"Ought" isn't exactly the right word, I agree. But the point seems to be that if something is a fact, it must therefore be objectively true. If objective truth does not exist, then facts cannot.

I'm sorry, but it seems to me that this debate is officially no longer productive. All we'd be doing from now is re-asserting points we've already made. You think that I don't understand your position, I don't think you understand mine. You're claiming that I'm accusing you of saying things that you didn't. You're accusing me of saying AND thinking things that I didn't/don't and I reiterate my final statement from my first response: That neither of us are likely to budge on these issues. I thank you for your thoughts.

1: It's arbitrary because market value has nothing to do with the health of society. If it did, it ought to just be banned.

2: I do NOT condone every way that people gain capital. No Capitalist does. Using the state to get rich is socialist if anything.

3: I got this from a New York Times article. Here's the link:
https://www.nytimes.com/2005/02/21/nyregion/more-africans-enter-us-than-in-days-of-slavery.html

4: Who are you even talking about? How do you even know that these people exist? Even if we knew, at least some of them would be black. Thomas Jefferson had 6 black children. Also, most wealthy people are self-made, not heirs, so it seems to me that this issue is a non-sequitur.

5: Black teenagers generally live in big cities with bloated minimum wages and terrible government-funded schools. This combination has made it far worse for them economically.

6: R&D is not the same thing as automation. They accomplish entirely different tasks. People DO benefit from automation. If not for factories or GMOs, we'd lose immeasurable resources and many would starve, not to mention the number of technological advances that few people would be able to afford anymore. In terms of whether or not the government should be handling such things, why? 75% of all FDA approved drugs come from the U.S., nearly entirely privately funded. If not for the FDA (a Government Program), even MORE medicine would be available to people. So no, I don't think that the state is particularly well equipped to deal with R&D.

7: Where do you think these countries got the money and resources to do these things? Capitalism and Free Trade. Doctors and teachers don't work for free, In your case, they're tax funded. Taxes come from income which is created by the market. Under Communism/Socialism/Marxism, no new capital is created and everything becomes horrible. To quote Margaret Thatcher: "The problem with Socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money." Don't twist my words into saying that free healthcare and education are good things. My issue with them is that they're unsustainable. The market would be better at handling these things because competition drives quality up and costs down. Private/Charter schools in the U.S. are objectively better than public schools. There is also the issue of morality: What if I don't want to go to college? It's still my financial concern that other people get to go? On what grounds do you or anyone else claim the fruits of MY labor? Why should anyone be forced to pay for something that doesn't benefit them? Also, a voucher system is NOT the same as free schooling. It just means that you get to decide where your money goes.

8: Vouchers are SELF funded. It's YOUR money.

9: China is a good example of how Capitalism produces wealth. THAT DOESN'T MEAN THAT IT'S OK TO HAVE AN OPPRESSIVE STATE. With more freedom, China would be great. Why isn't it free? Communism. Why is it rich? Capitalism. Capitalism>Communism

10: No

11: Despite. They understand, at the very least, that stealing from the rich is not an avenue towards prosperity for the poor. THAT is the point that I was trying to make. Also, I said "MOST successful", not "successful", not "superior", not "exemplary". If they were a free market, EVERYTHING would be better for them for the reasons I've already given.

12: See argument 11

13: ANY European country would be absolutely CRUSHED by the U.S., Russia, China or Iran. Exactly ONE of those countries is interested in protecting Western Europe. Because of that, Western European countries don't need to spend too much on defense, so they have more money in the budget to spend on social programs.

14: "IN SOME WAYS" are more capitalistic than we are. In that they don't overly tax the wealthy and have no minimum wage.

15: Workers negotiating with employers as to their pay is in no way anti-Capitalist. Unions are terrible for a host of other reasons. In the U.S., all of the worst teachers and schools are unionized. NONE of the private schools work with the unions, and are ALL better than ALL public schools.

16: I've had and witnessed these kinds of debates and conversations many times. I've only ever seen 1 person switch sides. I'm not claiming to know you or your inclinations.

1: No, not necessarily

2: I think that's mostly semantics, but yes. And the motivation behind arbitrarily increasing the cost is irrelevant. My point was that it de-incentivizes people to purchase the good/service in question.

3: Capitalism is about the "free" exchange of goods and services. Capitalists often call for less government control of the market for exactly the things that you mention. There's a reason that the practices you talk about are known as "Crony Capitalism", because everyone knows that those are examples of capitalism being exploited, not implemented. As far as your land owning argument is concerned, the only places I've ever heard of where that kind of thing actually happens is in big leftist cities like New York or L.A., places where government spending on social programs are very high with the highest minimum wages as well as high taxes on the wealthy.

4: Many, MANY more black people came to this country voluntarily than they ever did as slaves. Only 2-8% of whites owned slaves when it was legal, and there's no way that anywhere close to the majority of whites are descended from slave owners, nor blacks descended from slaves. I say that the system is fair because good life choices are the biggest deciding factor in long term wealth, not race/color. The poverty rate of black married couples is 7%, the poverty rate of white single parents is over 20%. The Brookings Institution (a Liberal think-tank) found that American citizens that graduated high school, didn't have children before marriage and worked full time almost never wound up in poverty, and given the number of ways that one can ruin themselves financially, there's no reason to immediately assume that the remainder were poor because of some kind of bias. Also, "good responses"? I really hope that doesn't mean what I think it means. Also, "racism"? I'm black, so is my grandmother who grew up incredibly poor, and despite being a single mother of 2, she went to college on a loan, got her degree and worked her way up to a 6-figure salary, a 3-bedroom house and 2 cars. Living proof of what I'm talking about. (It's just an example, I'm not claiming that anecdotal evidence is finalizing)

5: No, it's not a recent phenomena, it's just of particular concern to people today. Automation is on the whole, a good thing considering all of the affordable luxuries we now have as opposed to people of the same, or in many cases even greater economic strata, say a century ago. Plus, even with all of the automation and outsourcing that has and does occur, the vast majority of us are still employed. Even if you think that automation is entirely bad, you're only making it worse by arbitrarily raising the cost of labor.

6: I wouldn't say that those things don't help the poor. I just think that the market is a more powerful tool to solve the problems associated with those institutions than the state. Also, I think it's disingenuous to say that something is good because it's free. In England, you are far more likely to die during a hospital visit, forcing universal health care on people was deemed a human rights violation by the Canadian Supreme Court, etc.

7: I said "nearly". Even so, China is a free trade GIANT. They also only really lift people up when they display excellence of some kind and greatly impose on the freedoms of such ones. My support of Capitalism is really more about freedom than anything else. Even though China is rich, it's not free. So no, I don't think the citizens of China are well off, but it has nothing to do with Capitalism. In regards to the Scandinavian countries, Sweden is probably the most successful and they have VERY low tax rates on big businesses and the wealthy, it's the middle and lower classes that are funding their welfare state. The Prime Minister of Denmark openly said to stop pointing to them as a beacon of socialist success. "Denmark is FAR from a socialist planned economy. Denmark is a MARKET economy", he said. They also don't have to spend very much on defense. The U.S. has the largest defense budget in the world and spends more than the next 26 highest spending countries combined. This is because the U.S. has a vested interest in keeping as many countries free and trading as possible, because that keeps the country rich. Most of the free world benefits from this, ESPECIALLY the smaller European countries. At the end of the day, all of the Scandinavian countries employ Capitalism just to stay afloat, and in some ways are MORE Capitalist that we are. They don't even have a minimum wage. Every time I've tried to find it, I'm given graphs of "average earnings", not minimum. They understand that the rich are the ones stimulating their economy and that without them, the whole thing would crash and burn.

I'd just like to conclude by saying that you are very well spoken and intellectually challenging, which I greatly appreciate. I get the feeling that neither of us is going to budge on this, but I appreciate you forcing me to try rationalizing my positions. I hope we can both agree that we both want what's best for our poor and just don't see eye-to-eye on the solution to poverty, rather than assuming malicious intent of the other. Cheers!

It seems to me that the data is pretty clear. As freedom goes up, female participation in the sciences goes down. I think that most women don't do a lot of things because they don't generally want to. The ones that want to seem to be doing fine, but there are few of them.

I agree. It's pretty much all speculation and I certainly wouldn't say that any of this shows whether God more plausibly exists or doesn't. I see this as just a fun thought exercise between colleagues. That said, you've been an excellent sparring partner! Cheers!

Time is relative to matter which is relative to space. God exists outside of space, as He must preexist that which He creates (which is a limitation of space, not God). So, if God exists outside of space and time, which He must if He created them, then they have no hold over Him. From His perspective, time is only meaningful in his interaction with us. There, he is inserting his presence into a point in time, from the perspective of man. But in his reality, time is utterly meaningless, there are no thoughts he's yet to have, unless he chooses not to have them. We're getting into pretty dicey territory here, as it's difficult to explain scientifically how something works non-scientifically but still realistically. Basically, we can't apply our own experiential knowledge to our understanding of God's intellectual ability. That must be done through hypothesis and other forms of philosophy.

P.S. In answer to your question, I'd say that a "God" that exists in a time sequence dimension is not an actual God. Like I said, the creator of time logically cannot be subject to time.

I understand what you're saying, but in the case of God, He must be maximally great, else not be worthy of the title. He can, in no way, be limited in his ability. You gave an example of knowing all of the digits of pi. Because pi is an infinite decimal sequence, to know all of the digits is an example of knowledge that, when quantified, equals infinity. But to do this is just to show infinity in relative terms.

Suppose that I have an infinite number of coins, each labeled with a number starting at 1 going up infinitely. You take away all the coins labeled with odd numbers. Now we both have an infinite number of coins. Mine are labeled with even numbers, yours with odd.

NOW suppose that instead of the odd numbered coins, you take away all of the coins labeled a number greater than 3. Now you have an infinite number of evens and of odds. Even though in both cases you're left with an infinite number of coins, it can be argued that you have more in the second example because you have an infinite number of 2 different things. I reiterate: God's knowledge cannot be limited in any way. Period. Lest he not be a true God.

I don't think that God can possibly be wrong about anything because His knowledge is infinite. Logically, if God says that something is true and believes it, it therefore must be true. You and I are finite humans, so your logic fits perfectly with us. You can't draw false equivalency between God and Men and expect to reach a logically accurate conclusion to the nature of either.

I think you're just re-affirming what I said, that experience is required to understand a feeling pertaining to that experience. Which is OK, I just disagree.

I think that you're touching on a lot of great points, but it seems to me that the conclusion is off. You made a comment about how even non-religious regimes like the Communist and NAZI movements were still somewhat religious in nature. I agree. But shouldn't we therefore conclude that the real issue is human nature? If human beings are inclined to act irrationally or violently when they have high fervor for an ideology, is that the ideologies' fault? Let's say that all religions, secular and theistic, are made up. Just the ravings of madmen. That means that WE are the problem, because we wrote the dogma that drives us toward evil. Now, if it's the case that human nature is inherently evil, then how can we get people to do good if not with an ideology? It seems to me that there are only 3 possibilities here:

1: Human beings are inherently good. Religion is man-made. Therefore, religion is inherently good.

2: Human beings are not inherently good. Religion is man-made. Therefore, religion is not inherently good.

3: Human beings are not inherently good. Religion comes from God. God is inherently good. Therefore, religion is inherently good.

I'm personally inclined to believe the 3rd. When I think this issue through logically, I can't find justification for anything other than Nihilism on the atheistic/anti-religious worldview.

P.S.
I'm still pretty new to philosophy, and am only now having a real chance to engage in intellectual debate. If there are any arguments that I present that are prima facie illogical, I'd love feedback!

I think where we're having a problem is in our definition of the word "understand". If what you're saying is that "understanding" occurs when one has had an equivalent experience to that of another, then you're right. My view on this is that one needn't NECESSARILY experience something in order to understand it. It should also be noted that we cannot hold a being of infinite power and knowledge like a God, to the same standard as human beings. As God would be maximally great, He could easily grasp things that we never could. It could also be fun to toy with the idea that if God is infinitely more knowledgeable than us, and we are at least somewhat capable of understanding feelings that we, personally never have had, then it follows that God is capable of understanding those feelings fully. I kinda made that up on the fly, but we should be understanding of what a tricky concept "infinity" can be, as well as how it plays a role in reality. In theory, at least.

Why should a business exponentially get bigger and NOT pay wages in accordance? — Drek

Wages are meant to be based on productivity and merit. When you arbitrarily increase the value of something, fewer people want it. We did that with cigarettes, for example. Regardless of how big a company gets, it's never worth it to pay someone say, $12/hour when their productivity earns you something like $10/hour. That's the reason that teenagers, black teenagers in particular, have so much trouble getting jobs. It's also why automation is making such strides in replacing human laborers. We've incentivized business owners to invest in automation because they're becoming more cost-effective than people. It may not seem like it, but allowing business owners to pay someone only what their labor is worth is the only way to lift up the poor. Nearly every instance of the elimination of poverty has been the result of Free-Market Capitalism, the tenets of which require that people make exchanges based on their personal value.

"The good news is capitalism affords equal opportunity to everyone (the poor and rich included)

The bad news is all people are not created equal. Some are smarter than most. It's the smart ones that invent products and services that hit off in the market and the rest of us have to spend our money on."

Well said!

You sound like a "Jordan Peterson" kind of Christian. I think that's a very respectable view, if that's the case. :smile:

I disagree with your statement about God. If such a being exists, it would have infinite knowledge and intelligence. If this being were the creator of all things like the Judeo-Christian/Islamic Gods are credited as, then it seems to me that an understanding of how someone feels based on their experience should be easy for God to understand, as He (theoretically, at least) created the neurological systems that cause those feelings.