give out. I drive as if I know they aren't going to give out. I haven't proven that my brakes aren't going to give out by inspecting them etc. I have faith that they will not give out. This faith is well deserved and rooted in the statistical reality that the chance that they will give out is quite small. It is faith, nonetheless. And so this is an example of where faith is not ignorance.
The statement does not say faith in God is ignorance so I am going to assume that you mean any type of faith. There are times when faith is not ignorance.
I have faith that my car's brakes are going to work. This faith is based on my experiences. My car's brakes have never failed me in the past and have given me no indication of immanent failure. I haven't proven that my brakes are fine by inspecting them so my belief that they are fine is faith. But this faith of mine is not based on ignorance but rather on knowledge gained from experience.
Naturally, there are times when faith is ignorance.
If you read what I have written on the topic you would know that I am not opposed to breast feeding in public except when it is done in inappropriate ways. All that I have said on the topic is that it can be done inappropriately and when it is done inappropriately I oppose it. There were no arguments in the No section and so I just wrote this to see what would happen.
What happened is that people didn't read what was written and went off on how children need to be fed. As you state just about everything can be done in an inappropriate way. This is clear and obvious and no one should think otherwise. All that I have done is to say that public breast feeding can be done in an inappropriate way that when it is done thusly I oppose it. This should should not be a controversial statement.
You do not understand what I wrote. This is clear. I believe that public breast feeding can be done in a way that is inappropriate. Almost all human activities can be done in a way that is inappropriate. Listening to music in public is fine, for the most part. Of course there are inconsiderate people who play their music at intolerably high levels and this is not appropriate. Similarly, I have seen women breast feed in public with an in-your-face attitude and it was inappropriate. The only thing I have said is that it should be done with a sense of propriety.
Brian Greene talks about the String Landscape as if he believes it to exist. There is absolutely no physical evidence for the String Landscape to exist. It is a mathematical convenience to believe it.
At some level every string theorist must think it is at least partially true or else they would not study it. I know that no sane person claims it is true in the sense of it having been experimentally verified.
My understanding of the raison d'etre of the theory is that it is a mathematical tool by which relativity and quantum physics can be reconciled. It was not thought of due to observation and whatnot. I don't know of any other scientific theory that is based solely on mathematics and not, at least in part, by experimental evidence. The theory has lead notions of the String Landscape and the a rise in the Anthropic Principle. These ideas are what I would call mathematically based religious beliefs.
Lee Smolin is a competent physicist that has problems with String Theory and there are other physicists with similar thoughts.
There are people who do claim to 'believe' in it. Of course it is a possibility but so is the existence of God. I am not a physicist (I'm a mathematician) and so I realize my understanding of the field is quite limited. However, it is my, potentially false, impression that there are no reasons to believe that it is correct except for reasons of mathematical convenience. There isn't any physical evidence that would lead one to even guess that it might be true. There is only the mathematics. My understanding is that the theory makes only postdictions not predictions.
I teach mathematics and I try to incorporate the history of the subject in my classes. Science is a human endeavor that involves society and includes societal influences. For this reason I do believe this issue belongs in the science classroom. But I understand the belief that it would be distracting to talk about the history of the subject and societal influences on science in the classroom.
It is not falsifiable so therefore it isn't a science. From what I can tell, people believe String Theory on faith. There is no evidence that it is right. Creating a mathematical theory that unites relativity and quantum mechanics does not make it reality.
Yes. It provides a modern example of how superstition and religious doctrine have impeded scientific progress throughout history. It can be used to give students a feeling of what Galileo and others went through when their discoveries confronted religious dogma. A teacher can use creationism as a way of explaining just exactly what science is and why creation science does not meet the definition of a science.
I think you do not understand what I wrote because this is precisely what I said. The fact that one who believes that nothing can be known must concede that even this is unknown leads me to answer yes to the question posed in this debate. What I wrote was part levity. There is a bit of absurdity trying to argue that one can't know anything. The argument can't be too convincing!
The people who answer no to this question and write an argument supporting their position must, as a matter of consistency, admit that they really don't know that one can never know. So no matter how clever their argument is, no matter how logical it is, they must concede that their argument is not sufficient for them to really know that you can never really know something. Given this I say that one can really know something. Perhaps this is the only thing that one can ever really know.
The invasion of Panama didn't pay for itself. Neither did our sponsorship of guerrilla wars in Nicaragua, and Afghanistan. Our military involvement in Colombia, El Salvador, Honduras, Guatemala, Haiti, and Angola never paid for themselves.
Our our actions in other countries are generally not rewarded in a direct monetary way. The reward is the preservation of our imperial system. It's about preservation of power and not money.
True. The question, as I understand it, is whether or not there has to be a conflict between believing in evolution and a personal god. I agree that there isn't enough evidence to conclude that human life is an emergent property of the universe. It is just a theoretical possibility at this point. Yes, why would God create the universe in such a way that it appears that he isn't necessary? It's a good question.
No, the mechanism by which we get the diversity of life does not necessarily rule out that humans were the outcome. If one believes in God (I am not saying that I do) then it is reasonable to think that when God created the universe he created it with emergent properties and that life and evolution into human form is one of those emergent properties.
It does not miss the point of the question or the argument. Evolution explains the diversity of life, not the origins of life. The mechanism of why life is diverse is evolution. That there exists a universe in which the reason for the diversity of life is evolution could be due to a creator. It might be just an accident too. The question merely asks if there is a conflict and the answer is that there does not, necessarily, need to be a conflict. It depends on one's view of God and how he/she created the universe.
It is entirely possible that the universe was created in such a way that life was an emergent property. It might not be reasonable to believe the universe was created but it is reasonable to think that if it was created then it was created so that life was an emergent property.
Yes, the United States ought to have universal coverage. The United States currently spends about 16% of GDP on health care and does not have universal coverage. All of the other industrialized nations have universal coverage and they spend roughly 11% GDP on health care. The argument that universal health coverage necessarily means higher costs is wrong and people opposed to universal coverage should not be opposed to it for reasons of cost.
It is morally reprehensible for a nation to spend $3 trillion dollars on a war of choice in Iraq and let some of its citizens unduly suffer due to lack of health care access. Lack of health care access kills far more Americans each year than terrorism.
It is possible to be 'all-knowing' and 'all-powerful' provided that what one means by these terms is that God knows all that can be known and God can do all that can be done.
It is not possible for an entity to be all-powerful in the sense that the answer to every question of the form, "Can all-powerful entity do (such and such)?", is yes. It is easy to construct sentences in which saying yes leads to logical impossibilities. Since this stronger version of the notion 'all-powerful' can't exist then people should use the less strong version mentioned above. In the weaker versions of the meaning of these terms, God can be both omniscient and omnipotent.
Yes the President should be impeached because he has willfully committed the following:
1. Condoned the torture of enemy prisoners in violation of our laws and treaties.
2. Condoned the practice of extraordinary renditions in which we sent prisoners to other countries so that those countries could torture the prisoners and this practice violates treaties we have signed.
3. Has usurped the Constitution by signing bills into law and then made signing statements claiming that he is not bound by the bill he just signed into law.
4. Has usurped the Fourth Amendment by violating FISA with his domestic surveillance on U.S. citizens without court approval.
5. Has condoned the practice of federal law enforcement agencies spying on non-violent, political opposition groups.
6. Has usurped the authority of the Patriot Act.
The President has said that the terrorists hate us because of our freedom and his strategic plan seems to be to remove their hatred of us by depriving us of our freedoms. Impeach him, impeach him now.
I like what is written in the book of James:
Even the demons believe in one God, and shudder.
In Islam, Jesus Christ is a prophet of God. Muslims believe in Jesus Christ but not his divinity. We don't say of Muslims that they are Christians. Though, interestingly, some Muslims claim Christians are Muslims who follow the wrong book. Christians are called, 'people of the book'.
I am a natural born American. Since I had no say in where I was born I can't say that I am proud to be an American. Being an American is not an accomplishment of mine. Had I struggled against odds and came to the United States and gained citizenship then I might be proud to be an American. From a materialistic perspective I am fortunate to be an American but not proud to be one.
That is an interesting thought. In a nutshell I interpret you saying that getting rid of religion decreases the number of potential divisions and therefore the world gets better. It is a seductive idea but my cynicism prevents me from agreeing with this.
As long as there is concentrated power I believe those in control will use whatever means they can to divide people. Categories will be made up to fill the void left by the absence of religion, so I am inclined to believe. We already see divisions based on political correctness in this country and this sort of thing is identical to a division based on religion. It's division based on political thought and in the last century many millions of people were killed based on divisions of political thought.
Perhaps your view belies an optimism that is absent in me. I don't think the world will be necessarily better or worse, just different, without religion. It will be a better place when humans learn to empathize on a much larger and grander scale. And this, I think, is the message of most religions; which is ironic given the topic we are discussing.
How do you begin to quantify that first sentence? Do you have any sources to back up that claim?
People do bad things, especially when power is concentrated in too few people. Those in power often times use any means to justify their evil deeds and many times the method of justification is religion. It is a convenient way of painting the world into the 'with us' and 'against us' camps. This red herring has been quite effective in getting people to do evil things.
However, religion is not the only means of breaking the world into the 'with us' and 'against us' camps. Communism has been used as well as culture, ethnicity, and race. Maybe religion is the most effective means of doing this, I don't know. However, I believe that in the absence of religion then the other listed means will be used more often.
I do not believe humans have reached a general state of knowledge and awareness to avoid falling for the red herring of the 'us vs. them' mentality. Maybe in the future humans will no longer fall for this trick.
I don't think we should send them back. That seems to be inhuman but I do disagree with the view that they do the work no one else wants to do. It's the case that no one wants to do those jobs for the same amount of money that illegal immigrants are willing to work for. Companies don't want to pay real wages and want a cheap labor supply. Hence, politicians won't solve the issue of illegal immigration because business doesn't want them to.
I don't understand the seeming casualness of your perspective. Let's have them here to do our shitty work for a pittance? That seems a bit immoral and degrading to me. We should not exploit other peoples' misery by doing them a favor and letting them work our shitty jobs for wages that we are unwilling to do those same jobs for.
According to the Koran a Muslim who renounces Islam should be put to death. Once you are in you can't get out. I don't know exactly what the questioner means by 'religion of violence' but I think a religion that kills adherents for wanting to get out ought to be considered violent.
It depends on one's religious beliefs. If one is a Christian then an action being 'right' or 'wrong' does have something to do with whether or not it is a sin. Christianly speaking all sins are 'wrong' and thus the set of actions that are sins is a subset of the set of actions that are 'wrong'.
OK. I thought you took my question about smiting seriously. The God to which I refer to in the question would be the general Christian conception of God.
God smiting people is a valid complaint about Christianity, Judaism, and Islam. I don't have a problem with God telling me not to do something that he himself engages in. I am not equal to him so it isn't a stretch for me to think that some actions of his are legitimate if he does them but not if I do them.
I sort of believe in the Bible. I am not a fanatic about its absolute correctness. Furthermore, I don't cling to the vague notion that God is "all loving". I don't think that phrase has any real meaning.
Clearly Christ commands Christians to be charitable. The outcome of Christians following this command is quite similar to the goal of most social welfare programs. In this sense Democratic policies are more in line with Christ's teachings. The person who is needs medical help, or is hungry does not care that the food given to him does not care if the charity is by choice or a government program.
You may think that government exists solely to protect our rights but most people disagree with you. Most people like that the government builds roads, sewer systems, universities, pays for public firefighting, etc. The Bible doesn't talk much about political theory so this belief of yours isn't Biblical in the sense of being a Biblical mandate. The same goes for my belief on the role of government.
The complaints that God makes against the Israelites in the Old Testament mostly revolve around the society (government) not doing enough to protect and care for the poor. Private charities have never provided a sufficient amount of care for the poor. What type of society would God prefer; one with no social welfare but many suffering poor or one where people, through taxes, are forced to help others? To me it is clear that the latter is one that God would rather see. Obviously he prefers one with no social welfare and no suffering poor but that society has never existed and isn't ever to likely exist.
The only statement Jesus made regarding taxation was to say, "Give unto Caeser what is Caeser's." If the government requires it to be paid then pay it. He didn't espouse any political theories about what type of government he preferred. Surely if he said to pay the Roman tax which supported war he would have no problem with a tax to help the poor!
Since neo-conservatives have a hold on the Republican party then it is correct to identify the Republican party with them.
I don´t understand the argument from Christians that people should not be forced, through their taxes, to pay to help the less fortunate. The fact is that there are no examples of the Christian Church ever providing a sufficient amount of care and support to the poor. Today government is much more involved with helping the poor than it was 100 years ago and today the quality of life is much greater. Societies in which government cares for the people are better off than those that don´t. I don´t know if it is Christian to force people to care for the poor but I know it produces a society that is much better than one that doesn´t.
In this sense the Democratic Party´s support for social welfare in more in line with the Republican Party´s views because it produces a society that is more equitable and has a higher median standard of living. I believe Christ´s views on human dignity are such that he would prefer the former party´s policies over the latter´s in this issue.
I don´t know you personally so this isn´t directed at you but every Christian I know that says that people shouldn´t be forced to give to others don´t give anything to help others. I have found that this sentiment is born more out of a love of money than a love of God. I realize that this is an anecdotal experience.
It is possible to do stem cell research without using fetuses. Believing that abortion should be legal is much different than wanting it to occur. It is hard to call homosexuality unnatural when it pretty much occurs in all societies and has occurred throughout all of human history.
You have listed three issues that you feel are anti-Christian and let´s suppose that you are right on these three issues. The question is what party best represents Christian values. It is assumed that one can find policies in both parties that are not supported by Christian theology. Do you believe that Republicans have fewer policies that are contrary to the spirit of Christianity than the Democratic party?
I believe the Democrats´ views on social justice, welfare, health care, war, imprisonment, edcuation, and equality are all more in line with Christ´s teachings than the Republican party´s views on these issues. You can find issues in both parties that are contrary to the spirit of what Christ taught but which party is further away from that ideal? It seems clear to me that it is the Republican party.
I don´t believe that God favors one party over the other but I have many conservative Christian friends who believe that the Republican party is the one that true Christians ought to support. I don´t understand this view because Jesus mostly preached about social issues and following God. In almost all social issues that I can think of Democrats appear, to me, to be the ones with policies more in line with Christ´s teachings.
There are contrary accounts. Specifically, in the Koran. There Jesus is a prophet of God but not the incarnation of God. But whether or not anyone has written something contradicting the Bible with regard to Jesus is irrelevent to the veracity of the Biblical account. Two thousand years from now no one will ever have written an account of my life contradicting that I am the incarnation of God.
The Bible is only a valid source for people who believe it is correct. For others it isn´t a valid source and making the argument that Jesus is the incarnation of God because the Bible says so to somone who doesn´t believe the Bible is correct is a waste of time. You first must convince that person that the Bible is correct and then show that the Bible says that Jesus is the incarnation of God.
I have a slight problem with your statement:
¨If the universe is nondeterministic, then we have a "choice" in that sense; but so do inanimate objects as long as they're in a somewhat complex system which has nondeterministic behavior.¨
Is it possible that in a nondeterministic universe some objects have choice but others do not? I think everyone agrees that a rock doesn´t have free will since it doesn´t possess the ability to think, move on its own accord, cause parts of itself to move, etc.
I believe that humans do have free will but what about amoeba? I don´t know but I suspect yes. Clearly the individual atoms in my body don´t have free will and I can´t answer how it is that some configurations of inanimate objects have free will while others do not. (Think atoms that make up humans versus atoms that make up rocks.)
I can´t tell you what I mean by choice. In every finite language there are undefinable terms and for me this is one of them. I know it when I see it but I can´t define it. I could only tell on a case by case basis whether something was a choice or not.
Godel´s Incompleteness Theorem shows that given a computable set of axioms of the natural numbers there are statements that are true of the natural numbers that are not provable from this set of axioms. In the proof of the theorem Godel constructs such a statement.
It seems as though this is a pretty strong argument that there is something more to human intelligence. Specifically, that we can prove things about the natural numbers that computers will not ever be able to. Computers are not able to make deductions from Peano´s second order axiomatic system of the natural numbers but we can.
