Skeptic134

Your last comment should be "Americas population is productive due to luxurious needs not essential needs" and you'd have nailed my emphasis.

 

Why do you find my comment to have no credibility? Would you like sources that claim insects are more nutritious? Maybe sources that cite which urban plants are best for eating and the nutrional values they retain?

 

Considering I'm pointing out that Americans don't produce for monetary necessities as often as they produce for monetary luxuries, I think my arguments aren't only credible but relevent as well.

 

What are the semantics in my argument?

Your argument has turned into semantics because now you are trying to differentiate luxurious needs from essential needs. The definition of need already assumes essential, why are you adding the adjective?

The assertion that American production is due to wants and not needs because the citizens aren’t eating grasshoppers IMO isn’t a credible argument. But let’s examine it anyway.

I would be interested in citations regarding the nutrition and calories of a grasshopper, how many will an average person need to eat a day. Will humans truly be receiving the proper vitamins, proteins, etc from an insect diet? What will happen to any industry related to food, farming, restaurants, etc and thus the economy and production? Will this be entirely counter to the original intent of the thread?

You initially claimed that people “want” groceries as opposed to needing them, ok, people also will “want” to eat (insert insect) they won’t need too, because fundamentally we don’t “need” to eat, we just want too. It is an argument that just doesn’t get you anywhere.

You're both missing the point. The point is that there are cheaper means of obtaining sustenance than most urbanized individuals don't consider. The fact is, the way we choose to shelter, water, and feed ourselves in America are luxurious compared to what other people in impoverish nations have to do. Taking that into consideration it should be easy to realize that we don't have production in America because people want necessitates, it's because we want luxuries.

 

I get your point about the subtle difference between wants and needs but I think your argument just turns things into semantics. After all, I don’t need to eat, I want too. I just need nutrients to enter my body and be metabolized. It would be much more efficient if I just used nutrient injections instead of relying on the messy process of food gathering, preparation, consumption, etc.

And as such I disagree with the idea that production in America is because of wanting luxuries as opposed to needing necessities. Some of it is wants but to say none of it is due to needs I believe is merely a semantics argument.

Insects are a nutritional source of food that 80% of the worlds population eat. Beetles and grasshoppers are even stated to be more nutritional than beef.

There is also the idea of foraging plants in urban communaties such as flowers and weeds. I'm not sure how much sustenance they offer but coupled with insects, it could be a sustainable way of life in urban areas for people who wish to live that way.

And this is why your argument isn't credible.

Because people are going to grocery stores instead of eating grasshoppers American production is due to wants and not needs....

I have already agreed that the logical progression is into infinity, the cosmological argument is simply evidence of cause alone, the teleological argument is evidence which describes that cause as precise. It is the combination of the two which are evidence of an intelligent source, cause and precision engineering.

You are using the word evidence where it is inappropriate. You mentioned using the scientific method to explore and gain knowledge of the universe so we are talking about empirical evidence.

Do you disagree with the following regarding empirical and scientific evidence?

- acquired through observation or experimentation

- results are repeatable by others

- objective

- falsifiability of the hypothesis being tested

The classical logical arguments regarding an intelligent creator do not meet any of these elements.

Personal feelings of how the universe seems isn’t sufficient to be considered evidence; you are assuming the universe is the result of intelligence, you aren’t following any evidence to that conclusion.

Thanks, but I don't see where there is any 'fine tuning' involved. All we are measuring is the way the universe is. We are not measuring any sort of tuning.

 

I don't see where this particular configuration of the universe (what you are calling a tuned universe) is any more significant than any other possible configuration of the universe. If gravity was stronger or weaker, or if there was no strong nuclear force, (or whatever) the universe would be just as fine tuned and empirical and repeatable as it is now. It is just that the universe would be fine tuned for something else. In fact, the same could be said for EVERY possible configuration of the universe.

 

So it seems to me as if you are saying that THIS configuration of the universe proves a god simply because we happen to be in it.

If not, then it seems as if you are saying ANY configuration of the universe proves a god, because that configuration is fine tuned also.

Either way, it seems as if the existence of us, or the existence of a universe, is proof enough for you that god exists.

Exactly.

If you perform an experiment to test gravity the evidence supports gravity not that an intelligent being created gravity.

It is the difference in saying something so precise had a cause or did not. Knowing the laws of nature are ruled by cause and effect, cause seems the obvious conclusion. If so, the cause must encapsulate the potential, precise, intelligent, and exquisite.

Now you are invoking the Cosmological argument. None of the classical logical arguments for a creator are evidence; they don’t meet the criteria of what defines evidence, specifically empirical evidence.

Just like with the Teleological argument, the Cosmological argument just begs the question of what was the cause of the previous cause. Because you want to draw the line after you’ve posited one creator doesn’t make it sound to be content and stop following the logical progression into oblivion. It is an assumptive non-answer.

A first cause argument isn’t evidence of an intelligent creator.

I said the source, the cause, who or what, is the only subjective part, the tolerance level of our universe is empirical and repeatable, proven fact, it is not subjective, for me it is concrete evidence of an intelligent source.

Ok so you are saying the intelligent source is the subjective part but then you turn around and say you have concrete evidence of an intelligent source...

How is an intelligent source both subjective but there is concrete evidence of the intelligent source?

We live in a universe of cause and effect. The degree to which our universe is fine tuned is empirical and repeatable, who or what caused that degree of exactness is the only subjective question.

Describe an experiment to test the hypothesis that an intelligent creator is the ultimate source of existence.

What is a prediction you can make based solely on the assumption that an intelligent creator is the source of existence?

The goal is to strive to understand the universe, by the acquisition of knowledge, through scientific means, and eventually the source, all the while keeping faith in the source itself. For me fine tuning is not an assumption of evidence, it is concrete evidence with a margin of error less than one grain of sand in all the sands of the world. Truth is self evident.

Striving to understand the universe by acquiring knowledge through scientific means is a great goal but I don’t understand the last part “while keeping faith in the source”. That doesn’t mean anything to me and actual is a little counter to the first part of the goal. If you are striving to acquire knowledge empirically then you shouldn’t also be keeping faith in something that is merely an assumption.

You say that for you fine tuning is great evidence, but how? Evidence, specifically scientific evidence, is empirical, repeatable, observable and it shouldn’t matter who is looking at the evidence it should look the same. How does a personal subjective feel that the universe is fine tuned meet any of those criteria?

Knowledge and understanding of reality isn’t gained by making assumptions instead of following the evidence.

Skeptic134,

 

I have "Cosmos" on a bookshelf about 6 feet away. Have not opened it in quite a while, but perhaps that is where I got the idea.

 

Regards, TAR

I've never seen the original Cosmos, I need too find it. I hear it was very good (better than the recent one).

Yes, many jobs are done solely because people require money and are unable to find better jobs elsewhere for whatever reason. However, you do yourself a disservice if you fail to acknowledge that a great many people also do their jobs solely because they love it or take enormous pride in what they produce or the service they offer... Many of these people would quite contentedly work for free.

 

Following your logic, we'd be forced to assume that rich people never work, and yet they do. The world is not as monolithic as you seem to assume, and it's important when thinking in terms of motivation to recall that money is not the only motivator. You are right that we inherently need motivation, but passion and psychological fulfillment and a desire to give back to the world around us (for example) can be powerful motivators, too.

There are definitely people that enjoy what they do or feel pride in what they do, no question. I’m not sure how many would do it for free though, volunteers exist but people also need to pay bills. I love being an engineer, solving problems and feeling like what I do matters but I’m not going to do it for free, I might take less pay (don’t tell my boss) but I have bills too

My initial post might have been too vague, I’ll clarify. I don't think money is the sole motivation of why people work, but I feel it is definitely one of the motivations and for some people and certain jobs the largest or possibly the sole motivation.

Some people are self motivators no doubt but I do feel that money is a big motivator for a lot of people especially in a consumerist culture.

I don't like the concept of giving away cash to everyone. I think it's already been shown that the OP is far too costly.

 

Can we continue discussion based on the title of the thread (if not, I can start a different thread)? That's what really attracted me in the first place. How do we merge a society that needs a healthy economy with one where basic needs are met for everybody?

 

Can we start with the premise that anyone living here should expect minimum subsistence with regard to food, clothing, shelter, and healthcare? Eliminating hunger and homelessness should be Job One for any country calling themselves both altruistic and a first world nation. I define minimum subsistence as being able to survive without spending any money (which seems reasonable if this program is aimed at poor people). To be fair, such a system would need to apply to Charles Koch as well should he go bankrupt and need America's help to keep from sleeping in the streets.

If the government is able to continue to only provide the minimum in terms of food, shelter, and access to medicine for all than I suppose there is no reason that both a healthy economy and a minimally altruistic society can't prevail.

That is a big if though, government always seems to naturally grow and continually expand “services”.

The system won’t suddenly make the poor (the ones requiring the altruism) productive because they suddenly have their basic needs met. It also won’t suddenly make those that are not dependent on the government subsidy to become more productive.

If the minimum altruistic provisions increase over time it will erode the healthy economy because the minimum provided for merely being alive will slowly equal and then surpass what at one point required trading production (work) to receive.

What about language beyond verbal and body language?

We are the only species to create a complex written language which would seem to be a necessary next step in order to progress and create the scientific method. If you cannot record anything how do you begin to build upon previous generations discoveries and experiences?

Also, the information density of our language seems far and above any other examples.

On the OP - greatest in humanity is a big question; you have to compare with things like civilization, agriculture, language, education, story-telling etc

Some of those (agriculture, civilization, education) stem from science but language on the other hand... without language could science exist?

Language and science seem equally "best idea ever" IMO.

Countries with more poor people are not more productive than countries full of middle class people.

 

Lots of people around the world live in poverty. Lots of peiple would do just about anything for pennies. Those areas of the world are not the most productive one.

You are assuming that the only variable in the productivity equation is how well off people are, which is clearly incomplete. There is much more to the productivity levels of different countries than how many poor people and how many rich people there are. To conclude that because the regions with the highest concentration of poor people aren't the most productive that financial compensation isn't a motivation for labor/work is erroneous.

You didn't have the same environment, since some siblings were older and some were younger. That has a powerful influence on personality development.

So which is the largest difference? The environmental differences or the genetic differences?

I believe the genetic differences are greater, from the basics of gender, eye color, hair color and complexion to variations in height, athleticism and strengths in different academic fields and interests. Also, the varied predisposition for certain health issues in childhood between siblings indicates clear differences in genetics.

These are mostly genetic differences that present themselves physically, clearly they aren't the only ones, what about the biochemical differences that effect our brains and thus emotions etc.

It isn't to say environment doesn't play a huge role in outcomes but genetics clearly do as well and in the case of siblings raised in the same household and only 1-2 years apart in age.

Hence why I believe it is a combination of environment and genetic predisposition that leads to religious belief.

If you are going to propose an infinite God, you might as well just propose an infinite cosmos instead. That is, if you require no starting point. The difference between the two views is only in imagining you know the guy personally, and nobody else does.

Exactly, why add the massive assumption of the infinite intelligent source. Carl Sagan had a pretty eloquent explanation of this point.

There are also many jobs that could be done by machines or as collateral responsibilities of other workers but cheap labor is more profitable and or desirable. Whether its janitorial, farming, manufacturing, or etc the type of labor required is often decided by the cheapest means a business can exploit. That doesn't mean that type of labor is actually neccessary. Which is why throughout the history of many countries like the United States we were able to end unfair labor practices such but limited to Slavery, indentured servitude, child labor, unequal pay for women. Providing the people in those examples with better pay, more security, better treatment, and etc would have hurt the economies rather than helped by your theory. Rather countries that have unions, higher wages, higher levels of education, more economic stability, and so on tend to also have better economies and happier citizens. Even within countries regions with more economic stability thrive. Here in the United States from examples states with higher wages and more benifits for there residents ar more productive than right to work states that begrudgingly enforce the basic minium standards.

Any sources showing the productivity comparisons you are claiming?

I want to make sure I understand what you are saying; could you define what "economic stability" means to you?

Based on your claim that money isn't the reason for human productivity and that productivity would not suffer if everyone had "economic stability" I interpret that to mean you believe people would continue to "produce" without any need for financial reward.

Perhaps that isn't what you mean to say.

You are backtracking. Have we not just revealed the evidence for an intelligent source? The only assumption is what now lies beyond that, if anything.

No, perceived fine tuning is not evidence. The teleological argument is not real evidence even if apologist like to make that claim.

Although that would seem to argue against genetics being the likely root of your different experience unless you're adopted.

I would say the opposite. My siblings and I shared the same indoctrination (environment) but while we had the same parents our genetics are not of course completely the same as we have many differences in our personalities.

Looking further would most likely burn your eyes out or drive you to insanity but I invite it. So now will all join us at this frontier? Our discussion has fostered an infinite conclusion.

Ideas built upon strong reproduceable evidence is what I find meaningful.

I've always believed that what makes an idea strong and worthwhile isn't how impossible it is to test but how much scrutiny it has withstood. Therefore, I find little use for deism, pantheism or any other flavor of personal definition of god. They are nothing more than a small subset of the nearly infinite number of untestable, inscrutable concepts based purely on assumption.

correct, based on cosmic fine tuning

Do you see that the idea that a creating intelligence is required due to perceived fine tuning only begs the question of what fine tuned the fine tuner?

I do not believe in a world where everyone had economic stability production would suffer.

I disagree.

I think we are creatures that inherently need motivation and that there are many jobs that are done solely because people require the money to sustain their lives.

As far as evidence of intelligence behind the potential, if the potential of the fundamental forces differed by a margin of one quintillionth, we wouldn't be here. That's 1 with 18 zeros. I'll put faith on those odds any day.

So you are invoking the Teleological argument in your defense?

Don't you know that Einstein's work invalidates that of Newton?

Not true.

I was curious to hear your explanation but my curiosity is slowly being replaced by indifference; I've never been much for bloviation.

I'm suggesting an intelligent source which creates potential, once the universe begins, it is a game of chance and probability.

 

Probability is the constant, chance is the variable.

Therein lies the problem. If you are asserting that an intelligent source created the universe than you are doing so with no evidence to back up the belief and you are immediately a victim of an infinite regression problem.

Why make an assumption(deism/intelligent creator) prior to have any evidence to support the claim?

Deepak?

But seriously, you appear to present the concept of god as just the beauty, symmtery and totallity of existence in one instance but then use the word creator. Are you suggesting intelligence behind the creation?

Is it really unknowable? Isn't the periodic and harmonic symmetry of energy and the beautiful architecture of the natural constants enough evidence to contrive an archetype?

Is God not simply an aphorism for the archetype?

When you say god you are referring to a Spinoza god... merely the appreciation of the beauty of the universe or do you mean to use the capitalized god which suggests theism.

If the later than no, there is no evidence, unless you've found some you would like to present.