Let's discuss something!

  • Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.

    You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

V

Village Atheist

Guest
Doug_E_Fresh said:
So then by your understanding, space, time, matter and energy are properties within the universe, not of the universe itself? That makes sense as to why you probably believe there is no need for God to be involved in its creation. I wonder though, how does one wrestle with the fact that these things just "are"? If universe/multiverse have no cause, no "change agent", how does one answer the question as to why there is something at all, rather than nothing at all? It seems to me that everything has a cause. Even space, time, matter, and energy would then be "caused" by the universe/multiverse in some way.
When it comes down to it, I don't think that question's answerable in any meaningful sense. I mean we can talk about cause and effect, but cause and effect is dependent on time (causes have to precede their effects). When it comes to questions like "what causes time to exist" we have no vocabulary nor understanding to even begin to understand exactly what we're asking, never mind what the answer is.

But if you think about it, that's always going to be the case. If we did have some kind of explanation for what "caused" the universe to exist (and the M-Brane model comes the closest) then that would by definition be talking about the conditions outside the universe. And then all you've done is move the question back a step - instead of asking what caused the universe to exist you're asking what caused the conditions outside the universe to exist. The question hasn't gone away in the slightest.

And to my mind, positing a god of some kind as the "creator" of the universe doesn't answer the question either. Again it just moves it back a step so instead of asking what cause the universe to exist your asking what caused that god (whether you're talking about the Christian God or some other definition of a god) to exist. And that's not to mention the fact that if time is a measure within the universe, how is it possible for something to have "created" it since the act of creation is dependent on time? In fact it's made the question worse because you're asking about things that happened "before" time existed, which involves inventing some kind of higher dimensional "meta-time" to even make sense.

Usually, when this comes up in apologetics (where someone's trying to use the Cosmological Argument for God) this is where things break down into special pleading. The person insisting that a god must have created the universe ends up arguing that the particular god they're talking about doesn't need a cause because they're "eternal" or "timeless" or "outside time" or some such vague term, but when pressed they are unable to explain what that these terms actually mean - or able to explain why (if time is a measure of events within the universe rather than a property of the universe) such descriptors can't equally apply to the universe itself.

Basically... CAN you say that a "timeless" or "eternal" god created the universe? Sure, of course you can. Do you NEED to say that a "timeless" or "eternal" god created the universe? No, because those attributes either describe the universe itself (in which case there is no need for it to have a creator) or they're undefined terms just used to hand-wave away the argument about what created that creator. Eventually you end up just having to state that something just IS, without the need to have been created. And saying "The universe just IS" is no less valid than saying "The universe needs a creator, but that creator just IS".

So to sum up, why the universe exists is an interesting but fundamentally unanswerable philosophical question, and positing a creator god of some kind doesn't help. The question still remains in full force. Therefore there's no need to posit a creator god. If you believe in such a god for other reasons, then that's fine. But if you don't already believe in one then the cosmological argument isn't going to convince you that there must be one.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Raining

ezekiel

Member
Aug 14, 2013
272
10
18
Faith
Country
United States
You understand these things because of the field of study you are in. These vibrations synchronize all biological processes of all objects of animate and inanimate nature. And because they are stationary waves by their physical nature, they can enter into resonance cooperation with other waves. Some can kill some can even heal some can castrate, you are fully knowing about these things in nature rather of the flesh, but what about the Spirit by the design of the things in nature wouldn't it's likeness be in the spirit. Think about this, a little test, set back and close your eye's set your mind on your own frequency.
Ok now do the same but this time with these words in you mind. Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever.For all flesh is as grass, and all the glory of man as the flower of grass. The grass withereth, and the flower thereof falleth away:But the word of the Lord endureth for ever. And this is the word which by the gospel is preached unto you. You will notice that you frequency has changed. You felt it but you know not from where it came or goes.

The resonances from long ago are still ringing today.
 
V

Village Atheist

Guest
ezekiel said:
You understand these things because of the field of study you are in. These vibrations synchronize all biological processes of all objects of animate and inanimate nature.
Well, I now more fully understand that you're not talking about physics at least!

Forgive me if I've got you wrong, but now that you've clarified that you're talking about "vibrations" I recognise that you're talking about mysticism but dressing it up in sciency sounding words in a way that I've seen lots of times before.

For example here you're talking about vibrations synchronising all biological processes of all objects of animate and inanimate nature. This SOUNDS sciency, but those words in that order would have a specific meaning if they were being used with their normal scientific definitions - and if they were then the sentence would be oxymoronic. For a start, inanimate objects don't HAVE biological processes - that's the very definition of "inanimate"!

Clearly you're not using those words with their normal meanings, so let's step back a bit and see what you're actually trying to tell me - what you actually mean when you use these words...

What are these "vibrations" that you are talking about? What is doing the vibrating?

Which biological processes are you talking about?

When you say that the vibrations "synchronise" these biological processes, what do you mean when you use that word?

And because they are stationary waves by their physical nature, they can enter into resonance cooperation with other waves.
What do you mean here? What sort of waves are you talking about?

When you talk about "resonance cooperation with other waves", what do you mean? Do you mean constructive and destructive interference with other waves? Or are you talking about standing waves?

Some can kill some can even heal some can castrate, you are fully knowing about these things in nature rather of the flesh, but what about the Spirit by the design of the things in nature wouldn't it's likeness be in the spirit.
Again - what waves are we talking about? Obviously there are types of energy that can kill us or render us infertile - for example gamma waves or x-rays - but they're on the electromagnetic spectrum and everything else you've been talking about has referred to vibration - which is completely different type of energy (it's heat or sound, not electromagnetism).

And you've completely lost me when you get to "but what about the Spirit by the design of the things in nature wouldn't it's likeness be in the spirit". I haven't a clue what you're talking about there, I'm afraid.

Think about this, a little test, set back and close your eye's set your mind on your own frequency. Ok now do the same but this time with these words in you mind. Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever.For all flesh is as grass, and all the glory of man as the flower of grass. The grass withereth, and the flower thereof falleth away:But the word of the Lord endureth for ever. And this is the word which by the gospel is preached unto you. You will notice that you frequency has changed. You felt it but you know not from where it came or goes.
I don't have a "frequency" as far as I can tell, so unfortunately I can't set my mind on it. Again, you're going to have to explain what you mean here. What do you mean by "my frequency"? Are you still talking about the rate of vibration?

If so, why would thinking about a Bible verse alter the rate at which I vibrate?

I did actually close my eyes and think those words to myself (it took a couple of tries, because with my eyes closed I had to remember what they were!) but I didn't feel anything at all. I certainly didn't feel any kind of change of frequency of vibration (or any vibration at all for that matter!)
 
V

Village Atheist

Guest
Doug_E_Fresh said:
So just out of curiosity, do you find any arguments for the existence of God compelling? Such as objective morality? Fine-tuning of the universe?
Well obviously I don't find any of them compelling enough to make me believe in God - if I did then I wouldn't be an atheist, would I?

To give you a quick run-through of what I think of the most common ones:

First Cause Argument: This is the one we've been skirting around in this thread. Basically, either God needs a cause too or uncaused things "outside time" can exist in which case the universe itself counts, which obviates the need for God as a first cause.

Ontological Argument: This is just an exercise in semantics. It no more proves that God exists than "If 1+1=2 then I am Napoleon" proves that I'm the Emperor of France.

Objective Morality Argument: I think that the problem with this argument is easily shown by a variation the Euthryphro Dilemma. Basically, I've not been shown a mechanism by which objective morality could work with the existence of God that wouldn't also work without the existence of God. Personally, I don't think there's such a thing as objective morality anyway - but like Free Will, it's useful to pretend that there is as a polite fiction.

Transcendental Argument: This is just a more aggressive and insulting version of the Objective Morality Argument that appears to be designed to win an argument by shouting down the objector rather than by reasoning with them.

Teleological Argument: Arguments from design all suffer from two problems. Firstly, there's the anthropological principle - arguments that declare the universe to be fine tuned for our comfort ignore the fact that most of it is actively hostile to us and that if the "tuning" were different then we would be different and still asking the same question. Secondly, there's the small sample size. We can recognise things that are designed by comparing them with things that aren't designed. Unfortunately we only have the one universe, so we can't do that comparison.

I'm happy to talk about any of these in more detail if you particularly want to, although as I say - I don't find any of them compelling.
 

Doug_E_Fresh

gяελ нατ jεsμs ƒяεακ
Dec 7, 2013
101
8
18
31
Pennsylvania
dswdoctrine.wordpress.com
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
No argument alone is meant to "create belief" in God.But i was just curious as to what your thoughts are. you seem to be well read about them so I won't bother talking about them. Thanks for your input.
 

Raining

Member
Mar 31, 2013
41
0
18
64
Michigan
Faith
Other Faith
Country
United States
How do you maintain the belief there is not a entity out side of your time and space?
You seem to know a lot about things most would not care to observe.
Your also a good communicator, educated in higher education.


Village Atheist said:
Well obviously I don't find any of them compelling enough to make me believe in God - if I did then I wouldn't be an atheist, would I?

To give you a quick run-through of what I think of the most common ones:

First Cause Argument: This is the one we've been skirting around in this thread. Basically, either God needs a cause too or uncaused things "outside time" can exist in which case the universe itself counts, which obviates the need for God as a first cause.

Ontological Argument: This is just an exercise in semantics. It no more proves that God exists than "If 1+1=2 then I am Napoleon" proves that I'm the Emperor of France.

Objective Morality Argument: I think that the problem with this argument is easily shown by a variation the Euthryphro Dilemma. Basically, I've not been shown a mechanism by which objective morality could work with the existence of God that wouldn't also work without the existence of God. Personally, I don't think there's such a thing as objective morality anyway - but like Free Will, it's useful to pretend that there is as a polite fiction.

Transcendental Argument: This is just a more aggressive and insulting version of the Objective Morality Argument that appears to be designed to win an argument by shouting down the objector rather than by reasoning with them.

Teleological Argument: Arguments from design all suffer from two problems. Firstly, there's the anthropological principle - arguments that declare the universe to be fine tuned for our comfort ignore the fact that most of it is actively hostile to us and that if the "tuning" were different then we would be different and still asking the same question. Secondly, there's the small sample size. We can recognise things that are designed by comparing them with things that aren't designed. Unfortunately we only have the one universe, so we can't do that comparison.

I'm happy to talk about any of these in more detail if you particularly want to, although as I say - I don't find any of them compelling.
 

Raining

Member
Mar 31, 2013
41
0
18
64
Michigan
Faith
Other Faith
Country
United States
ezekiel said:
These vibrations synchronize all biological processes of all objects of animate and inanimate nature. And because they are stationary waves by their physical nature, they can enter into resonance cooperation with other waves.

Man found that the minerals on earth can communicate with each other.
You have to ask, how do quartz crystals react with energy?
What do we hear from them?
Quartz is the second most abundant mineral in the Earth's continental crust, after feldspar.


Sounds and understand the sounds men and women make.

Crystals for Communication
By Rachel Niemczyk​
“Say the right words with the right emphasis at the right time… oh, you can make men weep, or cry with joy. Change them. You can change people’s minds just with words. . .”​
—David Tennant as the Doctor, Doctor Who, “The Shakespearean Code”​
 

Barrd

His Humble Servant
Jul 27, 2015
2,992
54
0
73
...following a Jewish carpenter...
Trying to find "scientific proof" that there is a God is an exercise in futility. Science will never find "compelling evidence" that will lead you to a belief in God.
Science is about the physical realm around us, and is a wonderful and useful tool.
However, God is a spirit. This is something that is outside the realm of science.
To science, love is just a electrochemical reaction in your brain...as is faith. Now, most of us know that there is more to us than electrochemical reactions...but that is as far as science can go.
How, then, can anyone ever expect to find God by some kind of "scientific method"?
 
V

Village Atheist

Guest
Raining said:
How do you maintain the belief there is not a entity out side of your time and space?
It's possible that there could be all sorts of entities outside of our time and space; but since if there is anything outside it doesn't seem to have any effect on what's inside then I don't spend any significant time speculating on the possibility.

You seem to know a lot about things most would not care to observe.
Your also a good communicator, educated in higher education.
Thank you.

Raining said:
Man found that the minerals on earth can communicate with each other.
In what way? What do you mean when you say they communicate with each other?

You have to ask, how do quartz crystals react with energy?
What do we hear from them?
Quartz is the second most abundant mineral in the Earth's continental crust, after feldspar.
I don't have to ask. It's called piezoelectricity and is well understood. If you squeeze a quartz crystal it produces a small amount of electricity, and the reverse is also true - if you pass a small electric current through a quartz crystal it will expand slightly.

We don't "hear" anything from such crystals (unless we pass an intermittent current into them so that they expand and contract with a particular frequency - then we'll hear a sound of that same frequency, or at least we would if it were loud enough).
 
V

Village Atheist

Guest
The Barrd said:
Trying to find "scientific proof" that there is a God is an exercise in futility. Science will never find "compelling evidence" that will lead you to a belief in God.
Science is about the physical realm around us, and is a wonderful and useful tool.
However, God is a spirit. This is something that is outside the realm of science.
To science, love is just a electrochemical reaction in your brain...as is faith. Now, most of us know that there is more to us than electrochemical reactions...but that is as far as science can go.
How, then, can anyone ever expect to find God by some kind of "scientific method"?
I agree completely. That's why (to paraphrase what I said earlier in this discussion) that if you already believe in God for other reasons that's fine, but if you don't already believe in God then these arguments (the Ontological, Moral, Cosmological, etc.) won't convince you.
 
V

Village Atheist

Guest
Bibliocentrist said:
Atheist/"science" world don't/can't/won't care/help/save me from the Hell i am suffering.
I'm very sorry to hear that you're suffering at the moment.

You don't give any details (and I'm not going to press you for them since it might be something you don't feel comfortable talking about), so I can't really suggest anything other than to tell you that you have my sympathy.
 

Barrd

His Humble Servant
Jul 27, 2015
2,992
54
0
73
...following a Jewish carpenter...
Village Atheist said:
I agree completely. That's why (to paraphrase what I said earlier in this discussion) that if you already believe in God for other reasons that's fine, but if you don't already believe in God then these arguments (the Ontological, Moral, Cosmological, etc.) won't convince you.
No.
Faith is a matter of the heart.
Perhaps you haven't found it because you've been looking in the wrong places?
 

Bibliocentrist

New Member
Mar 15, 2008
147
2
0
50
Australasia
Village Atheist said:
I'm very sorry to hear that you're suffering at the moment.

You don't give any details (and I'm not going to press you for them since it might be something you don't feel comfortable talking about), so I can't really suggest anything other than to tell you that you have my sympathy.
Plenty of atheists/scientists/academics/experts/professionals here have known my details for years/decades/"life" and they haven't/won't/can't help/fix/solve. "Atheist/scientific/academic" world are so proud/over-confident/stuck-up because they are so smart/"scientific" (and think we are so dumb) (except some times when we are smarter/win). But througout all world and history humans are all mean/cruel/selfish dogs (incl evolution talks about harsh natural selection & survival of the fittest). The atheist/science world haven't and can't solve all the worlds problems (though they claim "we are getting there / will get there"). Though they will achieve a false golden age in the future, but it will only be a false and short one and only for some. There are always some victims/slaves/sideeffects (not to mention the people that died in the meantime/past). All medications have posionous ingredients and short/long-term sideeffects. The point is that if atheists are so right then why can't they save me/us. If atheists are god(s) then they should have all the attributes of God like Love.

Here is just one example from my hell: i have no clean running water here because the Atheists/scientists put fluoride and alluminium in my water. There is no artesian bore in this "city" only in the next city kms away, i can not get out cart water every week by hand and train and handtrolley. No one ("friends/family/professionals") will help except on pastor who will be retiring soon. I can not get a water filter as they smartly say, ther are problems with plumbing, and filtering is dangerous because takes good stuff out too and can put other bad stuff in.
The atheist/"science"/"expert"/"health professionals" answer? Medication or water filter or ask a church or oh fluoridated water isn't harmful or they ignore.
Now it is the atheists/"scientists"/"experts" fault in the first place because they are using a "scientific" easy answer because they don't want to change the public/collective and individual/self "lifestyle"/socio-economic system root issues. The atheists/sceptics/scientists make it a "science/health" issue all about "studies" and having to "prove" is/isn't harmful/beneficial. Yet the reall root issue is about sugar (that they pile in our foods), oral cleanlieness, diet (carbs), diet (nutrition), socio-economic inequalities/disadvantages.
Also, i can not eat out because of the sugar and fluoride in foods & drinks & water. This effects my social and "dating" life, yet the friends & women reject me instead of the real culprits.
 

Barrd

His Humble Servant
Jul 27, 2015
2,992
54
0
73
...following a Jewish carpenter...
Bibliocentrist said:
Plenty of atheists/scientists/academics/experts/professionals here have known my details for years/decades/"life" and they haven't/won't/can't help/fix/solve. "Atheist/scientific/academic" world are so proud/over-confident/stuck-up because they are so smart/"scientific" (and think we are so dumb) (except some times when we are smarter/win). But througout all world and history humans are all mean/cruel/selfish dogs (incl evolution talks about harsh natural selection & survival of the fittest). The atheist/science world haven't and can't solve all the worlds problems (though they claim "we are getting there / will get there"). Though they will achieve a false golden age in the future, but it will only be a false and short one and only for some. There are always some victims/slaves/sideeffects (not to mention the people that died in the meantime/past). All medications have posionous ingredients and short/long-term sideeffects. The point is that if atheists are so right then why can't they save me/us. If atheists are god(s) then they should have all the attributes of God like Love.

Here is just one example from my hell: i have no clean running water here because the Atheists/scientists put fluoride and alluminium in my water. There is no artesian bore in this "city" only in the next city kms away, i can not get out cart water every week by hand and train and handtrolley. No one ("friends/family/professionals") will help except on pastor who will be retiring soon. I can not get a water filter as they smartly say, ther are problems with plumbing, and filtering is dangerous because takes good stuff out too and can put other bad stuff in.
The atheist/"science"/"expert"/"health professionals" answer? Medication or water filter or ask a church or oh fluoridated water isn't harmful or they ignore.
Now it is the atheists/"scientists"/"experts" fault in the first place because they are using a "scientific" easy answer because they don't want to change the public/collective and individual/self "lifestyle"/socio-economic system root issues. The atheists/sceptics/scientists make it a "science/health" issue all about "studies" and having to "prove" is/isn't harmful/beneficial. Yet the reall root issue is about sugar (that they pile in our foods), oral cleanlieness, diet (carbs), diet (nutrition), socio-economic inequalities/disadvantages.
Also, i can not eat out because of the sugar and fluoride in foods & drinks & water. This effects my social and "dating" life, yet the friends & women reject me instead of the real culprits.
Huh?
 
V

Village Atheist

Guest
The Barrd said:
No.
Faith is a matter of the heart.
I'm not sure why you're saying "No", because we're agreeing with each other.

Perhaps you haven't found it because you've been looking in the wrong places?
Or perhaps I'm comfortable and happy as I am and I'm not looking for it at all.
 
V

Village Atheist

Guest
Bibliocentrist said:
Plenty of atheists/scientists/academics/experts/professionals here have known my details for years/decades/"life" and they haven't/won't/can't help/fix/solve. "Atheist/scientific/academic" world are so proud/over-confident/stuck-up because they are so smart/"scientific" (and think we are so dumb) (except some times when we are smarter/win). But througout all world and history humans are all mean/cruel/selfish dogs (incl evolution talks about harsh natural selection & survival of the fittest). The atheist/science world haven't and can't solve all the worlds problems (though they claim "we are getting there / will get there"). Though they will achieve a false golden age in the future, but it will only be a false and short one and only for some. There are always some victims/slaves/sideeffects (not to mention the people that died in the meantime/past). All medications have posionous ingredients and short/long-term sideeffects. The point is that if atheists are so right then why can't they save me/us. If atheists are god(s) then they should have all the attributes of God like Love.
I'm not sure why you think atheists being right should mean that atheists are somehow "gods". Atheists being right simply means that there are no gods, it doesn't say anything about people.

Can people (not just atheists) fix things? Sometimes, yes. But unfortunately not all the time. That has nothing to do with whether those people are theists or atheists.

Here is just one example from my hell: i have no clean running water here because the Atheists/scientists put fluoride and alluminium in my water. There is no artesian bore in this "city" only in the next city kms away, i can not get out cart water every week by hand and train and handtrolley. No one ("friends/family/professionals") will help except on pastor who will be retiring soon. I can not get a water filter as they smartly say, ther are problems with plumbing, and filtering is dangerous because takes good stuff out too and can put other bad stuff in.
The atheist/"science"/"expert"/"health professionals" answer? Medication or water filter or ask a church or oh fluoridated water isn't harmful or they ignore.
Now it is the atheists/"scientists"/"experts" fault in the first place because they are using a "scientific" easy answer because they don't want to change the public/collective and individual/self "lifestyle"/socio-economic system root issues. The atheists/sceptics/scientists make it a "science/health" issue all about "studies" and having to "prove" is/isn't harmful/beneficial. Yet the reall root issue is about sugar (that they pile in our foods), oral cleanlieness, diet (carbs), diet (nutrition), socio-economic inequalities/disadvantages.
Also, i can not eat out because of the sugar and fluoride in foods & drinks & water. This effects my social and "dating" life, yet the friends & women reject me instead of the real culprits.
Okay, so from this I glean that you're going to a lot of effort to drink bottled water because you don't like the fact that your local tap water is flouridated, and that you seem to have very strong views about sugar intake.

I'm not going to try to give you any advice about that because I'm completely unqualified to do so. My unqualified personal opinion is that it sounds like you're obsessing about these things far more than is healthy for you, and you should see a doctor or psychologist - someone who is qualified - to see if they can help. However, given what you're saying about the medical profession and "science" in general, I doubt that you'd be comfortable doing so.
 

Barrd

His Humble Servant
Jul 27, 2015
2,992
54
0
73
...following a Jewish carpenter...
Village Atheist said:
I'm not sure why you're saying "No", because we're agreeing with each other.


Or perhaps I'm comfortable and happy as I am and I'm not looking for it at all.
I was agreeing that these arguments will not convince you.
But yes, essentially we are agreeing.

Except I find it very said that you haven't found faith, or that you are content without it.
You seem like an intelligent person...someone I might get along with...
Unlike my atheist kid brother and his friends, who are always challenging me to show them "proof" only so that they can jeer at me when I tell them honestly that the kind of proof they are looking for does not exist.
Notice that I did not say that proof does not exist. However, for someone who is only concerned with the physical, material realm, such proof would be unconvincing.
As I said earlier...it is a matter of the heart...
 

Barrd

His Humble Servant
Jul 27, 2015
2,992
54
0
73
...following a Jewish carpenter...
Bibliocentrist said:
Plenty of atheists/scientists/academics/experts/professionals here have known my details for years/decades/"life" and they haven't/won't/can't help/fix/solve. "Atheist/scientific/academic" world are so proud/over-confident/stuck-up because they are so smart/"scientific" (and think we are so dumb) (except some times when we are smarter/win). But througout all world and history humans are all mean/cruel/selfish dogs (incl evolution talks about harsh natural selection & survival of the fittest). The atheist/science world haven't and can't solve all the worlds problems (though they claim "we are getting there / will get there"). Though they will achieve a false golden age in the future, but it will only be a false and short one and only for some. There are always some victims/slaves/sideeffects (not to mention the people that died in the meantime/past). All medications have posionous ingredients and short/long-term sideeffects. The point is that if atheists are so right then why can't they save me/us. If atheists are god(s) then they should have all the attributes of God like Love.

Here is just one example from my hell: i have no clean running water here because the Atheists/scientists put fluoride and alluminium in my water. There is no artesian bore in this "city" only in the next city kms away, i can not get out cart water every week by hand and train and handtrolley. No one ("friends/family/professionals") will help except on pastor who will be retiring soon. I can not get a water filter as they smartly say, ther are problems with plumbing, and filtering is dangerous because takes good stuff out too and can put other bad stuff in.
The atheist/"science"/"expert"/"health professionals" answer? Medication or water filter or ask a church or oh fluoridated water isn't harmful or they ignore.
Now it is the atheists/"scientists"/"experts" fault in the first place because they are using a "scientific" easy answer because they don't want to change the public/collective and individual/self "lifestyle"/socio-economic system root issues. The atheists/sceptics/scientists make it a "science/health" issue all about "studies" and having to "prove" is/isn't harmful/beneficial. Yet the reall root issue is about sugar (that they pile in our foods), oral cleanlieness, diet (carbs), diet (nutrition), socio-economic inequalities/disadvantages.
Also, i can not eat out because of the sugar and fluoride in foods & drinks & water. This effects my social and "dating" life, yet the friends & women reject me instead of the real culprits.
I'm not understanding your problem.
Are you, perhaps, allergic to fluoride? I've never heard of such a thing, but I won't say it's impossible. I have a friend who is allergic to, of all things, tomato seeds. She can eat ketchup or pizza or spaghetti sauce...as long as there are no seeds in it.
Also, if you don't like a lot of sugar piled in your food, you can always cook for yourself. You don't have to eat processed food, you know.
I don't see any great suffering here.
Am I missing something?