What is ultimately at stake tomorrow

[jwells]

over 1/3 of the TN budget is federal government money.

 

[jwells]

LOL

You think TN, FL, TX and GA are welfare states?

TN, GA, MS, LA, WV...yes.

The south is dependent on Federal money at a rate outpacing most others.

 

[hog88]

TN, GA, MS, LA, WV...yes.

The south is dependent on Federal money at a rate outpacing most others.

Oh my lawd this idiotic argument again? Look at the numbers and where the money is actually going before you make yourself look any dumber. Plus since when is WV southern?

 

[UT_Dutchman]

LOL

You think TN, FL, TX and GA are welfare states?

What a da.

 

[C-south]

TN, GA, MS, LA, WV...yes.

The south is dependent on Federal money at a rate outpacing most others.

California approved a tax to fix homelessness. Finally they put some funds toward that to finally fix the problem.

 

[jwells]

Oh my lawd this idiotic argument again? Look at the numbers and where the money is actually going before you make yourself look any dumber. Plus since when is WV southern?

The money goes to the budget and then out to projects, gov't, and people. It doesn't change the fact that we rely on this money. If grants dry up, we're toast. We can't just make up that revenue. Cuts at the top = cuts at TN = cuts in Knox County. The federal government considers WV to be the South.
The Budget in Brief: Summary of Gov. Lee’s FY 2025 Recommended Budget - The Sycamore Institute.

 

[hog88]

The money goes to the budget and then out to projects, gov't, and people. It doesn't change the fact that we rely on this money. If grants dry up, we're toast. We can't just make up that revenue. Cuts at the top = cuts at TN = cuts in Knox County. The federal government considers WV to be the South.
The Budget in Brief: Summary of Gov. Lee’s FY 2025 Recommended Budget - The Sycamore Institute.

So I guess you are assuming that if the federal government was halved it wouldn't reduce the money it needs? Money that could stay at home and be spent more wisely and efficiently? It makes no sense for citizens of any state to send their money to the federal government only so their state governments can go beg for it back in the form of grants that come with strings.

 

[EastTNVol6240]

He really didn't.
In 2020 when Congress began spending, the US and most the rest of the world made a decision: Stave off recession now and fight inflation later. Post-Covid inflation was a known thing. Now, fighting inflation? The US did better than basically everyone. Unemployment is down 2.6% vs Nov 2020 and the Stockmarket rose.

Inflation like we saw sucks, but it's literally the offset from people staying employed in 2020-2022 coupled with corporate BS seeing how far they could squeeze the consumer and blame it on "inflation."

Like, it's basic economics.

What did happen? Perception. People perceived that things were bad because of inflation because they didn't consider they'd be worse with recession nor did the consider how the US was doing vs the world to really grasp that we were on the front foot fighting it here.

What will wreck the economy? Trump's proposed tariffs and federal agency cuts. You'll get that recession.

Funny how people like yourself like to ignore the impacts of policy and regulation and call it “basic economics”. If decisions and regulation didn’t impact pricing then why even have a president? Just let it all flow in since they obviously don’t affect it.

 

[jwells]

Funny how people like yourself like to ignore the impacts of policy and regulation and call it “basic economics”. If decisions and regulation didn’t impact pricing then why even have a president? Just let it all flow in since they obviously don’t affect it.

While the Executive IS involved, you're giving all the credit or blame to the Pitcher instead of seeing what went on with the other players and what sort of team he was up against.

In this case, it IS basic economics that when Congress and the Fed made decisions to inject money to avert a recession they knew it would come with an inflationary period after. It was known. To whine that somehow Joe Biden caused it (or anyone else could have prevented it) is stupid, as that inflation ball was rolling under Trump and continued under Biden. And 2 different parties in charge of Congress.

And why have a president if they don't control economic decisions? Oh, I dunno, maybe Article II would help you there.

 

[jwells]

So I guess you are assuming that if the federal government was halved it wouldn't reduce the money it needs? Money that could stay at home and be spent more wisely and efficiently? It makes no sense for citizens of any state to send their money to the federal government only so their state governments can go beg for it back in the form of grants that come with strings.

Yes. Even if we halved it, it would need all the money it currently does as we spend in a deficit. There wouldn't be money staying at home. The Federal government would just borrow less. And Tennessee sends in less than it gets back, like many red states.

 

[LSU-SIU]

over 1/3 of the TN budget is federal government money.

Most of the federal government receipts come from the people of the State through legislative agreements. The federal government technically doesn't even need to tax as they have the ability of the printing press.

I seriously doubt any administration is going to stop the flow of funds.

 

[LouderVol]

Mars is a bit nippy so that pressure shell would have to be well insulated. It seems very expensive and impractical to use a place that is so close to Earth and less livable than Earth as an escape gateway. Or does it have something needed for interstellar travel that Earth doesn't have?

the end goal isn't Mars. Mars is just the next step. its a proof of concept if nothing else. supporting full time life far enough away from earth without any real emergency lifeline has to happen before we can take the next step.

I doubt we would live above ground on Mars. digging down avoids a lot of issues, and protects from others. and would likely be a consistent reality the further we get away from earth. it would allow for training and testing above ground, without risking the lives of everyone below.

mars also has less gravity, so acting as a staging ground for the next set of expansion would be easier from Mars than from earth. so i doubt we are colonizing mars like we have colonized the earth. I think it will be like the little islands in the pacific. a safe spot to land, transfer goods, and go on to the next major stopping point. I could see Mars as the "star port" for earth, the colony focused on the inter/intrasellar industries.

mars also puts us a lot closer to the asteroid belt, and there are already plans/talk about space mining. much more feasible from Mars than from Earth. you are cutting travel distance in half, and reducing the necessary propulsion to get away from the planet surface.

the moon is tidally locked, and orbits the earth at an astronomically small distance, limiting the reach of additional missions from there. the moon is also a lot more minerally similar, probably not the right word, at least with the current understanding of the formation of the moon. so we wouldn't gain to much there, where mars will have a good bit of difference.

 

[volbound1700]

the end goal isn't Mars. Mars is just the next step. its a proof of concept if nothing else. supporting full time life far enough away from earth without any real emergency lifeline has to happen before we can take the next step.

I doubt we would live above ground on Mars. digging down avoids a lot of issues, and protects from others. and would likely be a consistent reality the further we get away from earth. it would allow for training and testing above ground, without risking the lives of everyone below.

mars also has less gravity, so acting as a staging ground for the next set of expansion would be easier from Mars than from earth. so i doubt we are colonizing mars like we have colonized the earth. I think it will be like the little islands in the pacific. a safe spot to land, transfer goods, and go on to the next major stopping point. I could see Mars as the "star port" for earth, the colony focused on the inter/intrasellar industries.

mars also puts us a lot closer to the asteroid belt, and there are already plans/talk about space mining. much more feasible from Mars than from Earth. you are cutting travel distance in half, and reducing the necessary propulsion to get away from the planet surface.

the moon is tidally locked, and orbits the earth at an astronomically small distance, limiting the reach of additional missions from there. the moon is also a lot more minerally similar, probably not the right word, at least with the current understanding of the formation of the moon. so we wouldn't gain to much there, where mars will have a good bit of difference.

Agree. Mars (and to a lesser extent the Moon) are just spring boards for space travel. Some of the asteroids and moons of Jupiter actually have more value to humanity with their resources.

Issue is that there really isn't any body, outside of Earth, in our solar system that is great from a habitability stand point. Now some of these bodies have very valuable resources for mining.

 

[LouderVol]

Your option 3 is rife with unsupported suppositions. "We do not understand how it could be - but we've been created, therefore there must be a god/designer."

You've simply dressed up a god-of-gaps fallacy to explain away our ignorance.

Nevertheless - either you're bogged down by an argument into infinite regress of an ultimate creator or you must admit that a creator isn't required. These are the only logical choices.

I don't think so, or at least you haven't presented a comprehensive enough argument to support this statement.

the material/energy of the plane of existence we reside in, doesn't preclude other planes of existence outside of that material/energy existence. so there doesn't "have" to be infinite regress. the creator could simply exist outside of that.

and I am not sure how/why a explaining/defining a creators role is necessary to explain the current existence we have.

 

[LouderVol]

Agree. Mars (and to a lesser extent the Moon) are just spring boards for space travel. Some of the asteroids and moons of Jupiter actually have more value to humanity with their resources.

Issue is that there really isn't any body, outside of Earth, in our solar system that is great from a habitability stand point. Now some of these bodies have very valuable resources for mining.

I don't think the focus, at least at first, would ever be to make the above ground portion of a non-earth planet habitable. that is too much. making some pods underground habitable isn't nearly as difficult, and would work naturally with mining those resources.

 

[UT_Dutchman]

I don't think the focus, at least at first, would ever be to make the above ground portion of a non-earth planet habitable. that is too much. making some pods underground habitable isn't nearly as difficult, and would work naturally with mining those resources.

Plus most places we would go probably do not have an atmosphere like ours that can ward off space particles. Underground would definitely be the safest option.

 

[OrangeTsar]

Agree. Mars (and to a lesser extent the Moon) are just spring boards for space travel. Some of the asteroids and moons of Jupiter actually have more value to humanity with their resources.

Issue is that there really isn't any body, outside of Earth, in our solar system that is great from a habitability stand point. Now some of these bodies have very valuable resources for mining.

I think actually the best option in our solar system for pure habitability is Venus. As Long as you accept living in the air instead of on the surface

 

[Septic]

I don't think so, or at least you haven't presented a comprehensive enough argument to support this statement.

the material/energy of the plane of existence we reside in, doesn't preclude other planes of existence outside of that material/energy existence. so there doesn't "have" to be infinite regress. the creator could simply exist outside of that.

and I am not sure how/why a explaining/defining a creators role is necessary to explain the current existence we have.

The argument is that something can't come from nothing. It's not any more complicated than that despite inserting other dimensions and special circumstances.

It still regresses to who/what created the "creator" in the other "plane of existence?" You can't just shoehorn selective adherence into the argument to circumvent the argument.

An inability to reconcile our reality or filling that hole with a 'designer beyond our comprehension' is nothing more than starting with an answer and backing into the question.

I stand by my premise that either something can come from nothing, and a creator isn't required. Or you must defend the position for there being an ultimate creator without special pleading away the infinite regress argument.

 

[OrangeTsar]

The argument is that something can't come from nothing. It's not any more complicated than that despite inserting other dimensions and special circumstances.

It still regresses to who/what created the "creator" in the other "plane of existence?" You can't just shoehorn selective adherence into the argument to circumvent the argument.

An inability to reconcile our reality or filling that hole with a 'designer beyond our comprehension' is nothing more than starting with an answer and backing into the question.

I stand by my premise that either something can come from nothing, and a creator isn't required. Or you must defend the position for there being an ultimate creator without special pleading away the infinite regress argument.

„Creator“ only has meaning in reference to time. A being that exists outside of time has no need of being created as there never was a „time“ for that being to not exist and need „creating“.
The infinite regress argument is a red herring in that it tries to fit timelessness into the language of time.
It’s the logical equivalent of division by zero.

 

[rjd970]

I don't think so, or at least you haven't presented a comprehensive enough argument to support this statement.

the material/energy of the plane of existence we reside in, doesn't preclude other planes of existence outside of that material/energy existence. so there doesn't "have" to be infinite regress. the creator could simply exist outside of that.

and I am not sure how/why a explaining/defining a creators role is necessary to explain the current existence we have.

If the creator exists out of that, then it had to come from somewhere. You can't escape infinite regress by arbitrarily stopping the regress so it fits your answer.

Maybe the explanation is existence in that different plane is just a fundamental property of this universe we can't comprehend. It goes back to my point, whatever argument you propose for a creator in an infinite regress can also just be applied to just the universe itself.

This is nothing more than our brains necessitating a beginning because we are experiencing the passage of time and something has to come from somewhere/something. But we know time isn't behaving like we perceive it because the math breaks when you approach the beginning, and we know time is relative and not steady and linear. Newton's equations work extremely well in our everyday reality, until you approach the speed of light at which case they no longer work.

Like I said before, a creator may be necessary for our reality to make sense, but our reality is a very special case and not a totality of what the universe really is.

 

[LouderVol]

The argument is that something can't come from nothing. It's not any more complicated than that despite inserting other dimensions and special circumstances.

It still regresses to who/what created the "creator" in the other "plane of existence?" You can't just shoehorn selective adherence into the argument to circumvent the argument.

An inability to reconcile our reality or filling that hole with a 'designer beyond our comprehension' is nothing more than starting with an answer and backing into the question.

I stand by my premise that either something can come from nothing, and a creator isn't required. Or you must defend the position for there being an ultimate creator without special pleading away the infinite regress argument.

the issue is our current understanding of science doesn't include anything to say something outside of matter and or energy couldn't create matter or energy. so there isn't a scientific argument to be made either way.

it makes sense for matter and energy to have a timeline, a beginning and or end. entropy, momentum, and so forth. all or at least most of our physical "laws" require change to get differences. inert matter or energy isn't going to suddenly decide one day to start the process of creating the universe across however many time lines its happened. something, or someone, outside of matter and energy wouldn't have to have a similar beginning, or end. or again we have no scientific argument either way. but they/it could still influence matter/energy as that initial spark without invalidating any rules of science as we understand it.

science still has several questions where a "creator" fits. call it a hypothesis. but for as unscientific as it is the Bible offers a very scientific explanation for how things came to be, and to a people far removed from that level of science at the time. to me that understanding represents at least the possibility of a real creator.

yeah the specifics of the bibles creation story don't make a lot of sense. but in a simplified version, its dead on. and simplified in a manner that makes sense to explain it to a group of people far removed from the science of those discoveries.

at first there was nothing, and everything was void. sounds like pre-big bang
then something changed, and God said let there be light. the big bang explosion would have been pretty bright with all the hot gasses.
god separated the light from the darkness. stars were the first celestial bodies to form.
then god separated the earth from the void. this fits in with the accepted accretion theory.
god then separated the lands from the seas. at various points the earth has been completely covered with water, and from a singular vantage point one watching the earth and plate tectonics would watch land rise from the seas.
god then brought forth life, in the form of plants. thats pretty consistent with evolution. especially considering the first life didn't move around a whole lot, and it wasn't until pretty recently that we understood coral reefs to be animals and not plants, so I think objectively you can see some confusion that they weren't the exact modern plants we see today.
god then separated the light in the sky into two, one for the day, one for the night. we know the moon formed well after the earth. now whether or not it happened after basic life/plant life formed who knows, so I will count this against creation story (1)
then god brought forth life from the oceans. I think evolution says complex animal life did begin in the seas.
then god brought forth the birds, evolution doesn't really support birds before land animals so this is the second wrong (2).
then god brought forth the land animals, this fits.
then lastly god brought forth humans, considering we evolved from the land animals this seems pretty spot on.

the biggest complaints are typically the times, everything was done in 6 days, obviously thats not correct, but considering the days in the creation story started before the sun or the earth, its pretty clear those days aren't the almost 24hr days we think of. and it also plays pretty well with the teachings on God, about his time being different than ours, so a day to him isn't a 24hr period, seems like a reasonable translation.

so really the only two wrongs in the creation story was the first formation of life being before the moon or not. I could be pedantic about this point, but I am willing to grant it as a wrong. and then birds before land creatures. considering everything else that is relatively minor for stone age people to just randomly think up. that level of understanding from prehistoric times till now indicates some level of knowledge a rando wouldn't have. other cultures have creation stories that get kinda close. but I don't know of any that get as particularly close, yet admittedly flawed, as the bible, so it wasn't even some shared understanding across all of humanity. that understanding seems to be evidence of a higher power. now is that higher power a bearded man in the clouds? probably not.

 

[Septic]

„Creator“ only has meaning in reference to time. A being that exists outside of time has no need of being created as there never was a „time“ for that being to not exist and need „creating“.
The infinite regress argument is a red herring in that it tries to fit timelessness into the language of time.
It’s the logical equivalent of division by zero.

Says who?

Do you just get to make up rules as you go along?

"Since it doesn't fit my narrative, I'll just create my own realty of what is and isn't subject to time and existence"

 

[Septic]

the issue is our current understanding of science doesn't include anything to say something outside of matter and or energy couldn't create matter or energy. so there isn't a scientific argument to be made either way.

it makes sense for matter and energy to have a timeline, a beginning and or end. entropy, momentum, and so forth. all or at least most of our physical "laws" require change to get differences. inert matter or energy isn't going to suddenly decide one day to start the process of creating the universe across however many time lines its happened. something, or someone, outside of matter and energy wouldn't have to have a similar beginning, or end. or again we have no scientific argument either way. but they/it could still influence matter/energy as that initial spark without invalidating any rules of science as we understand it.

science still has several questions where a "creator" fits. call it a hypothesis. but for as unscientific as it is the Bible offers a very scientific explanation for how things came to be, and to a people far removed from that level of science at the time. to me that understanding represents at least the possibility of a real creator.

yeah the specifics of the bibles creation story don't make a lot of sense. but in a simplified version, its dead on. and simplified in a manner that makes sense to explain it to a group of people far removed from the science of those discoveries.

at first there was nothing, and everything was void. sounds like pre-big bang
then something changed, and God said let there be light. the big bang explosion would have been pretty bright with all the hot gasses.
god separated the light from the darkness. stars were the first celestial bodies to form.
then god separated the earth from the void. this fits in with the accepted accretion theory.
god then separated the lands from the seas. at various points the earth has been completely covered with water, and from a singular vantage point one watching the earth and plate tectonics would watch land rise from the seas.
god then brought forth life, in the form of plants. thats pretty consistent with evolution. especially considering the first life didn't move around a whole lot, and it wasn't until pretty recently that we understood coral reefs to be animals and not plants, so I think objectively you can see some confusion that they weren't the exact modern plants we see today.
god then separated the light in the sky into two, one for the day, one for the night. we know the moon formed well after the earth. now whether or not it happened after basic life/plant life formed who knows, so I will count this against creation story (1)
then god brought forth life from the oceans. I think evolution says complex animal life did begin in the seas.
then god brought forth the birds, evolution doesn't really support birds before land animals so this is the second wrong (2).
then god brought forth the land animals, this fits.
then lastly god brought forth humans, considering we evolved from the land animals this seems pretty spot on.

the biggest complaints are typically the times, everything was done in 6 days, obviously thats not correct, but considering the days in the creation story started before the sun or the earth, its pretty clear those days aren't the almost 24hr days we think of. and it also plays pretty well with the teachings on God, about his time being different than ours, so a day to him isn't a 24hr period, seems like a reasonable translation.

so really the only two wrongs in the creation story was the first formation of life being before the moon or not. I could be pedantic about this point, but I am willing to grant it as a wrong. and then birds before land creatures. considering everything else that is relatively minor for stone age people to just randomly think up. that level of understanding from prehistoric times till now indicates some level of knowledge a rando wouldn't have. other cultures have creation stories that get kinda close. but I don't know of any that get as particularly close, yet admittedly flawed, as the bible, so it wasn't even some shared understanding across all of humanity. that understanding seems to be evidence of a higher power. now is that higher power a bearded man in the clouds? probably not.

Not being able to explain something using our current understanding of "science" doesn't mean we can shoehorn "god" into the gaps of our current understanding.

If something can't come from nothing, it's intellectually lazy and is completely unconvincing to just yell "magic."

 

[C-south]

Not being able to explain something using our current understanding of "science" doesn't mean we can shoehorn "god" into the gaps of our current understanding.

If something can't come from nothing, it's intellectually lazy and is completely unconvincing to just yell "magic."

Legally “act of god” is used as the reasoning to label many events.

 

[OrangeTsar]

Says who?

Do you just get to make up rules as you go along?

"Since it doesn't fit my narrative, I'll just create my own realty of what is and isn't subject to time and existence"

It’s not making up rules. It is simple logic. Creation means that something begins to exist that didn’t exist BEFORE. The word “before” only has meaning in relation to time. So when you are pointing out the assumed need of an infinite regression of “creators” of subsequent creators; you are necessarily implying that time existed before there was time. In a timeless existence before time began, there is no logical reason to see a need for a creator of a creator because it is nonsensical.
It really isn’t hard to understand. Any concept related to time is meaningless in a state in which time doesn’t exist. There is no “before time” because “before” requires time