Total posts: 855
Posted in:
-->
@n8nrgmi
Free Market
The first result from Google:
- an economic system in which prices are determined by unrestricted competition between privately owned businesses.
From Wikipedia:
- In economics, a free market is a system in which the prices for goods and services are self-regulated by buyers and sellers negotiating in an open market. In a free market, the laws and forces of supply and demand are free from any intervention by a government or other authority, and from all forms of economic privilege, monopolies and artificial scarcities.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@n8nrgmi
Let me rephrase. How do you justify calling a healthcare system where government regulates all prices and wages a free market? That is the exact opposite of a free market.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@n8nrgmi
if you offer hundreds of dollars per hour for services, the free market will adjust to find a way to provide the service to take the money.
Which part of your plan can be considered a free market?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@n8nrgmi
my current approach is "add a third onto medicare prices". i'm sure there will be problems with this approach, but that the market will find a way to provide the service to take the money.
Medicare prices are simply dollar amounts chosen by government bureaucrats. I'm other words, you want the government have total control over arbitrarily regulating all prices (but not over-regulating), forcing hospitals to figure out how to still make enough money to cover their expenses. Meaning your solution now is, "Let the state figure it out and hope it all works out in the end because that works in other nations with entirely different situations than the U.S."
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
So from here I took your assertion that there is an uncaused cause and showed you why, from that point, it would take less assumptions to presume that the uncaused cause is the universe as opposed to a god.
But you did so with the following presupposition:
We know of nothing beyond the universe that exists, so the conclusion requiring the least amount of assumptions is that the universe is not an effect.
That is an assumption based on philosophical naturalism. You then forced your naturalistic presupposition onto my argument by forcing me to accept that "we know of nothing beyond the universe that exists." I reject that presupposition.
I wasn't arguing that God is the uncaused cause. I was arguing that there is an uncaused cause.I apologize for going ahead, but everyone reading this thread knows you’re attempting to prove a god so there’s no need to pretend.
It should be obvious that I believe the uncaused cause is the God of the Bible. But jumping to that conclusion just confuses the matter of discussing whether there is an uncaused cause at all. That was not a sincere apology, but I will accept it anyway.
I already explained this. Cause and effect are tied together by definition. You cannot call something a cause if there is no resulting effect. Putting the word “uncaused” in front of it changes nothing.
You stated that all causes are the product of time. Uncaused causes would then fall under the category of being a product of time. But the phrase "uncaused cause" is also tied together by definitions. I never said there was no resulting effect to an uncaused cause. But here is your claim then:
- An uncaused cause is the product of time.
The question you haven't answered yet is this - how can something be a product of something else if it is unproduced ("uncaused")?
You either have to say an uncaused cause is not the product of time based on definitions, or there are no uncaused causes, only caused causes.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@n8nrgmi
if a doctor charges 200 per hour with most insurance. medicare currently gets charged 160. my "medicare plus a third" plan would cap out pay at 210. i'm completely confident the market will find a way to take that money.
As with basically all of your proposals, the how is glaringly absent. "It'll all work out!" That is a vague solution to a vague problem. You need to know exactly how it will work out - or at least how it is supposed to work out. Would you start a business with a plan like, "We don't have to figure out our expenses. We'll just charge what everyone else charges and it'll all work out!" That's only a slightly generalized comparison to your approach as shown from these comments:
hopefully we can revamp the system without doing much damage to those guys....i suppose it just boils down to we need to take the risk, and just overhaul the system.
Moving on...
you act like my hopes and dreams approach is bad because i dont have all the details figured out.
Because it is. And I'm not saying that to be mean. I'm saying that as someone who works less than ideal hours in a less than ideal work environment so that I can have high quality healthcare. And knowing how many deadbeats are out there mooching off an already extremely charitable system, I know how your revolution is going to work out. And it's not good.
the problem with your argument, is that you haven't gotten any clear unintended consequences figured out.... your argument is just "government incompetent, thus it's inevitable catastrophe will happen".
Not necessarily inevitable, but almost certain. Do you think the government has shown efficient business practices with concern for profit margins overall?
And you have actually failed to meaningfully address most of my arguments. Here were some specific points:
PROBLEM: Doctors and staff are paid too much. This implies they make more than they should.SOLUTION: Make sure doctors and staff are not paid too much.QUESTIONS: What is the amount that doctors and staff should be making?How will we specifically make sure that doctors and staff aren't paid more than they should be?
I did the math of adding 25% and then asked what that number meant, as well as how that policy would specifically impact healthcare costs. I received no response.
PROBLEM: Healthcare costs are too high.SOLUTION: Let the government control prices and set limits.QUESTION: What happens if regulations force the hospital to lose money because they can't charge patients enough to cover the actual cost of their services?
Your answer:
it's easier said than done, but the solution is just not to regulate too much [other than regulating all staff salaries, and all prices based on Medicare].
PROBLEM: Wait times are too long.SOLUTION: Decrease wait times.QUESTION: How will this specifically be accomplished?
Your answer:
get more doctors and specialists. the indistry puts a limit on all those guys, and we can simply get more of them. nurse practitioners too.
So, pay them a bit less, but hire more of them? Have you done an analysis to figure out if this will cost more or less?
PROBLEM: Debt collections (compelling people to pay their medical bills) currently makes the poor pay more.SOLUTION: ????QUESTIONS: How will hospitals be paid for services?What means will hospitals have to recuperate payments for services rendered if bills go unpaid?
Your answer:
you're worried about small fries [in the amount of an estimated $140 billion in lost revenue].
I have pointed out a multitude of flaws in your approach. You are the one who wants to overthrow the system that, despite all it's flaws, provides some of the best healthcare in the world to a massive population of people. And you have no real plan with what to replace it with. The onus is on you to show what your plan is and, more importantly, how it will actually work instead of just saying, "We'll figure it out as we go. It'll all work out in the end. Nothing could possibly go wrong."
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@n8nrgmi
as long as there's money to be made, even if it's not as much.... our system will find a way to provide the service to take that money.
After all the flaws I have pointed out, including the potential bankruptcy of primary care physicians according to your own source, this is your response. "It'll all work out in the end. Nothing bad could ever happen."
Hopes and dreams.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@n8nrgmi
i'm not sure if that would be enough of a cut to pay, but it would be a start. the main hit we'd give is to hospital prices, not doctors themselves
So that still seems like a "we'll figure it out as we go" approach. The problem is that you are trying to base what doctors should be making on what others make elsewhere in the world. But what is the amount doctors should be making in those countries? How do we tell if they are making too much? It all just seems arbitrary and vague.
And why would we base the prices of service on what other countries charge? Are you really going to see what other countries are charging for strips of gauze, and then calculate how much the U.S. should be charging for gauze as if there are no other factors to consider? And then repeat that process for every single billing item? Will it have to be updated yearly based on changing world market prices? Hospital billing could definitely be improved, but this plan will only make it worse.
There's one last problem to point out. Your original plan was:
why dont we cap pay to doctors hospitals and everyone else, the same as the second most expensive country plus maybe twenty five percent?...usa general practitioner: 240kusa specialist: 350knext highest after usa:GP: 214kspecialist: 330k
25% of 330,000=82,500.
330,000+82,500=412,500 for specialists
25% of 214,000=53,500
214,000+53,500=267,500 for GP's
What does this all mean? I have no idea. Maybe you can interpret, and then explain exactly how this will affect hospital prices.
maybe it'd be easier to just say medical providers can't charge more than a third more that medicare. medicare already costs rations down to the individual procedure, just like all the rest of the civilized world
This means the government has total control over pricing. In other words, "we'll let the state figure it out." Again, the government isn't in any way efficient in business practices and profit margins. Let's go back to your original statement regarding the problem that will likely arise:
QUESTION: What happens if regulations force the hospital to lose money because they can't charge patients enough to cover the actual cost of their services?it's easier said than done, but the solution is just not to regulate too much.
That doesn't exactly seem like a sound business model. Specific solutions to specific problems that are well thought out are what we need.
that article gives context of using medicare or medicaid on doctor pay.
From the article:
- "Therefore, the argument that further cuts to Medicare or Medicaid might bankrupt a physician’s practice is significantly more compelling when coming from primary care doctors."
So it appears your plan has the potential to bankrupt primary care doctors, according to your source.
just because im not an expert on this doesn't mean it can't be done. that's how the rest of the civilized world does it, my way.
America isn't like the rest of the world. And you don't have to be an expert. I'm certainly not one. But you do have to have a workable plan if you're going to overthrow the whole system. And it also has to work in the context of the United States. You can't just take the system Sweden uses with a population of about 10 million, and then slap it on top of America with about 330 million people and expect it to work. You can't operate a healthcare system on hopes and dreams. Because what happens if you mess up, and the revolution doesn't work out like you thought it would? Lots of people will die.
My goal here is not to say that we don't need to make changes. We absolutely do. But sometimes making smaller scale changes over time can end up having a large impact without the risk that comes with overhauling an extremely complex system. That's why I mentioned debt collections. That is an area I am familiar with and have a high level of confidence on specific policy changes that would almost certainly have an overall beneficial impact.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@n8nrgmi
That sounds like a logistical nightmare. Would the salary cap be the same for a doctor at Mayo and a doctor at my local hospital? Do we average the foreign doctors' salaries, or pick the highest paid one? If the foreign doctor gets a raise, does the U.S. doctor also get a raise? What if the foreign doctor does not require as much schooling or training as the U.S. doctor - do we factor in that added tuition expense to the U.S. salary or just not worry about that?
And that still doesn't give me a dollar amount. Have you actually calculated what those numbers would be? Or was it just an arbitrary percentage that you chose?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Ramshutu
Q11: Can you please explain to me why you skipped every single one of these questions without any explanation - and replied as if they didn’t exist.
Most of your questions were highly repetitive and a waste of time. I summarized the whole issue by making it clear that I wanted to come to an agreed upon definition of the Law of Causality.
Q12: Why do you think it’s okay to ignore someone’s entire post without explanation, and then imply they are evading when they question why you didn’t respond?
Because you were criticizing me for not answering your main point about causality and time. Then when I answered you about causality and time, you wanted to go back and talk about something else and not talk about causality and time.
Q13: establishing definitions only matters if the definition impacts the conclusion. Neither of your definitions appear to change my conclusion; on what basis did you feel the definition changed my conclusion?
Definitions always matter. And the definition of the Law of Causality seems relevant to a discussion about causality.
Q14: You appear to be changing the definition of causality. Please explain how this impacts my original conclusion - and please explain why you feel this new definition doesn’t invalidate your original argument.
How have I changed the definition of causality? I have been consistently using the same one. And again, I wanted to come to an agreed upon definition of the Law of Causality before continuing. But you don't want to do that so we'll go back to that if the need arises.
Q15: You have suggested that the definition of causality can be changed to include causes being concurrent with or after effects - do you think this definition is consistent with our intuitive understanding of how cause and effect works? Why?
Well that depends on your definition of the Law of Causality. I haven't changed mine to suggest this. Your definition seems to be different. As I have said repeatedly, definitions do in fact matter.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Ramshutu
So I finally addressed the main point you were making about time, and you're going to ignore that? I already said that I was trying to come to an agreed upon definition of the Law of Causality and you didn't want to commit to that. If it becomes a problem with the time issue, we'll just have to go back to that. Do you want to get to the time issue or not?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@n8nrgmi
the medical industry is paid too much... we shouldn't be taking from those who have little to give to those who have too much.
Just like with doctors (which you failed to address), how much should the medical industry be making? You can't say the make too much if you don't specify how much they should be making. What's the standard?
my stat on us having worse wait times overall is from 'the commonwealth'. just google that name and wait times and i think an article from the atlantic will pop up.
I found the article. If it's the same one you were talking about, it's from 2013, and the link to the actual data doesn't work. This from the article:
- "The organization surveyed between 1,000 and 5,400 people in 11 industrialized nations."
A survey only tells us what people claim about their healthcare services. That is not hard data, and the population size is extremely small. I would be hesitant to make a claim like "the U.S. is worst overall on wait times [out of 11 nations]." But this is a relatively minor point that probably isn't worth arguing about.
if you look at my opening post, another problem i have with your idea, is that it's such small fries.
This is just one article from a quick online search (https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nytimes.com/2021/07/20/upshot/medical-debt-americans-medicaid.amp.html), but it claims there is $140 billion worth of medical debt in collections. Hospitals have to eat that expense, and they don't even get the full amount back if it is paid. Imagine if a nationwide retailer lost $140 billion in stolen merchandise. They would have to raise the price of everything else to make up that money. That is hardly a "small fry" amount.
your statement that you are willing to pay more for better quality is so vague that it's meaningless
No it's not. I don't want to have the same quality care as a third world country. The higher your quality of care, the more you have to pay. Medical equipment isn't cheap. Highly-trained doctors aren't cheap. As with pretty much everything, cost correlates with quality.
china doing organ harvesting has little to do with the fact that it's an innovative country, it's one bad aspect of their system, not the bulk of it. it's irrational to ignore what they're capable of because they have one bad factor.
Well that and the whole Communism thing.
But there seems to be a common thread with your solutions to some of the finer details of the healthcare system:
hopefully we can revamp the system without doing much damage to those guys....i suppose it just boils down to we need to take the risk, and just overhaul the system.
we dont have to over regulate specialized care. simple as that.
it's easier said than done, but the solution is just not to regulate too much.
Those are a lot of vague solutions. If you are going to overthrow the system, you need to have something to replace it with. And you don't just offer a solution to a few problems and ignore the rest. This isn't something you can just figure out as you go.
This is why making smaller scale changes might be more prudent. If you have a problem with how insurance operates, just focus on that first. Then if you solve that problem, move to the next one. Keep doing that, and you would be surprised with how much change you can make. And then you can avoid such massive risk if you make a bad call.
Collections
I worked in medical debt collections for a while. I'm no expert, but I can tell you that the public perception of collections is quite different than reality. While it is somewhat anecdotal, I am familiar enough with FDCPA laws to know how they can be helpful, but also how they often allow deadbeats to play the system. I was also able to pull credit reports to get an idea of people's financial standing.
We also already have programs to assist the poorest people (Medicaid/Charity Care/etc). Just don't be fooled into thinking everyone with medical debt is a victim who can't afford to pay for it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@n8nrgmi
our system is majorly out of whack, and what you are describing is just tweaking it. you are mostly trying to get poorer people to pay more....
If you read my post about FDCPA laws, my suggestion had nothing to do with income levels. My suggestion was to not so easily allow people who receive services to refuse to pay when they have the means. The basic principles is that people should pay their bill for services they receive. What began as a valid protection against harmful collection practices (FDCPA) has turned into a protection for theft of services.
Do you think hospitals deserve to be paid for services rendered? Or should everyone be allowed to refuse payment for whatever reason they want with minimal consequences?
USA is worst on cost.
Higher cost is not necessarily a bad thing. The Mayo Clinic will cost more than my local clinic based on quality. Both will cost more than healthcare from a rural third world country. I am willing to pay higher costs for higher quality.
it's worse on wait times overall.
I would be interested to know where this statistic comes from.
china puts out almost as much innovation as the USA
They also practice forced organ harvesting from living people. That's not exactly a system I want to emulate.
USA is only better on some specialized care, as you pointed out.
The U.S. healthcare system has literally produced the best hospitals and specialized healthcare in the world, and you're just going to brush past that as though it hardly matters? We have to ask ourselves how the current system produced such a result. Conversely, we must seriously consider how your proposed changes will realistically affect these institutions, as well as future research and development they might otherwise perform.
hopefully we can revamp the system without doing much damage to those guys....i suppose it just boils down to we need to take the risk, and just overhaul the system.
This is the problem I have with this type of approach. It's easy to criticize generic statistics and then say we need to overhaul the system because there are so many problems. But it seems the main solution is "Let the state figure it out!" You can't operate a healthcare system on hopes and dreams.
Here are some of the issues you mentioned that are worth taking a closer look at:
PROBLEM: Doctors and staff are paid too much. This implies they make more than they should.
SOLUTION: Make sure doctors and staff are not paid too much.
QUESTIONS: What is the amount that doctors and staff should be making?
How will we specifically make sure that doctors and staff aren't paid more than they should be?
PROBLEM: Healthcare costs are too high.
SOLUTION: Let the government control prices and set limits.
QUESTION: What happens if regulations force the hospital to lose money because they can't charge patients enough to cover the actual cost of their services?
PROBLEM: Wait times are too long.
SOLUTION: Decrease wait times.
QUESTION: How will this specifically be accomplished?
PROBLEM: Debt collections (compelling people to pay their medical bills) currently makes the poor pay more.
SOLUTION: ????
QUESTIONS: How will hospitals be paid for services?
What means will hospitals have to recuperate payments for services rendered if bills go unpaid?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Benjamin
While this is just one source, it ranks the best providers worldwide in different healthcare fields. In every list, the top-ranked provider for each field is found in the United States. This includes cardiology, oncology, endocrinology, neurology, gastroenterology, and orthopedics.
Whether you want to argue about if the U.S. provides the best overall healthcare quality, it must at least be admitted that we are right up at the top. Higher quality care means more expensive care.
While I think conversations about costs and access are good to have, we should be extremely hesitant to just overhaul the very system that produced this type of quality. Perhaps it would be better to start looking at specific areas (I previously mentioned debt collection laws) to make smaller scale changes rather than handing over most or all of the healthcare industry to be handled by corrupt politicians. The U.S. government doesn't exactly have a great record when it comes to effective business practices.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Benjamin
Why not start with the rich, who apart from avoiding to pay taxes and bribe politicians,
Here lies the problem. It seems you want to eliminate the free market and put it under state-regulated control. But apparently, the politicians are also corrupt. And who runs the state? Politicians.
So does shifting control from corrupt private companies to corrupt politicians actually solve the problem?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
Second, recall that the premise all of that was based on is that there exists an uncaused cause. That was your premise, I was simply showing you where your premise leads.
No, you made an unreasonable assertion based on your own presuppositions, and then tried to force those presuppositions onto my argument.
Third, is that this is a comparative statement. I wasn’t assessing the strength of the conclusion, I was explaining why the universe having no cause is a stronger explanation than God being the uncaused chase.
I wasn't arguing that God is the uncaused cause. I was arguing that there is an uncaused cause. Once we establish whether or not there is an uncaused cause, then we can discuss what that cause is.
Sure, let’s fix the emphasis and see if that clears things up:An uncaused cause is the product of timeLet me know if you have any questions.
No, it doesn't because you need to address the fact that the cause is uncaused. That means that it isn't a product of anything. How can something that isn't produced by anything be a product?
Created:
Posted in:
Here is an often overlooked part of the conversation.
FDCPA laws were put into place to protect people from unfair debt collection practices. I'm not against FDCPA laws, but I also recognize that they often hamstring debt collectors from performing their function in a beneficial way.
What happens if someone refuses to pay for services? That is equivalent to stealing. If a hospital provides a service that costs money but they receive no payment, they have just lost money. The more people "steal" their services, the more money they lose. This is hard to mitigate since providers usually perform the service before being paid. To compensate, they have to charge the people who do pay more so they can make up those losses.
While there are valid protections under FDCPA laws, they also make it extremely easy for someone to get away with not paying their medical bills if they don't want to. And the list of regulations placed on debt collectors keeps growing, which makes the responsibility on debtors to actually pay their bills shrink.
It is easy to view anyone with medical debt as a victim who just can't afford their medical bills, but I can assure you this is far from being the case. There are indeed people struggling. But there are also many people who simply refuse to pay. Some are unhappy with services and feel they should not have to pay anything. Some are illegal immigrants who went to the emergency room with no intention to pay. Some have foolishly buried themselves in consumer debt and are somehow surprised when they can't afford unforeseen medical costs. Some would just rather spend money on a new jet ski than pay their medical bills. I've spoken with many of these types.
While this is just one piece of the puzzle, I think it would be helpful to consider how people refusing to pay medical bills under the protection of FDCPA laws actually drive up costs for those willing to pay. This is also one way that lawmakers, even at the state level, can have a direct impact on lowering medical costs that seems to never get the attention it deserves.
Give hospitals and debt collectors the means to effectively and fairly recuperate money owed to them, without providing unnecessary protection for those who can pay but refuse to.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Ramshutu
Well it seems reasonable to want to have an agreed upon definition of the Law of Causality rather than just saying it doesn't matter. You have said that the idea of an uncaused cause is possible, but it violates our notions of causality. You are assuming what "our notions of causality" are, while dismissing an attempt to try to come to a fundamental point of agreement. But let's look at the time issue to avoid more of your rambling.
You stated than an uncaused cause is possible. Now an uncaused cause would have to be self-existent, not requiring anything else for it's existence. This entity, whatever it may be, does not require time to exist. The possibility of an entity that can exist without time must be factored into this discussion. Specifically, can a timeless entity cause time to come into existence without time previously existing?
I think we need to be careful here in assuming we have time all figured out. Is time binding on all immaterial entities? Is it impossible for something to go backwards in time solely because that would require a cause happening "before" an effect? Can causes and effects be simultaneous in time, while still being logically sequential? All this to say that perhaps you have made a universal law out of something that is not universal.
I have no clue which it is: though My personal preference is the latter - I have no basis in which to declare our notions of causality is universal even though that seems to be the basis for all theists in this thread.
If your notions of causality break down when confronted with reality, perhaps there is an error with your assumed notions of causality.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Amoranemix
The laws of thermodynamics are valid in a lab on earth, but not for universes. The first and second law can be broken.
I won't even bother with this response.
How does option 2 violate reason ?
That something can come from nothing is impossible. Nor can the universe cannot be self-created as that would require the universe to exist before it existed.
Some Christians argue that the uniformity of nature (i.e. that the natural laws don't change) must require God, as without him they should change. Keeping that argument in mind we have even less reason to believe that the natural laws as we know them also ruled prior to the Big Bang.
I have not made that argument.
Fruit_Inspector 76 :I ask because if time has a beginning, then it seems that time coming into existence must be a product of time. So if you believe time has a beginning, you have the same problem I do and you should reject the idea of time having a beginning.You know too little about the topic to make such a claim. Experts think that time can have a beginning. See for example en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hartle–Hawking_state. FLRW talks about that hypothesis in post 86.
This comment was bringing Double_R's claim to it's logical conclusion. I reject his reasoning that every cause is the product of time.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
Once you accept that there is an uncaused cause, infinite regress is no longer a problem in need of solving. The answer is simple, something exists which is not an effect thereby stopping the regress.
Agreed.
We know of nothing beyond the universe that exists, so the conclusion requiring the least amount of assumptions is that the universe is not an effect.God then becomes entirely unnecessary, therefore adding him into the equation directly violates logic.
So prior to the invention of the telescope, we could essentially only observe our own galaxy. If it was true that we knew of nothing that existed beyond our galaxy, would we have been correct to say that our galaxy is not an effect?
The idea that a cause must be a product of time is your claim, not mine.More like English 101.
You're going to have to explain how this works:
- An uncaused cause is the product of time
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
Let’s back up and remember the main point here; you’re claiming that there must be a god of some kind to explain the universe because the universe couldn’t have caused itself.
You have misunderstood me. I have never claimed that the universe cannot be an uncaused cause. What I have claimed is consistent with the Law of Causality ("Every effect must have a cause"). If the universe is an effect, then it must have a cause. If the universe is not an effect, the Law of Causality does not apply and then the universe does not need to have a cause.
So my claim is specifically that the universe is an effect, and must therefore have a cause. And to avoid infinite regress, there must be an uncaused cause where all effects stem from. For the sake of this topic, we need not complicate the matter by determining what that cause is (God or some other eternal entity).
Yet you don’t place the same constraints on the God belief that you appeal to.
As with the explanation above, the only restraint I have placed is that every effect must have a cause. This also applies to God so this statement is incorrect.
You claim the universe must have a cause but a God doesn’t.
Incorrect. To be annoyingly clear, the only reason the universe would have to have a cause would be if it is an effect.
You claim the universe is a product of time but God isn’t.
This is also incorrect. The idea that a cause must be a product of time is your claim, not mine.
You claim the universe could not possibly be eternal but God is.
Not solely based on some some arbitrary preclusion. I do not believe the universe is eternal mainly because of the Laws of Thermodynamics, which do not apply to God. So this is not an accurate comparison.
Your support for all of this is that the former claims defy logic, but you dismiss the fact that the latter claims suffer from the same flaws. So this is why, as have been pointed out to you, our understanding of all of this breaks down. This is the point where the only rational position is to say “I don’t know”, but only one of us is doing that while the other claims they’re the only one being rational.
Your final analysis seems to be based on the misunderstanding described earlier of what my claim was. Perhaps we could find some agreement here to avoid further misunderstanding. Is the universe an effect? The point being to determine if the universe has a cause.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Ramshutu
No it really doesn’t matter in the context of my argument:Let me draw your attention back to the point I have raised twice now and you have ignored.That something can exist without a cause inherently violates the principle that each thing that happens was caused by something else.
I did not ignore it. It matters because you are using a flawed definition of the Law of Causality ("Everything must have a cause") rather than the correct definition ("Every effect must have a cause.") I have explained why it is inherently true that every effect must have a cause. You have yet to explain why every cause must have a cause. There is nothing in the definition of "cause" that forces one to accept your assertion.
Please explain why a cause must have a cause.
Now, the final possible option is that the rules of causality do not require a cause to itself have a cause - which appears to what you’re trying to sell.That invalidates your whole argument as you’re basically agreeing that the universe doesn’t need to be caused.....If not everything has a cause; then the eternal option and the possibility that the universe has no cause is valid.
We have circled all the way around to where we started. Here are the three categories any claim about origins falls into:
- The universe is eternal
- The universe came from nothing (or is self-created)
- Something caused the universe to come into being.
Nowhere have I stated that the universe must have a cause simply because it is a cause. Nor do the above categories prohibit one from making the claim that the universe is an uncaused cause. I take no issue with someone claiming the universe is an uncaused cause. That would fall under the category of "The universe is eternal."
The only circumstance under which the universe must have a cause is if the universe is also an effect. If it is an effect, then it must have a cause because "Every effect must have a cause." If it is not an effect, then it does not need to have a cause.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Ramshutu
"Come back here and take what's coming to you! I'll bite your legs off!"
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ludofl3x
Here is your original basis for the accusation of special pleading:
are there any causes that were not at one time effects? You said yes, only one thing. This is another way of saying "All causes were at one time effects, except this one special thing." That's special pleading. A universal statement that applies to everything, except one thing, and that one thing is only asserted to be special, not proven to be so.
- Special Pleading-a logical fallacy in which someone applies a certain set of criteria to other people and circumstances while exempting themselves from the same criteria (https://fallacyinlogic.com/special-pleading-fallacy-definition-and-examples/)
I have not applied a criteria that all causes have a cause. I actually reject that as a rule or criteria since that is a faulty definition of the Law of Causality. My original statement would be no different than if I walked into a room and said that everyone has blue eyes except one person. I have not established a universal criteria that states everyone in the room must have blue eyes. I am simply making an observation.
Similarly, I am not forcing a criteria on you that every cause must have a cause, so it is not special pleading. You turned my simple observation into a universal rule that I reject, and then accused me of breaking that rule.
I thought you were asking me to explain how time began at the big bang, hence my citation and suggested reading.
You made a rule that "time is required for anything to happen." Then you said that time began at the Big Bang. So you broke your own rule by saying before time came into existence, it required time to do so. But time cannot exist before time exists. That is special pleading. I asked how time can require itself to come into existence before it exists. Your response was to suggest I go read book because I just don't get it.
So do you still believe that time requires time to come into existence?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
I ask because if time has a beginning, then it seems that time coming into existence must be a product of time. So if you believe time has a beginning, you have the same problem I do and you should reject the idea of time having a beginning.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Ramshutu
You can continually repeat yourself but I have pointed out three fundamental issues that you have failed to address.
You have assured me the vaccine is safe, but you can't tell me what "safe" means. You told me mRNA vaccines require less time to verify they are safe in the long term, but you can't tell me what length of time is sufficient.
You also have failed to actually show me that publicly available safety data exists that verifies we have performed clinical trials for the necessary length of time.
Any claims that the vaccine is safe without those two pieces of information is nothing but speculation.
You have failed to show how any U.S. law would prevent the government from requiring all federal employees to be sterilized as a requirement for employment.
Any claim that the Judicial Branch would repeal such a policy without citing a law is worthless.
Those are my main points that you have failed to address. You have tried to jump down every little rabbit hole you can find to avoid these main points, and then baselessly claimed you already addressed them. But you also cannot show how you have addressed them. Because you haven't. You are the one who is ignoring what I have said.
So can you specifically show how you have already addressed this 3 main points?
You have assured me the vaccine is safe, but you can't tell me what "safe" means. You told me mRNA vaccines require less time to verify they are safe in the long term, but you can't tell me what length of time is sufficient.
You also have failed to actually show me that publicly available safety data exists that verifies we have performed clinical trials for the necessary length of time.
Any claims that the vaccine is safe without those two pieces of information is nothing but speculation.
You have failed to show how any U.S. law would prevent the government from requiring all federal employees to be sterilized as a requirement for employment.
Any claim that the Judicial Branch would repeal such a policy without citing a law is worthless.
Those are my main points that you have failed to address. You have tried to jump down every little rabbit hole you can find to avoid these main points, and then baselessly claimed you already addressed them. But you also cannot show how you have addressed them. Because you haven't. You are the one who is ignoring what I have said.
So can you specifically show how you have already addressed this 3 main points?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ludofl3x
This was your statement:
Because time is required for anything to happen, and as far as we can tell time began at the big bang
I asked you how this statement makes sense and you failed to do so. Sending me on a wild goose chase to try to make sense of a nonsensical claim is not a valid argument. If you can't make sense of your own statements, it might be prudent to ease back on the sarcastic and condescending tone.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@n8nrgmi
Yes, I would say that he would also be special pleading by saying time doesn't need time to do something if everything else does. And I would agree that the answer is that there is no law or principle that states that every cause must have a cause. I think that stems from a mistaken definition of the Law of Causality.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ludofl3x
I'm sure that is an interesting read. But if you cannot explain how time began without time, then I don't think your accusation of special pleading has any basis.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Ramshutu
It doesn’t matter ; both are violated in the two ways I explained:That something can exist without a cause inherently violates the principle that each thing that happens was caused by something else.
It absolutely matters. If the Law of Causality states, "Everything must have a cause," then every cause must also be an effect (or have a cause). But that is not how the Law of Causality should be defined. It should rightly be defined, "Every effect must have a cause." That is true is based on definitions.
The reason you cannot have a married bachelor is because they logically contradict each other. Similarly, you cannot have an effect without a cause simply because of the definitions. Nor can you have a cause without a following effect. The Law of Causality is simply drawing upon the fact that an effect without a cause is a logical contradiction based on definitions.
But it is not definitionally true that every cause has a cause. You have to establish that truth some other way.
So how did you come to the conclusion that every cause must have a cause? Why must that be true?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ludofl3x
Because time is required for anything to happen, and as far as we can tell time began at the big bang
If time is required for anything to happen, and there was no time before the Big Bang, how did time begin at the Big Bang?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
Does time have a beginning?
Created:
Posted in:
This is another way of saying "All causes were at one time effects, except this one special thing." That's special pleading.
This would only be true if the statement "All causes are effects" were true on its own. But that's not true. Do you think there is some principle that says causes must be effects? If so, how did you arrive at that conclusion?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ludofl3x
Special pleading, particularly when you're not able to conclusively demonstrate that one thing.
Please explain specifically how I am guilty of special pleading. Are you asserting that all causes must be effects? If so, how have you come to that conclusion?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ludofl3x
Are there any causes that were at one point not effects?
Yes. But just one.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Ramshutu
That something can exist without a cause inherently violates the principle that each thing that happens was caused by something else.
Here's where definitions are important. There are two ways that the Law of Causality is typically worded by people:
- Everything must have a cause
- Every effect must have a cause
Which definition are you using?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Ramshutu
You have not told us how many months of long-term safety data would be sufficient to consider mRNA vaccines safe.The details of specifically why mRNA can be considered safe after a short time is covered in detail post #39.
So, you're not going to say how many months? I did not find that number in post #39.
You have not shown any observable, testable, repeatable results showing we have met this level of safety data research.Post #39 fully refutes your entire premise, in detail.
So, you're not going to cite any publicly available safety data? Post #39 did not contain a citation that would qualify as observable, measurable, repeatable test results.
You have not shown what specific U.S. law would prevent the government from using the same compulsory methods for sterilization that they are currently using for vaccination.Post #41 explains in detail why your line of questioning here is completely irrelevant.
So, you're not going to cite any laws? Because that should be the easiest part of an argument if my claim is as ridiculous as you have claimed.
But I think you know it's actually not that ridiculous after all.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Ramshutu
There’s only two possible options: that there is infinite regress by always answering yes, in which case our notions of causality breaks down; or you answer no at some point, and our notion of causality breaks down.The real bottom line, is that to explain our existence requires a violation of our notions of causality.
Are you saying the concept of an uncaused cause requires a violation of our notions of causality?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Ramshutu
You have not told us how many months of long-term safety data would be sufficient to consider mRNA vaccines safe.
You have not shown any observable, testable, repeatable results showing we have met this level of safety data research.
You have not shown what specific U.S. law would prevent the government from using the same compulsory methods for sterilization that they are currently using for vaccination.
You can say, "I've already dismantled those points," as many times as you want but it doesn't make it so. If you aren't specifically addressing those points, then we are having two different conversations.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Ramshutu
Incorrect: in post 39 I outlined exactly how and why we can be confident as to that; and explicitly explained the reasons why other vaccines have to wait 2 years - whilst COVID 19 mRNA vaccines specifically do not.
It doesn't matter how confident you are. The fact is that we have no observable, testable, repeatable long-term safety data for a technology that has never before been used in humans.
You claiming that mRNA vaccines don't have to follow the same standard as other vaccines is simply that - a claim. You cannot back up your statements with scientific test results to prove what you are saying is true.
But let's try a different angle. How many months worth of safety data would be sufficient to consider an mRNA vaccine safe? And can you cite the publicly available data that shows this amount of time has been adequately studied for any of the available vaccines?
At this point you seem solely intent on ignoring everything being said. This is not just intellectually dishonest; you’re inability to even acknowledge -that I am making Key arguments - leave alone present a counter - means that this is no longer an intellectual discussion on your part; it’s just you trying to find ways to skip over the parts that can’t argue with.
You have failed to answer the fundamental question I asked.
What specific U.S. law would prevent the government from using the same compulsory methods for sterilization that they are currently using for vaccination?
You have referenced a "right to not have someone around them putting them at risk of illness or death," which you have not shown to exist. You also made a vague reference to the 4th Amendment, but made no further comment when simply asked how that would apply to a sterilization requirement for federal government employees.
Again, if my premise is as ridiculous as you claim, it should be easy to show exactly how such a policy would be repealed by the Judicial Branch. Not answering my specific question makes it seem like it would be legal for the government to enact such a policy, even if viewed unfavorably by the public.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
Q1: What caused God?
Nothing. God is eternal and unchanging.
Q2: Why couldn’t your answer to Q1 apply to the universe?
Because I do not think it is reasonable to say the universe is eternal, do you?
The laws of Thermodynamics as far as we understand, came into existence at the point of the Big Bang.
If something "came into existence," that implies it did not exist at some point. That's like saying, "We have no idea whether the Laws of Thermodynamics existed before the Big Bang, but they didn't exist prior to the Big Bang as far as we know." That is an unhelpful statement to preface your question with.
What could you possibly know about whatever laws would have applied to the universe if it existed in some other form prior to the Big Bang?
My understanding is that the laws of physics have applied to the universe for as long as it has been in existence. Why should we assume otherwise?
And BTW, cause and effect is a product of time, something God supposedly presides outside of so claiming he caused the universe is incoherent.
I never claimed that the law of cause and effect applies to God. You assumed that was necessary, while at the same time claiming universal ignorance of the matter. That was my criticism.
God is not an effect, only a cause. Of course if there was no effect (creation), then He would not actually be a "cause." He would just be an eternal unchanging Being.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ludofl3x
Ah, the exit from infinite regress through the door marked "special pleading."
How is this special pleading? If every effect must have a cause, you either have infinite regress or an initial uncaused cause. That does not automatically imply the Christian God, but you have the same problem to deal with. I hold that there is an initial uncaused cause. Which one do you hold to?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Ramshutu
I literally explained to you - top to bottom - EVERYTHING you are now asking in reply.What you just did; was systematically ignore everything I said and pretend as if I had said nothing at all.
All you have done is made an unscientific conclusion.
Have we ever observed a test group of humans two years after being injected with an mRNA vaccine?
If the answer is no, then however confident and reasonable you are in your explanation, it is still speculation. You have not observed, tested, or repeated those results. Unless the scientific method doesn't apply to this situation.
Your entire argument here is that allowing vaccine mandates will somehow cause it to legally allowed to enact forced sterilization.
I never said allowing vaccine mandates will cause forced sterilization. My argument is that the same logic, fueled by fear of climate change predictions, will likely be used to justify compulsory sterilization in the not too distant future.
You have at least vaguely reference a law now, so that's a start. But that doesn't show how sterilization would be judicially blocked, for instance, as a requirement for employees of the federal government.
If it is determined that climate change is an imminent threat to public health in the form of catastrophic weather, famine, and death, how would the 4th Amendment be sufficient in the face of such a dangerous threat?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Ramshutu
Nothing about philosophically accepting the first inherently necessitates pulling all of that other unnecessary nonsense into the definition of that first cause; and certainly not through sneaky implication - the undistributed middle being swept under the carpet with such statements as “that first cause is god”
I never made the implication that the uncaused cause must be God. I was only making the point that the universe exists by one of three ways:
- The universe is eternal
- The universe came from nothing (or is self-created)
- Something caused the universe to come into being.
I would say the only reasonable choice is option 3. After that has been established, then the nature of the "something" that caused the universe to come into being can be explored further.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ludofl3x
What created God?
Nothing. Do you believe that it is possible for there to be an uncaused cause?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ludofl3x
The only reason I add that is to distinguish between something coming from nothing without a cause or with a cause. If God created matter and energy when there was previously no matter or energy, I would consider that to be something coming from nothing in the physical sense. Without God, this would be physically impossible.
Generally 'something' comes from 'something.'Generally?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Ramshutu
Right, I see what you’re doing; you’re focusing on a really small, unimportant and largely irrelevant part of my argument, so you can ignore the large overarching point I’m making. So I’ll just be quick here. I’m not going to reply on this side track after this.
If that was your quick response, I'd hate to see what your long response would be (I say this only jestingly in good fun). My point is not small or unimportant though. You could write an entire research paper about what you think will happen in two years with the vaccine. But that's not how we come to scientific conclusions. Until you actually observe two years of trials, you are speculating. If people want to voluntarily take it, great. But don't force people to take a vaccine that has not gone through the standard safety protocols that every other vaccine has to go through.
Damage done to the body that impacts body function tends to show up rapidly after vaccination.
Does it always though? Is it possible, even if extremely rare, that there could be side effects that do not show up rapidly after vaccination? Isn't that why we do multiple years of safety studies as a standard protocol rather than just assuming those things won't happen? Especially when it comes to a new technology that has never been used in humans before?
Their right to not have someone around them putting them at risk of illness or death...
Where can one find this right that you are referring to?
Indeed it’s odd that you ask what would stop the government, as specifying what would stop the government has been the central part of my point over the last who knows how many posts.Or more specifically - the things that would have to happen in order for such a policy to be enforced on even a single person are so significant and antithetical to liberal democracy that the existence of laws to stop it would not present any actual obstacle.
This was my question:
- What specific U.S. law would prevent the government from using the same compulsory methods for sterilization that they are currently using for vaccination?
In your whole response, you did not actually cite a law to answer this question. If my premise is as ridiculous as you claim, it should be easy to show exactly how such a policy would be repealed by the Judicial Branch. Not answering my specific question makes it seem like it would be legal for the government to enact such a policy, even if viewed unfavorably by the public.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ludofl3x
No, I don't know.
Do you believe it is possible for something to come from nothing on its own?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
The laws of Thermodynamics as far as we understand, came into existence at the point of the Big Bang.
This statement requires one to believe that the Laws of Thermodynamics did not exist prior to the Big Bang. If you have no idea what laws may or may not have been present prior to the Big Bang, how can you possible make such a statement?
And BTW, cause and effect is a product of time,
By your own logic, how can you possibly know if this applies to God who is outside the universe?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ludofl3x
Option 3 leads to infinite regress.
So do you agree with option 2, that the universe is self-created?
Created: