Here ya go - the Pope wants mmgw to fix the global economy and help the poor

[The Cysko Kid]

I agree with Chris. Nuclear power waste is a gigantic problem.

It causes global warming, and we can't have that.

 

And the safety isn't guaranteed, and what happens with accumulated waste

buried deep underground? Let's not poison our entire planet over time.

 

http://www.nrc.gov/reactors/operating/ops-experience/tritium/sites-grndwtr-contam.html

 

http://spectrum.ieee.org/energywise/energy/nuclear/groundwater-contamination-is-the-latest-bad-news-from-fukushima

Pack it in rockets and send it to Mars

[calfoxwc]

No, in a few million years, mankind will have left earth and

moved there. Send it into the sun so it will keep burnin....

[The Cysko Kid]

I don't want to think of the ramifications of screwing with the sun. Send it out into deep space.

[calfoxwc]

Deep space? Which brings to mind a question - if we sent it into deep space,

and it never hits any other planet or object... might it just swing around and come

right back at us ?

 

Or, might it hit a civilized planet in another solar system, and they get all liberally po'd,

and flying saucer fly here, invade our planet, and try to wipe our all life on our planet

with their little pink hankies?

 

I'm working too hard. I still have about 42 trees, at least, to cut up for firewood,

fence to put up around the giant garden, and went to the farmer's market, came home

just in time to get in the house before the dark clouds let loose with tons of rain and high

winds, about 60 mph. Then, my Wifie looks out the window and says - uhoh, our green house

is open. So, I go out there, shut one door, close and block the vent, and when I try to shut

the other door, a giant gust of wind and rain throws the door back open and I go blackwards.

 

Then, I finally got the second door shut and latched, and I was completely soaked halfway

to the greenhouse in the first place, and went to go back to our house, and it hailed.

60 mph rain, and hail and wind, and braches being broken off of trees, and leaves.

The neighbors' trampoline was thrown vertical and against their deck, and was bent and

twisted.

 

And, after I did get back to the house, we got a cell phone call - it was about the tornado warning.

Yep. Missed us by less than a mile.

[Clevfan4life]

Deep space? Which brings to mind a question - if we sent it into deep space,

and it never hits any other planet or object... might it just swing around and come

right back at us ?

 

 

 

The key word there Einstein was "deep".

[The Cysko Kid]

No. It won't get to the end of space and come back at us. And chances are it won't ever hit a populated planet, ever, and if it does, bad luck for them.

[gftChris]

Even though there is a hypothetical edge of space it would be impossible for something to ever catch up with it let alone overtake it. If you could you would come back to the other side of the universe, but it is theoretically impossible, even factoring in any FTL 'loopholes' such as wormholes and spacetime warping because ultimmately you have to go ftl at some point.

[MLD Woody]

It's doing ok, and they, along with china, are investing in nuclear power in the UK.

 

While in an ideal world we shouldn't be swayed by public opinion on these matter, we need to be realistic about what is achievable. If you get $1bn for nuclear funding, or $5bn for solar funding, it would be irresponsible to go with the former if the latter can produce better returns.

 

 

Right, "if". I do not know all of the costs, energy savings, etc, but I'd imagine Nuclear Power has a high start up cost but a high rate of return. $1b in Nuclear Power could produce more energy than $5b in solar. I am not sure though. But yes, if those were your two options, all else equal, you'd go with the better return on investment.

[Browns149]

"If" we didn't have time zones

 

The entire planet would be better off

[calfoxwc]

I'm going to invent a scientific deep space boomerang theory. Sure, I'll find some data.

 

In space, surely, eventually, an object would turn along with different gravities. Then,

if it turned enough, it could work it's way back to where it came from.

[Axe]

I don't want to think of the ramifications of screwing with the sun. Send it out into deep space.

 

 

 

That's hilarious..

[MLD Woody]

On public opinion for things like Nuclear Power...

 

 

[gftChris]

I'm going to invent a scientific deep space boomerang theory. Sure, I'll find some data.

 

In space, surely, eventually, an object would turn along with different gravities. Then,

if it turned enough, it could work it's way back to where it came from.

Sure, if you aimed it at the sun almost it can slingshot back round. But space is very sparse.

[calfoxwc]

Leave it to woodypeckerhead to ridicule all those lives lost on 9/11, all their relatives and friends,

1/4 of all Americans (allegedly - nonsense), and all those people with learning disabilities with a slur based upon

a smartass adult cartoon.

 

Live doesn't revolve around a cartoon, asswipe woodpecker - you really are the butt of this board.

[calfoxwc]

Space is SPARCE?

 

Wait, space is infinite. I mean, it doesn't have an end. If it did,

what would be beyond the end?

 

More space.... !

[Mudfly]

Deep space? Which brings to mind a question - if we sent it into deep space,

and it never hits any other planet or object... might it just swing around and come

right back at us ?

 

Great question.......and Id think this is a realistic possibility......while rocketing waste out of our solar system isn't........

 

Consider this:....ALL things in our solar system are held in place by the gravity of our sun.....so if we were to just launch waste into space, it would likely remain in our solar system and start it's own orbit....around something....somewhere.....

 

If it developed a larger eliptical orbit, it could come back in a year......a thousand years.....or even 100,000 years.....a good example of this would be comets and asteroids, which have proven to maintain huge solar orbits and calculated return paths for centuries......

 

So, the only way to avoid the waste going into a dangerous orbit around the sun, is to send it beyond(outside) our solar system, which right now, we dont even have the capacity to do.....and the cost and fuel required would be completely outrageous....it would require mega million dollar space ships and even more fuel to dispose of it than the original fuel that was used to make the waste...if that makes sense......

 

so, building a long distance rocket and fueling it up...to carry how much waste?....over and over again?.....no way....

[gftChris]

Most dangerous person in the world? No, not the head of ISIS, not Putin, the pope. Right.

 

http://mediamatters.org/video/2015/06/16/fox-news-host-attacks-pope-francis-for-addressi/204022

 

FWIW, I like the black guy there - I guess he's some kind of preacher? Not sure.

[OldBrownsFan]

The black guy is Juan Williams the liberal Fox hired when he got fired from the tolerant liberal NPR when he strayed from liberal thought and said something they didn't like.

[gftChris]

When the stereotypical fox conspiracy-theory guy was going on about the cult of malthus, pope being a marxist, and the other stuff, this guy impressed me by saying "couldn't the pope just be saying let's take better care of god's green planet?"

 

But nope, the pope's a marxist and must be stopped. Most dangerous man in the world.

[OldBrownsFan]

The Pope's goal of helping the poor is good and biblical and I don't fault him for this. What I find fault for is his socialist views on the best way to do it.

 

Both China and India have improved their economies and the people have benefited when they turned towards capitalism. Freedom and not government controls is the path to prosperity.

 

"Pope Francis is once again insisting that he is not a communist, that his abiding concern for “the poor” is grounded in the Gospel of Christ, not the ideology of Marx, Engels, or any other communist. Back in 2010, while still a Cardinal, he felt the need to do the same. Why?

 

That the Pope has refused to unabashedly, unequivocally repudiate communism (and/or socialism) is doubtless one big reason that some have viewed him as a communist sympathizer. Yet there is another: His Holiness has adamantly repudiated that system commonly called “capitalism.”

Read more at http://www.beliefnet.com/columnists/attheintersectionoffaithandculture/2014/04/pope-francis-a-socialist-by-any-other-name.html#DjOuuZLmd3pMJE3O.99

[MLD Woody]

Rick Santorum - "I think that we probably are better off leaving the science to the scientists and focusing on what we're really good at, which is theology and morality,"

 

 

 

hahaha

[LogicIsForSquares]

Santorum is internet infamous forever.

[OldBrownsFan]

Does Socialism Work? A Classroom Experiment

November 16, 2011 by Dan Mitchell

 

An economics professor at a local college made a statement that he had never failed a single student before, but had recently failed an entire class. That class had insisted that Obama’s socialism worked and that no one would be poor and no one would be rich, a great equalizer.

The professor then said, “OK, we will have an experiment in this class on Obama’s plan”. All grades will be averaged and everyone will receive the same grade so no one will fail and no one will receive an A…. (substituting grades for dollars – something closer to home and more readily understood by all).

After the first test, the grades were averaged and everyone got a B. The students who studied hard were upset and the students who studied little were happy. As the second test rolled around, the students who studied little had studied even less and the ones who studied hard decided they wanted a free ride too so they studied little.

The second test average was a D! No one was happy.

When the 3rd test rolled around, the average was an F.

As the tests proceeded, the scores never increased as bickering, blame and name-calling all resulted in hard feelings and no one would study for the benefit of anyone else.

To their great surprise, ALL FAILED and the professor told them that socialism would also ultimately fail because when the reward is great, the effort to succeed is great, but when government takes all the reward away, no one will try or want to succeed.
It could not be any simpler than that.

There are five morals to this story:

1. You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity.

2. What one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving.

3. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else.

4. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it!

5. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them, and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for, that is the beginning of the end of any nation.

=================================

I’ll make one final point. There are five morals to the story, but there are dozens of nations giving us real-world examples every day.

Sort of makes you wonder why some people still believe this nonsense?

[LogicIsForSquares]

Group projects in college show you that communism and socialism will not work over time. One asshole always wants to drag their feet and wait for someone else to do their part of the project.

[OldBrownsFan]

I believe the Pope means well but I just can't agree with his socialist views. I think he comes at this with the view of the early church who did have a form of wealth redistribution with churches helping one another but we have to look at history at what works and what fails and socialism is a proven failure in the world wherever it is tried. That type of socialism can work in the church but it does not work in the world. I am glad to see the Pope continue to stand true to traditional marriage and opposing abortion. As for climate change it seemed like his mind was made up already when he refused to listen to any opposing views.

[MLD Woody]

I believe the Pope means well but I just can't agree with his socialist views. I think he comes at this with the view of the early church who did have a form of wealth redistribution with churches helping one another but we have to look at history at what works and what fails and socialism is a proven failure in the world wherever it is tried. That type of socialism can work in the church but it does not work in the world. I am glad to see the Pope continue to stand true to traditional marriage and opposing abortion. As for climate change it seemed like his mind was made up already when he refused to listen to any opposing views.

[LogicIsForSquares]

Hahaha

[OldBrownsFan]

Is there an argument for the existence of God?

 

Is belief in God a rationally unacceptable position to hold? Is there a logical and reasonable argument for the existence of God? Outside of referencing the Bible, can a case for the existence of God be made that refutes the positions of both the old and new atheists and gives sufficient warrant for believing in a Creator? The answer is, yes, it can. Moreover, in demonstrating the validity of an argument for the existence of God, the case for atheism is shown to be intellectually weak.

To make an argument for the existence of God, we must start by asking the right questions. We begin with the most basic metaphysical question: “Why do we have something rather than nothing at all?” This is the basic question of existence—why are we here; why is the earth here; why is the universe here rather than nothing? Commenting on this point, one theologian has said, “In one sense man does not ask the question about God, his very existence raises the question about God.”

In considering this question, there are four possible answers to why we have something rather than nothing at all:

1. Reality is an illusion.
2. Reality is/was self-created.
3. Reality is self-existent (eternal).
4. Reality was created by something that is self-existent.

So, which is the most plausible solution? Let’s begin with reality being simply an illusion, which is what a number of Eastern religions believe. This option was ruled out centuries ago by the philosopher Rene Descartes who is famous for the statement, “I think, therefore I am.” Descartes, a mathematician, argued that if he is thinking, then he must “be.” In other words, “I think, therefore I am not an illusion.” Illusions require something experiencing the illusion, and moreover, you cannot doubt the existence of yourself without proving your existence; it is a self-defeating argument. So the possibility of reality being an illusion is eliminated.

Next is the option of reality being self-created. When we study philosophy, we learn of “analytically false” statements, which means they are false by definition. The possibility of reality being self-created is one of those types of statements for the simple reason that something cannot be prior to itself. If you created yourself, then you must have existed prior to you creating yourself, but that simply cannot be. In evolution this is sometimes referred to as “spontaneous generation” —something coming from nothing—a position that few, if any, reasonable people hold to anymore simply because you cannot get something from nothing. Even the atheist David Hume said, “I never asserted so absurd a proposition as that anything might arise without a cause.” Since something cannot come from nothing, the alternative of reality being self-created is ruled out.

Now we are left with only two choices—an eternal reality or reality being created by something that is eternal: an eternal universe or an eternal Creator. The 18th-century theologian Jonathan Edwards summed up this crossroads:

• Something exists.
• Nothing cannot create something.
• Therefore, a necessary and eternal “something” exists.

Notice that we must go back to an eternal “something.” The atheist who derides the believer in God for believing in an eternal Creator must turn around and embrace an eternal universe; it is the only other door he can choose. But the question now is, where does the evidence lead? Does the evidence point to matter before mind or mind before matter?

To date, all key scientific and philosophical evidence points away from an eternal universe and toward an eternal Creator. From a scientific standpoint, honest scientists admit the universe had a beginning, and whatever has a beginning is not eternal. In other words, whatever has a beginning has a cause, and if the universe had a beginning, it had a cause. The fact that the universe had a beginning is underscored by evidence such as the second law of thermodynamics, the radiation echo of the big bang discovered in the early 1900s, the fact that the universe is expanding and can be traced back to a singular beginning, and Einstein’s theory of relativity. All prove the universe is not eternal.

Further, the laws that surround causation speak against the universe being the ultimate cause of all we know for this simple fact: an effect must resemble its cause. This being true, no atheist can explain how an impersonal, purposeless, meaningless, and amoral universe accidentally created beings (us) who are full of personality and obsessed with purpose, meaning, and morals. Such a thing, from a causation standpoint, completely refutes the idea of a natural universe birthing everything that exists. So in the end, the concept of an eternal universe is eliminated.

Philosopher J. S. Mill (not a Christian) summed up where we have now come to: “It is self-evident that only Mind can create mind.” The only rational and reasonable conclusion is that an eternal Creator is the one who is responsible for reality as we know it. Or to put it in a logical set of statements:

• Something exists.
• You do not get something from nothing.
• Therefore a necessary and eternal “something” exists.
• The only two options are an eternal universe and an eternal Creator.
• Science and philosophy have disproven the concept of an eternal universe.
• Therefore, an eternal Creator exists.

Former atheist Lee Strobel, who arrived at this end result many years ago, has commented, “Essentially, I realized that to stay an atheist, I would have to believe that nothing produces everything; non-life produces life; randomness produces fine-tuning; chaos produces information; unconsciousness produces consciousness; and non-reason produces reason. Those leaps of faith were simply too big for me to take, especially in light of the affirmative case for God's existence … In other words, in my assessment the Christian worldview accounted for the totality of the evidence much better than the atheistic worldview.”

 

But the next question we must tackle is this: if an eternal Creator exists (and we have shown that He does), what kind of Creator is He? Can we infer things about Him from what He created? In other words, can we understand the cause by its effects? The answer to this is yes, we can, with the following characteristics being surmised:

• He must be supernatural in nature (as He created time and space).
• He must be powerful (exceedingly).
• He must be eternal (self-existent).
• He must be omnipresent (He created space and is not limited by it).
• He must be timeless and changeless (He created time).
• He must be immaterial because He transcends space/physical.
• He must be personal (the impersonal cannot create personality).
• He must be infinite and singular as you cannot have two infinites.
• He must be diverse yet have unity as unity and diversity exist in nature.
• He must be intelligent (supremely). Only cognitive being can produce cognitive being.
• He must be purposeful as He deliberately created everything.
• He must be moral (no moral law can be had without a giver).
• He must be caring (or no moral laws would have been given).

These things being true, we now ask if any religion in the world describes such a Creator. The answer to this is yes: the God of the Bible fits this profile perfectly. He is supernatural (Genesis 1:1), powerful (Jeremiah 32:17), eternal (Psalm 90:2), omnipresent (Psalm 139:7), timeless/changeless (Malachi 3:6), immaterial (John 5:24), personal (Genesis 3:9), necessary (Colossians 1:17), infinite/singular (Jeremiah 23:24, Deuteronomy 6:4), diverse yet with unity (Matthew 28:19), intelligent (Psalm 147:4-5), purposeful (Jeremiah 29:11), moral (Daniel 9:14), and caring (1 Peter 5:6-7).

 

One last subject to address on the matter of God’s existence is the matter of how justifiable the atheist’s position actually is. Since the atheist asserts the believer’s position is unsound, it is only reasonable to turn the question around and aim it squarely back at him. The first thing to understand is that the claim the atheist makes—“no god,” which is what “atheist” means—is an untenable position to hold from a philosophical standpoint. As legal scholar and philosopher Mortimer Adler says, “An affirmative existential proposition can be proved, but a negative existential proposition—one that denies the existence of something—cannot be proved.” For example, someone may claim that a red eagle exists and someone else may assert that red eagles do not exist. The former only needs to find a single red eagle to prove his assertion. But the latter must comb the entire universe and literally be in every place at once to ensure he has not missed a red eagle somewhere and at some time, which is impossible to do. This is why intellectually honest atheists will admit they cannot prove God does not exist.

Read more: http://www.gotquesti...l#ixzz3dY2idIHe

 

[MLD Woody]

ugh, first of all this line "To date, all key scientific and philosophical evidence points away from an eternal universe and toward an eternal Creator."

- So every piece of scientific evidence that says the universe had a beginning, magically also supports there being a god?

- What the hell is "philosophical evidence"?

 

"For example, someone may claim that a red eagle exists and someone else may assert that red eagles do not exist. The former only needs to find a single red eagle to prove his assertion. But the latter must comb the entire universe and literally be in every place at once to ensure he has not missed a red eagle somewhere and at some time, which is impossible to do. This is why intellectually honest atheists will admit they cannot prove God does not exist."

 

- And last I checked, no one has been able to prove the existence of a god either....

 

Philosophy is not a science. Last I checked, "I think, therefore I am" never followed through the scientific method.

 

Basically, your post boils down to, "I don't think something can come from nothing". "I think a god made the universe." "Why not my god?" "My god is real!"

 

If something can't come from nothing, where did your god come from? Oh, "He" is eternal? What is the greater multiverse has always been and our universe is just a new branch off of that. An explosion create positives and negative (matter, dark matter) and results in a net nothing.

 

 

 

You can't really prove the existence of god. You can't really prove there is no god. If someone think some higher being, somewhere, exists, I can't really fault them for that. But if you believe that God is exactly as your book describes him, and he's your BFF Jesus, then you've made a GIANT leap that we can start to scientifically disprove. It becomes even easier when you believe things like "a man lived in a big fish" or "the story of Noah's ark is completely true"....

 

.... then you just sound like an idiot..

[LogicIsForSquares]

I prefer my fictional characters to be less stuffy.