Ten oz

A fetus by definition is fertilized. An egg alone or sp3rm alone is not a fetus. I see not contradiction or blurring of the lines.

Eggs sold in the supermarket are not fertilized. They do not develop and if left alone would never become a chicken.http://www.localharvest.org/blog/26992/entry/facts_about_fertilized_chicken_eggs

Vegetarians eat dairy and eggs (eggs as produced in the united states are not fertilized). That provides all the b12 humans need and is more efficient because one animal can produce milk or eggs repeatedly over time whereas eating the animal is a one time use of that animal. What do we need that dairy products and eggs don't provide? Vegetarian diets include dairy products and eggs. Vegetarians are not vegans. I agree that humans will not give up meat unless forced by decree and/or circumstances. However I do believe the circumstances will come. The population of the united states in projection to by 100 million over the next 50yrs. The world population will grow by over 3 billion during the same time. http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/02/03/10-projections-for-the-global-population-in-2050/ As it stands today we are challanged by available land, water, energy, etc. the cost of meat is already on the raise. Beef is at a record high even when adjusted for inflation http://money.cnn.com/2014/04/14/news/economy/beef-prices/ As for the seafood industry commercial fish populations are down 90% since the 50's http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2003/05/0515_030515_fishdecline.html What do they do with those animals now? Leather, glue, pet food, fish food, fertilizers, etc, etc, etc. We do not bury them.

Vegetarians drink milk, eat cheese, yogurt, and other animal products.

I am considering the long term. I eat meat, you eat meat, and that isn't changing. This thread is about the future. Not about now. I think with population growth, running out of fossil fuels, and climate change future generations aren't going to change considerably. All manner of human consumption will have to change. It is obvious that humans will wait until the last possible minute but change in inevitable. I am not advocated anyone in here consider being a vegetarian. I am trying to have a conversation about the future. A time beyond our life time.

^ I don't intend to force people to eat anything. It is a philosophical question about the future. I don't imagine it is something that would ever happen in my life time. I myself eat meat. Good post!By future I am referencing generations beyond ours. Today the idea of a global vegetarian diet can not be achieved. Much like we will continue to use fossil fuels until we run out we too will continue to eat meat until we can. Eventually the calorie comparison and population growth will meet critical mass. That is when a change will come.

^^^^ I don't believe infinity is a true concept so nothing is eternally never ending. The full explanation for is involved. http://www.thelawofphysics.com/table-of-contents/infinity The basic way I consider infinity is by messuring our time reality against it. If infinity existed than how large would every part of it be, infinite? Half or a quarter of infinity could not be a finite messurement less all of infinity was finite which creates a paradox. Our universe has some basic laws. For all we know "nothing" has some basic laws too. It isn't something we can study or observe. It appears that creating nothing when something already exists is as different to imagine as creating something when nothing exists. IMHO that implies there is actually continuity between the two.

"Forcing" people? Our diets are merely a reflection of culture. There are 500 million vegetarians in India and another 50 million in China.http://articles.economictimes.indiatimes.com/2014-02-01/news/46897985_1_faye-wong-vegetarian-meat-dishes People become accustom to the diet they are raised on. That is why the average person in the south eats more fried food while an average person in New York eats more pizza. Travel the world and the differences in diets grows considerably. Once a vegetarian diet was realized and people were raised that way I don't think it would require any force in terms of strict regulations to maintain. If it is the most efficient and sustainable solution why shouldn't it be the most desirable one? As an advanced species do you think there is value in us finding ways to eat that don't involve killing animals? I eat chicken and fish. So I am not passing judgement. Just wonder from time to time if our taking of life without true necessity is ethical within the basic rules of nature. In the wild animals primarily only kill out of neccessity and with the burden of risk. As an intelligent species who don't need to kill any animal should we be killing them anyway out of preference? Killing them even though it is less efficient and sustainable?

No, I am not looking for a reason to believe. I enjoy seeing how others think. I find trying to understand people useful. I don't need to believe or agree with an agrument to enjoy it. I don't believe in ghosts but I love a good ghosts story. I grew up in this predominately religious and superstitious world so I have a lot of feelings about those things despite having zero belief in them as literal realities.

I wasn't sure where to put this thread. It is an environmental and political question about our long term sustainability. Grains and a variety of vegetables require less water, energy, and land to produce than meat. We often hear in the media that going green means buying fluorescent lights and driving hybrids but long term will humans need to alter our diets? Does anyone in here believe in the future everyone will be vegetarian? "It takes, on average, 28 calories of fossil fuel energy to produce 1 calorie of meat protein for human consumption, [whereas] it takes only 3.3 calories of fossil- fuel energy to produce 1 calorie of protein from grain for human consumption. " David Pimentel, Cornell University "A report from the International Water Management Institute, noting that 840 million of the worlds people remain undernourished, recommends finding ways to produce more food using less water. The report notes that it takes 550 liters of water to produce enough flour for one loaf of bread in developing countriesbut up to 7,000 liters of water to produce 100 grams of beef. " UN Commission on Sustainable Development, WaterMore Nutrition Per Drop, 2004 http://www.worldwatch.org/node/549 Btw, I am not a vegetarian. I don't eat red meat but I do eat fish and chicken.

I don't believe in god and as such do not believe there is a scientific answer to questions pertaining to god. The question is primarily a philosophical one. A religious one if you consider religion as it own form of thought. The how can not be answered. I am not seeking a scienctific response. If it could that would mean god were real or at least there was a high probability that he/she/it existed. I think it is normal in our society to ask why when we don't understand something we can make sense of. I don't understand god. I don't understand the need for a god. So am asking why. When someone behave oddly I ask why. I am looking for a reason for the behavior. When I see something work I ask how. I am looking for the process. I apologize if the question isn't stated as clearly as you think it should be. Unlike god I am limited in my ability to express my thoughts, lol. I think, by now, you have an idea of the type of discussion I am looking to have. I will concede to which ever question you'd prefer to move things along.

An idea can be right or wrong, supported or unsupported, confusing or clear, poorly stated or well put, inaccurate or accurate, so on and so forth. An idea can not be extra wrong or extra inaccurate. Words like moronic and idiotic give a degree to how bad a person thinks something is which typically not useful and almost never neccessary IMO.

As previously posted I happily accept philosophical responses. This discussion is open to be about whatever posters choose to make. Whether that is the purpose of god as an idea, purpose of god as actual being, or the physics that could possibly allow for a god. You say I can't conflate the two but that assumes something about either is already known. When humans first looked to the sky and asked why the sun went away at night they did not know there was a mechanism behind it. Their why question was legitimately a why question considering they had no concept of how. I have no concept of god and am asking why. I am also open to why coming in any form just as explanations for where the sun went at night once came in the form of gods battling in the sky and etc. As Auresius posted why is asking for a reason which leads to the next question which is "does god exist". That reason can be anything the poster finds compelling. How demands a linear response IMO.

I agree. However I think you left out important ideological/emotional things like racial bias. It is impossible to talk about entitlements in this country without people blowing racial dog whistles.Unfortunately a lot of great ideas have already been presented by both major parties. Understanding that is to understand that the development of a better healthcare plan will not succeed. The other issues must be addressed before any action can be taken on healthcare. Gerrymandering of congress, corperate personhood, immigration reform, and a laundry list of other issues have to be resolved first.

You are correct that how and why aren't the same thing. However if I were to start a thread that asked WHY the sun goes away at night and returns in the morning I doubt anyone would argue the semantics of the question. Posters would just explain the answer. For the context of this discussion I think asking why would there would be a god is relatively the same question as how could there be a god. I am not looking for a solely scientific answer. I would gladly read a philosophical one. Thus far all I have seen are rejections to the question. If god can't be questioned, can't be studied, can't be understood, and can't be known than god must not be real. That isn't to say that a good agrument for god spontaneously would make god real. A good agrument for god at least makes god a viable thing. Even people with blind faith developed that faith for a reason. Faith doesn't equal infinity. Good post. I appreciate it. I agree with the connection you have made between questions.

The agrument for the Big Bang and evolution has been made a million times over. I am not looking to argue about if the Big Bang happened or how life evolved without a creator. Religious debates always get steered in that direction. It is always science put on trail and never God. My question reverses that. My conclusion that there is not a god in based on not seeing any evidence of or reason why there would be one. Asking the question of why provides an opportunity for a reason to be presented. As of yet no reason has. Arguments against my question have been presented but that isn't a reason for a god.

Not to be a nuisance but you ignored my last response to you. I listed attempts made by FDR, Eisenhower, LBJ, Nixon, Clinton, etc to nationalize healthcare in the European model you seem advocating. My question to you is why do you think all those attempts have failed? I personal like the european model and desperately wish we would adopt it. My question isn't challange whether or not the system could work. I know that it could. It has already been proven in other countries.

Krauss also argues that the universe is energy neutral. If an event stimulated quatum fluctuation we wouldn't have a neutral universe because to energy of a creation event would exist. For the ease of trying to think about linearly I normally consider it in terms of difference of potential. Two points of differing potential attempt to balance. If there were nothing that would be an extreme point of potential difference to anything and everything. Such a strong potential difference to anything that any fluctuation would produce enough energy to create a universe.

I agree people often agrue that god does exist. Very passionately at that. My question isn't if there is a God, it's why? If I were to ask why there are mountains posters most like answer by exampling tectonic plate movement. This is of course because mountains are real and have been studied. Even for things that aren't real like the Loch ness monster there are theories for why. People study the origins of the loch and attempt to explain how a large animal may have come to exist there. Others study fish populations and the Loch's mineral content looking for an explanation. For God why is not explained or explored. You disagree so I challange you, a polite challange of course, to make a case for why.

I have often seen this line of thought repeated. That being African American helped Obama or that being a female will help Hilary Clinton. That idea may feel true but voting demographics are surprisingly stable and Obama's numbers do not differ much from Kerry, Gore, or Bill Clinton's. Percentage of votes for each major voting Demographic: Obama 08' Kerry 04' Gore 00' Clinton 96' White - 43 White - 41 White - 42 White - 44 Black - 95 Black - 88 Black - 90 Black - 84 Hispanic - 67 Hispanic - 53 Hispanic - 62 Hispanic - 73 Asian - 62 Asian - 56 Asian - 55 Asian - 44 Female total - 56 Female total - 51 Female total - 54 Female total - 55 Male total - 49 Male total - 44 Male total - 43 Male total - 44 http://www.ropercenter.uconn.edu/elections/presidential/presidential_election.html If you factor in things like incumbency, issues of the moment (war, economics, etc), style of candidates, etc the voting totals are surprisingly similar. Amongst the largest voting block, white voters, Obama did a single percent better than Al Gore and a single percent worse than Bill Clinton. So the white guilt voter turning out to make Obama the first African American President is a FARCE. Obama's largest gain in voting demographics over other Democratics was amongst Asians and they only make up 3% of the total voting turn out. Republican's will lose in 2016. Not because Hilary is a women but because the demographics are against them. White males are the only demographic Republicans win and that is why they have only won the popular vote once in the last 6 presidential election. Sarah Palin was on the McCain ticket and had they won she would've been the first female Vice President. That fact did not help McCain with women. Obama still women the women vote by a normal margin Democrats always win by amongst female voters.

This is close to the point I am seeking to make by creating this thread. No one, including religious folks, ever agrue why there would be a god. They merely argue that there is one. To attempt to explain or understand God is seen as futile. Blind faith is insisted upon as a substitute for answers. The implication is obvious. God doesn't exist.

I agree.

I believe the Western European models work. I wish we could apply a nonprofit model to our system. It is just that I have watched this battle play out for a long while and have concluded that what is lacking is will and not a more perfect solution. It is the same problem we have with climate change. It isn't that there isn't enough evidence or it hasn't been explained clearly enough the problem is people don't care. FDR tried in 1933 - http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/27551992?uid=2460338175&uid=2460337935&uid=2129&uid=2&uid=70&uid=4&uid=83&uid=63&sid=21104096981747 Truman in 1945 - http://www.trumanlibrary.org/anniversaries/healthprogram.htm Eisenhower in 1955 - http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=10399 Lyndon Johnson settle for Medicare but want more in 1965 - http://www.ontheissues.org/celeb/Lyndon_Johnson_Health_Care.htm In 1972 Richard Nixon tried to push National Healthcare - http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=3757 In 1996 Bill Clinton tried - http://www.clintonlibrary.gov/188 The problem is not lack of good ideas. The problem isn't that we haven't have a charismatic enough president to pitch it. The problem isn't whether the idea comes from a democrat or a republican. Once a person acknowledge those facts then the question becomes; what is the problem? Why haven't we moved on this issue? I agree we have a bad system. I agree the western European model is superior. I however don't believe as a country we have the will to change it as demonstrated by all the previous failed attempts. There is another problem, a pre-existing condition you might say, that prevents us from moving forward. This implies Doctors account for the bulk of the money in the system. They don't. Lavish Doctor pay is not where our healthcare money is going. If anything more Doctors, technicians, nurses, and so on would improve their work conditions which would have an all around positive impact on how they feel about their chosen profession. As it stands today why would anyone want to be an emergency room Doctor? The hours and work load are deplorable. More doctors, specialists, and so on would mean more attention and time spent with each patient. This alone would cut down on many of the more expensive things like X-rays, MRI's, prescriptions, and all types of tests that are ordered often because doctors don't have time to spend with patients. It is easier just to order a bunch of tests and move on. True story. I ruptured my left Achillies playing basketball two years ago. I knew immediately what it was. I went to the emergency room. Upon check in I identified my Achillies as the problem. Prior to seeing a Doctor they wheeled me in for X-ray's ,then had a nurse put me in a splint, I was offered me pain pill every ten minutes, and ultimately after about 6 hours saw a Doctor who promptly told me sports injuries weren't her thing and scheduled me an othopedic appointment. Three days later I went to my appointment. The doctor asked me what I thought was wrong. I told him I had a ruptured achilles. He took one look at it and said, "yep". I had surgery a week later. Point of my story is that thousands of dollars were spent (paid by my insurane) wheeling me around the emergency room when ultimately they had no one there who could properly diagnose me. Had a orthopedic been available when I arrived a lot of money and time could've been saved.

Because this thread is in General Philosophy and not Physics I assume the question as asked isnt seeking a mathematical answer. That and I am not smart enough to create one. Lol Can nothing not exist? What was a car before it was invented? The material existed but a car did not. The idea and technology for a car did not. Before an idea, thought, feeling, or etc is had they are nothing. Of course an idea doesn't come from nothing. It comes from a mind which is clearly something. Minds come from births, which comes from cell replication, and that all started when life began. Before earth had life was life nothing? Of course life too like an idea came from something....molecules, which came from elements, which themselves came from stars......blah, blah, blah.....big bang. To know if nothing can, has, or ever will exist we must first understand how anything exists. What was the state of all things prior to a dense point? Good dicussion but sadly I claim to have a provable answer.

I don't think Jeb has a chance. Bush 43's favorables amongst moderates and independents has not risen since he's left office. Conservatives who are unhappy being out of office may claim to view Bush 43 favorably but I think everyone who follows politics knows Bush 43 was a terrible president. Jeb may be able to pull in Romney level votes but that clearly isn't enough to win. I am no fan of Hilary but believe she will win easily if she runs. I wish Elizabeth Warren would run but it doesn't seem likely to happen.