Corporation Socialism

[iambiguous]

At least admit to yourself that any answer any of us gives here will be the wrong answer if it is not the answer you demand of everyone...that they agree to accept Jesus Christ as their personal savior, or their soul will be damned for all of eternity.

So, naturally, for some who want to be born again, who want their soul to be saved, they will be interested -- considerably interested -- in someone who tells them that beyond leaps of faith and wagers and Scripture, there is actual scientific and historical evidence able to demonstrate the existence of a God, the God...the Christian God residing in Heaven.

That was not my question. My question was about what evidence YOU would accept. So stop trying to skate, stop wasting time, and answer the question...if you can.

Jesus [if you'll pardon the pun], I'm really beginning to think, "what if it is a 'condition'"?!

Besides, as I noted above...

I've answered this before as well. What would work for me specifically is waking up in the morning and learning that not one single child anywhere in the entire world was suffering. I mean, come on, who else but a God, the God could accomplish that?

Or how about out of the blue, all of these ghastly "acts of God"...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lists_of_earthquakes
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_l ... _eruptions
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_t ... l_cyclones
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_tsunamis
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_landslides
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fires
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_epidemics
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_deadliest_floods
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_t ... ore_deaths
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lists_of_diseases
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_extinction_events

...became a thing of the past? That would grab my attention.

[Immanuel Can]

That was not my question. My question was about what evidence YOU would accept. So stop trying to skate, stop wasting time, and answer the question...if you can.

I've answered this before as well. What would work for me specifically is waking up in the morning and learning that not one single child anywhere in the entire world was suffering.

It's certainly not obvious why that would work, or why you should interpret such an event that way. Maybe you'll justify it.

What if, instead, you considered the hypothesis that mankind had finally figured out the right formula for life, so that no more children would suffer? What makes you rule out that interpretation, so as to have to be compelled to choose the hypothesis that God had done it?

[iambiguous]

That was not my question. My question was about what evidence YOU would accept. So stop trying to skate, stop wasting time, and answer the question...if you can.

What would work for me specifically is waking up in the morning and learning that not one single child anywhere in the entire world was suffering. Or how about out of the blue, all of these ghastly "acts of God"...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lists_of_earthquakes
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_l ... _eruptions
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_t ... l_cyclones
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_tsunamis
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_landslides
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fires
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_epidemics
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_deadliest_floods
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_t ... ore_deaths
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lists_of_diseases
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_extinction_events

...became a thing of the past? That would certainly grab my attention.

It's certainly not obvious why that would work, or why you should interpret such an event that way. Maybe you'll justify it.

You asked me what evidence I would accept in order to believe in a God, the God, the Christian God.

And while waking up to a world in which no innocent children ever suffer again at all and one in which all natural disasters -- acts of God -- were a thing of the past?

That works for me. And, of course, I suspect if something like that ever did begin to unfold, it would work for lots and lots of other people as well.

Given, for example the way things are now:

333 million children are living in extreme poverty (as of 2022), struggling to survive on less than PPP $2.15 per day. Children are disproportionately impacted – they make up more than half of the global poor, despite constituting only 31% of the total global population.
829 million children are living below the higher threshold of PPP $3.65, and 1.43 billion under the PPP $6.85 line.
1 billion children are estimated to be multidimensionally poor (as of 2019), meaning that they suffer at least one severe deprivation in the areas of health, housing, nutrition, sanitation or water. COVID-19 pushed approximately 100 million additional children into multidimensional poverty.
Half of the 1.1 billion people living in multidimensionally poor households globally – or 566 million – are children, according to the global MPI (as of 2023).
Child poverty is not only a phenomenon in lower- and middle-income countries. In the EU, 24 % of children are living at risk of poverty and social exclusion (as of 2021).

Or start here: https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-22935692

What if, instead, you considered the hypothesis that mankind had finally figured out the right formula for life, so that no more children would suffer? What makes you rule out that interpretation, so as to have to be compelled to choose the hypothesis that God had done it?

This [to me] is just another example of how those of your ilk explain away human pain and suffering on a simply staggering scale day in and day out. "Somehow" it's all a part of a loving, just and merciful God's mysterious ways. And, after all, no matter how terrible the plight of children or how ghastly the consequences of all those "acts of God" are, nothing can't be explained away using that, right?

And, indeed, I might be able to accept your points above more readily if you were able to convince me that the scientific and historical arguments in those YouTube videos do demonstrate that a God, the God, is the Christian God.

And I want to be born again if I can be persuaded to. On the other hand, any denomination will do if those on their own One True Path are able to persuade me to go deeper given their own set of assumptions.

So, let's get back to this:

I can't even get you to note the evidence that, in fact, convinced you the Christian God resides in Heaven.

[Immanuel Can]

It's certainly not obvious why that would work, or why you should interpret such an event that way. Maybe you'll justify it.

You asked me what evidence I would accept in order to believe in a God, the God, the Christian God.

And while waking up to a world in which no innocent children ever suffer again at all and one in which all natural disasters -- acts of God -- were a thing of the past?

How would that prove that God -- particularly the Christian God -- was the right explanation for such a phenomenon? It doesn't seem obvious how that test would compel that particular conclusion.

I also have to ask, why would it be just the "natural disasters" that were necessary to eliminate? Most of the suffering in the world is attributable, either directly or indirectly, to other people: so what about "no more muggers," "no more stalkers, rapists, pedophiles and murderers, or "no more thieves, liars and swindlers?" How about "no more broken marriages, vengeful exes, abortions..."? Would a world with no natural disasters and yet all the human evils intact really convince you of the existence of the Christian God?

It's hard to see how any of that would compel the conclusion you claim. But maybe you can unpack that a bit further. It's not obvious, at present.

I think this is a good subject, but for a different thread. If you want to pursue it, may I suggest you start one? I'll let you set the heading, and I'll join if you do. But here, the subject should remain "Corporation Socialism," so let's leave this thread to that.

[Gary Childress]

It's certainly not obvious why that would work, or why you should interpret such an event that way. Maybe you'll justify it.

You asked me what evidence I would accept in order to believe in a God, the God, the Christian God.

And while waking up to a world in which no innocent children ever suffer again at all and one in which all natural disasters -- acts of God -- were a thing of the past?

How would that prove that God -- particularly the Christian God -- was the right explanation for such a phenomenon? It doesn't seem obvious how that test would compel that particular conclusion.

If God heals or prevents all the suffering in the world, would that not be a good reason to believe in a benevolent God? Or should I ask for winning lottery numbers instead?

[Will Bouwman]

Then you're not arguing for Socialism.

I know. Somehow it has escaped your attention that I favour a mixed economy.

You're shifting your position, because you're starting to realize what a horrible option Socialism really is to have to defend.

You mad old sausage. I made plain that I was defending social democracy from the beginning.

[Will Bouwman]

At least admit to yourself that any answer any of us gives here will be the wrong answer if it is not the answer you demand of everyone...that they agree to accept Jesus Christ as their personal savior or their soul will be damned for all of eternity.

That was not my question. My question was about what evidence YOU would accept. So stop trying to skate, stop wasting time, and answer the question...if you can.

As usual, you have this arse about tit. The more philosophically nimble can accept anything you offer as evidence for your God, and appreciate that it is also evidence for any other hypothesis it supports. The question therefore, is not what evidence is accepted, it is why any interpretation is believed.

And if you can't, then don't be suprised if you aren't ever convinced. You've made it impossible, yourself.

That's the pot calling the kettle black. What evidence would you accept for human evolution?

[Immanuel Can]

You asked me what evidence I would accept in order to believe in a God, the God, the Christian God.

And while waking up to a world in which no innocent children ever suffer again at all and one in which all natural disasters -- acts of God -- were a thing of the past?

How would that prove that God -- particularly the Christian God -- was the right explanation for such a phenomenon? It doesn't seem obvious how that test would compel that particular conclusion.

If God heals or prevents all the suffering in the world, would that not be a good reason to believe in a benevolent God? Or should I ask for winning lottery numbers instead?

We're going to move this topic to a new thread, Gary, and leave this one for its original purpose. You'd be welcome to pose this question there.

[Immanuel Can]

I made plain that I was defending social democracy from the beginning.

You were defending a nonsense phrase, then.

[Immanuel Can]

What evidence would you accept for human evolution?

We're going to move this topic to a new thread, Will, and leave this one for its original purpose. You'd be welcome to pose this question there.

[Will Bouwman]

I made plain that I was defending social democracy from the beginning.

You were defending a nonsense phrase, then.

I am a social democrat, and I live in a social democracy. You can't make sense of it. That doesn't make it nonsense.

[Will Bouwman]

What evidence would you accept for human evolution?

We're going to move this topic to a new thread, Will, and leave this one for its original purpose. You'd be welcome to pose this question there.

Okie dokie.

[Alexis Jacobi]

I am a social democrat, and I live in a social democracy. You can't make sense of it. That doesn't make it nonsense.

Immanuel lives in a social democracy with so many of its features like socialized medicine and a great deal else. He is a beneficiary of everything “social democratic”.

I cannot ever be quite sure what, in fact, he is arguing against.

His original view is that corporations begin to accept socially-conscious doctrines because if they do so it is understood that their position and domination will not be undermined.

So they “cooperate” with socialized policies even if, apparently, it might affect profits. There is a “collusion”, for mutual benefit, between corporate power and structure, and governing regimes. That’s not hard to grasp.

He is very right though about a tendency of some regimes, especially those overtly communist and communist-socialist, to become dictatorial, power-hungry, and often ultimately to become gulags in both soft and hard senses of the word.

But ultimately — what the heck is he arguing both against and for? I cannot discern.

I do maintain that it is possible to arrive at a definition, but it takes a certain forcefulness to do so.

[Immanuel Can]

I made plain that I was defending social democracy from the beginning.

You were defending a nonsense phrase, then.

I am a social democrat, and I live in a social democracy.

You live in a democracy of sorts...parliamentary, actually. You don't live in a Socialist state, and those elements of Socialism that exist in the system are dysfunctional and economically burdensome. And you know it.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Here he clarifies a bit. He indicates dissatisfaction or discomfort with some part of the direction of English culture, society and economics.