Evidence for the existence of God

Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Tue, 20 Sep 2016 15:34:52 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

On Tuesday, September 20, 2016 at 6:10:31 PM UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Tue, 20 Sep 2016 12:36:48 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

Do you apply the same rules to smoking, alcohol, cocaine, heroin, caffeine?

Smoking: Second-hand smoke, odor, etc Control.
Alcohol: DUI, belligerence Control.
Cocaine: DUI Control.
Heroin: DUI Control.
Caffeine: Doesn't affect others Don't control.
32oz soda: Doesn't affect others Don't control.

The logic is generally sound, but there's a failure in the assumption
that the response is binary (control vs. don't control).

I did not make that assumption, dumbass.

In fact, your response indicates you did, as you only offered two
options.

The key phrase is "Doesn't affect others." If it doesn't affect others
then it doesn't harm "society," leading to the correct conclusion, "Don't control."

In fact,
there's an entire spectrum of intervention possible, depending on the
societal impact of the problem.

The point of the table was to point out that some things DO NOT HAVE a
"societal impact" and are, perhaps, not even "problems."

Then you failed in making that point, because the table does not
demonstrate anything about societal impact beyond your opinion. When
you live in a society, everything you do has societal impact, it's
merely a question of degree.

There's a huge difference between how
we might control heroin (complete prohibition)

Probably not a particularly bad idea, in that heroin overdoses can kill, immediately.

and how we might control sodas (a tax on sugar).

There is nothing immediately or inherently harmful about sugar, and
whatever harm -might- occur affects only the consumer of the sugar. NO
NEED TO EVEN CONTEMPLATE ANY CONTROLS ON IT.

The scientific evidence suggests that sugar is a very harmful
substance at the root of a great many serious medical problems which
have broad social consequences. It may well be as harmful to society
as alcohol and tobacco.


It's also an essential part of the diet. Without glucose, which is mainly
derived from sucrose, we would die quickly.
High fructose corn syrup is possibly more harmful.

On Tue, 20 Sep 2016 16:01:48 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

You are operating with completely non-standard definitions, which
means your entire response is invalid.

No, my definitions are rather more concise than the ones you are attempting to foist onto this discussion, peterson.

I don't know about "concise". But most certainly inaccurate.

On Tue, 20 Sep 2016 15:53:08 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

On Tuesday, September 20, 2016 at 6:06:15 PM UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Tue, 20 Sep 2016 12:47:37 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

Most atheists simply don't believe there are any gods.

If one has not declared that there is no god, then one cannot be said to be an atheist.

Factual error.

No, fact.

If a person hasn't declared that there is no god, then how could anyone say that person is an atheist?

Only some
actively assert there are none,

Those are atheists.

and fewer yet make that assertion to be certain.

Those are agnostics.

Atheists don't believe in gods. That's all. Agnostics consider the
question to be unanswerable.

Incorrect. They consider the question answerable but lack evidence to come up with an answer.

Agnosticism has to do with knowledge,
atheism with belief.

Other way around. Atheists claim knowledge, declare "no gods." Agnostics suspend belief or disbelief until sufficient knowledge might be available.

The two are completely different things. There
are both agnostic and gnostic theists, and agnostic and gnostic
atheists.

That's all a bunch of ****, peterson.

Well, you're full of ****. But we already knew that.

On Tuesday, September 20, 2016 at 6:41:44 PM UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Tue, 20 Sep 2016 15:34:52 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

On Tuesday, September 20, 2016 at 6:10:31 PM UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Tue, 20 Sep 2016 12:36:48 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

Do you apply the same rules to smoking, alcohol, cocaine, heroin, caffeine?

Smoking: Second-hand smoke, odor, etc Control.
Alcohol: DUI, belligerence Control.
Cocaine: DUI Control.
Heroin: DUI Control.
Caffeine: Doesn't affect others Don't control.
32oz soda: Doesn't affect others Don't control.

The logic is generally sound, but there's a failure in the assumption
that the response is binary (control vs. don't control).

I did not make that assumption, dumbass.

In fact, your response indicates you did, as you only offered two
options.

There is not room on the screen to enumerate all possible controls that might be contemplated, dumbass. That wasn't the point of the table. And -I- made the table so -I- know.


The key phrase is "Doesn't affect others." If it doesn't affect others then it doesn't harm "society," leading to the correct conclusion, "Don't control."

In fact,
there's an entire spectrum of intervention possible, depending on the
societal impact of the problem.

The point of the table was to point out that some things DO NOT HAVE a "societal impact" and are, perhaps, not even "problems."

Then you failed in making that point, because the table does not
demonstrate anything about societal impact beyond your opinion.

Most people would agree with my "opinion" which is actually FACT, which is why so many would agree with it.

When
you live in a society, everything you do has societal impact, it's
merely a question of degree.

Incorrect. I can watch TV, read a book, take a nap, work on the yard, or order a 32-oz soda at Burger-World, and NONE of that has ANY societal impact, period.


There's a huge difference between how
we might control heroin (complete prohibition)

Probably not a particularly bad idea, in that heroin overdoses can kill, immediately.

and how we might control sodas (a tax on sugar).

There is nothing immediately or inherently harmful about sugar, and whatever harm -might- occur affects only the consumer of the sugar. NO NEED TO EVEN CONTEMPLATE ANY CONTROLS ON IT.

The scientific evidence suggests that sugar is a very harmful
substance

It's just sugar, peterson.

at the root of a great many serious medical problems

NONE OF

which
have broad social consequences. It may well be as harmful to society
as alcohol and tobacco.

No, actually, second-hand smoke is bad for me or a drunk driver might run into me. But I don't need to worry at all about the 32-oz soda that someone, somewhere just ordered. Neither would a "healthy society" (to use one of your idiotic phrases.)

On Tue, 20 Sep 2016 23:03:32 -0000 (UTC), Mike Collins
wrote:

The scientific evidence suggests that sugar is a very harmful
substance at the root of a great many serious medical problems which
have broad social consequences. It may well be as harmful to society
as alcohol and tobacco.


It's also an essential part of the diet. Without glucose, which is mainly
derived from sucrose, we would die quickly.
High fructose corn syrup is possibly more harmful.

Of course, a great many things are both beneficial and harmful,
depending on how they are used.

On Tuesday, September 20, 2016 at 7:15:51 PM UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Tue, 20 Sep 2016 16:01:48 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

You are operating with completely non-standard definitions, which
means your entire response is invalid.

No, my definitions are rather more concise than the ones you are attempting to foist onto this discussion, peterson.

I don't know about "concise". But most certainly inaccurate.

No, most certainly accurate and concise.

On Tue, 20 Sep 2016 15:58:51 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

On Tuesday, September 20, 2016 at 6:07:30 PM UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Tue, 20 Sep 2016 11:42:51 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

On Tuesday, September 20, 2016 at 10:05:33 AM UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Tue, 20 Sep 2016 02:35:16 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

Not at all. The entire economy, for instance, is affected because of
the loss of productivity associated with things like obesity and
smoking.

You are making the invalid assumption that people exist to serve society, when in fact the opposite is true.

I'm making neither assumption.

You are making the invalid assumption that an obese person is not pulling his own weight, so to speak, simply because he is obese, and that "society" has some sort of right to control his weight.

No, I'm not.

Yes, you are, since you are assuming that obesity impacts productivity, and further assuming that this imagined loss of productivity is any of "society's" concern in any case.

I've made no claims about obesity at all. You're the one who brought
that up.

I'm simply recognizing that society, in
the form of groups of people, is impacted by the mass behavior of
individuals,

So? If millions of people decide to watch football on Sunday, instead of doing something you think more productive to society, how is that any of your (or society's) business, peterson?

If millions of people watching football on Sunday results in some
quantifiable harm to society, it becomes an issue subject to public
discussion.

It won't. It only affects the people who watch the game. Everyone else can go on about their business. Get it?

If it doesn't, then it doesn't. If it does, than it does. I've not
seen any evidence that people watching football on Sunday afternoons
is causing any significant harm, either to them or to society. On the
other hand, there is overwhelming evidence that the consumption of
sugary drinks harms both those drinking them and society as a whole.

On Tuesday, September 20, 2016 at 7:03:40 PM UTC-4, Mike Collins wrote:
wrote:
On Tuesday, September 20, 2016 at 5:45:43 PM UTC-4, Mike Collins wrote:
wrote:

Sixth, will these "shooting galleries" be available to minors?

That's up to your society.

That's a cop-out. Answer the question.

When you answer my questions I'll answer yours.

YOU are the one suggesting the establishment of these "shooting galleries." Right now, a big concern is pushers selling drugs to kids, one of the main reasons there ARE drug laws.

So my question:

"Will these 'shooting galleries' be available to minors?"

is quite relevant and demands an answer from you.

On Tuesday, September 20, 2016 at 7:16:46 PM UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Tue, 20 Sep 2016 15:53:08 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

On Tuesday, September 20, 2016 at 6:06:15 PM UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Tue, 20 Sep 2016 12:47:37 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

Most atheists simply don't believe there are any gods.

If one has not declared that there is no god, then one cannot be said to be an atheist.

Factual error.

No, fact.

If a person hasn't declared that there is no god, then how could anyone say that person is an atheist?

Only some
actively assert there are none,

Those are atheists.

and fewer yet make that assertion to be certain.

Those are agnostics.

Atheists don't believe in gods. That's all. Agnostics consider the
question to be unanswerable.

Incorrect. They consider the question answerable but lack evidence to come up with an answer.

Agnosticism has to do with knowledge,
atheism with belief.

Other way around. Atheists claim knowledge, declare "no gods." Agnostics suspend belief or disbelief until sufficient knowledge might be available.

The two are completely different things. There
are both agnostic and gnostic theists, and agnostic and gnostic
atheists.

That's all a bunch of ****, peterson.

Well, you're full of ****. But we already knew that.

No, peterson, you are and your pedantry proves it.

On Tuesday, September 20, 2016 at 7:22:04 PM UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Tue, 20 Sep 2016 15:58:51 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

On Tuesday, September 20, 2016 at 6:07:30 PM UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Tue, 20 Sep 2016 11:42:51 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

On Tuesday, September 20, 2016 at 10:05:33 AM UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Tue, 20 Sep 2016 02:35:16 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

Not at all. The entire economy, for instance, is affected because of
the loss of productivity associated with things like obesity and
smoking.

You are making the invalid assumption that people exist to serve society, when in fact the opposite is true.

I'm making neither assumption.

You are making the invalid assumption that an obese person is not pulling his own weight, so to speak, simply because he is obese, and that "society" has some sort of right to control his weight.

No, I'm not.

Yes, you are, since you are assuming that obesity impacts productivity, and further assuming that this imagined loss of productivity is any of "society's" concern in any case.

I've made no claims about obesity at all. You're the one who brought
that up.

You wrote about obesity earlier:

"The entire economy, for instance, is affected because of
the loss of productivity associated with things like obesity and
smoking."

Having memory problems, peterson? Remember to get that checked.

I'm simply recognizing that society, in
the form of groups of people, is impacted by the mass behavior of
individuals,

So? If millions of people decide to watch football on Sunday, instead of doing something you think more productive to society, how is that any of your (or society's) business, peterson?

If millions of people watching football on Sunday results in some
quantifiable harm to society, it becomes an issue subject to public
discussion.

It won't. It only affects the people who watch the game. Everyone else can go on about their business. Get it?

If it doesn't, then it doesn't. If it does, than it does.

It doesn't.

I've not
seen any evidence that people watching football on Sunday afternoons
is causing any significant harm, either to them or to society.

How uncharacteristically observant of you, peterson.

On the
other hand, there is overwhelming evidence that the consumption of
sugary drinks harms both those drinking them and society as a whole.

Now it's "sugary drinks" in general, and not just 32-oz sodas? Moving the goalposts around again, peterson?

"Excess" sugar might or might not harm any particular person. It does not harm a "healthy society." You would have to present your "overwhelming evidence" to prove otherwise.