Semantically this doesn't contradict the possibility of OMVs, but doesn't logically prove anything either. So Premise 2 remains unproven. As long as it's unproven, Craig cannot claim his conclusion proven, even if you both know in your minds that it's true. Even if you're right in your knowledge that god is real, you have to admit that this particular formulation of the argument fails to prove it.

The argument does not just rest upon the fact that there are UMVs, although their existence is actually positive evidence for OMVs. The reason being, UMVs are exactly what you should expect to find if OMVs do exist. You're acting like OMVs are removed from human experience, and that is not true; although they are objectively determined (by God), they are subjectively experienced. They would be in fact ingrained into human beings. Which leads to the other part of the argument, which is that we all have an innate sense of right and wrong. I apprehend an objective moral realm which imposes itself upon my moral choices. It tells me that some things are absolutely wrong, and this sense precedes my opinions. So the reason why there are UMVs is because of this innate sense of right and wrong that everyone has, which aren't determined by mere opinion. This is sufficient evidence in my opinion to establish that UMVs are OMVs, in which case premise 2 stands.

You've misread my statements. I first said that disproven beliefs/theories are not on par with unproven beliefs/theories. Demonstrating that my theories aren't proven (or even provable) doesn't make them equal with beliefs that cannot be rationally held. Then I said that many believers annoyingly think it's a victory to point out that my beliefs aren't provable in response to my doing the same to theirs, when I had never made any claim that mine were absolutely true, but they had.

This isn't a relevant issue in this discussion. I have good reasons for what I believe, which I can sufficiently demonstrate. Remember, I used to hold the same beliefs you do, or near to them, about origins and so forth. And when I became a Christian, I was willing to integrate them into my faith. I was convinced to change my mind based on the shockingly weak evidence they are founded on, not because of a leap of faith.

And by "evidence", I'm going to infer from the context that you mean "proof". Scientific theories are not proven, and most are unprovable, but there's mountains of objective evidence that "suggests" scientific theories are true, but none whatsoever to suggest any single religious belief is true. Sometimes the theories change too as their early incarnations are proven incorrect or incomplete, as Einstein did to Newton, and as the folks at CERN may be doing to Einstein right now. That's the way of science, and it's the strength of science, not the weakenss. What I'm not comfortable with is religious beliefs/theories that are internally unchallengeable due to a part of the theory itself -- it's own infallibility. Imagine if science was based on the premise that by definition none of it's theories are false. Laughable, right? That's what I think of religion.

There is plenty of evidence which suggests that God created the universe. Before the big bang theory, scientists believed in the steady state theory which postulated a static and eternal universe. Because it was accepted as fact, they would use it to scoff and ridicule anyone who dared to suggest the Universe had a beginning. Yet, they were all wrong and the creationists were right. If they had listened to them, they would have made the discovery much earlier. Robert Wilson, one of people who discovered the CMBR that confirmed the theory, said this:

"Certainly there was something that set it all off. Certainly, if you are religious, I can’t think of a better theory of the origin of the universe to match with Genesis"

This isn't science evidence and creation evidence. It's all the same evidence. The difference is that we are interpreting it differently, and that is through the lens of our respective worldviews.

You also miss out on the fact that the ultimate goal of science is to discover a theory of everything. It is seeking towards that very notion of infallibility that you are scoffing at. That Christians already claim to have it is no mark against Christianity; it would only actually be evidence of the superiority of its truth, or not. Consider this quote by Robert Jastrow, a noted Astronomer:

"Now we see how the astronomical evidence supports the biblical view of the origin of the world....the essential elements in the astronomical and biblical accounts of Genesis are the same. Consider the enormousness of the problem : Science has proved that the universe exploded into being at a certain moment. It asks: 'What cause produced this effect? Who or what put the matter or energy into the universe?' And science cannot answer these questions. "For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountain of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries."

Your beliefs lack proof. But you claim yours have proof. I claim yours don't. This is the main issue raised by this video, and the only one I'm interested in laying to rest. Everything else in the other several comment threads you and I have going is just conjecture, an exchange of ideas. It's not logically sound of me to say that your beliefs are unproven simply because I have different ones. Mine might be total crap and not stand up to any scrutiny, so I don't present them here.

Well, I am sure we will come to your beliefs eventually. In the meantime, I am happy to provide evidence for what I believe, and you can evaluate it as we go along.

>>

>> ^messenger>> ^shinyblurry:
<comment reference link>

@shinyblurry

Aside
I'm not trying to win the argument, and it isn't important for me to do so. I am only interested in what you believe and having a fruitful dialogue.

In my reply, I gave a refutation to your objection as well as noting that I would like to advance to the actual argument. I don't have a problem with logical argumentation, I just was somewhat disheartened to see you were trying to kill off the argument without engaging it.

Now I get what you're saying. Check my next message. It's going to be full of that stuff. This message thread is only about the validity of Craig's proof. And when you reply, I'd prefer it if you kept your replies to the two messages separate, as logical discourse must be kept separate from and exchange of personally held opinions, especially where the lines between subjective and objective are being defined. Thanks!

The issue
Yes, I agree that even if every human decided that torturing babies was good, it would still be objectively evil.

Great. Then you'll agree we now have to determine logically that objective moral values, as defined by Craig, exist, or fail to do so. You must also agree that if we fail to prove that they exist by our definition, then we cannot say that Craig has proved his conclusion. I state again in advance that Craig's failure to make his case will not constitute disproof of any god, nor of the existence of objective moral values.

That there are universal moral values in humanity is clearly evidence for and not against the existence of objective moral values. To turn around and say that just because they exist doesn't automatically mean they are objective isn't an argument. You need to flesh this out. Are you saying there aren't any objective moral values? That it isn't absolutely wrong to torture babies for fun?

Let's clearly separate the two meanings of "evidence", which are: "indication/support/things that point to/suggest/etc." (what courts call circumstantial evidence); and "proof".

That there are universal moral values in humanity stands well enough proven. I agree this doesn't in any way contradict the possibility of objective moral values. It could be taken as evidence supporting OMVs if it weren't the only evidence for proposing OMVs to begin with (besides the evidence of God, of course, which is what is in contention here, so can't be taken as evidence). Weaker even than a tautological proof, this is a kind of tautological suggestion. And it sure doesn't prove the case. Lack of disproof is not equal to proof, nor even an indication of truth, on its own.

"Universal" means everybody has them (like large brains, or opinions). "Objective" means they exist outside of and independent of humans.

Let's say, Statement O = "Objective moral values exist", and Statement U = "Universal moral values exist".

We have already proven that U is true.
I think we also agree: "If O, then U." (Or, only as long as humans exist, for those who want to quibble)

This does not entail, "If U then O," as the two terms OMV and UMV are not functionally equivalent, even though the existence of one of them entails the existence of the other. So you cannot determine from the existence of UMVs that OMVs must exist. The two terms are not interchangeable.

Semantically this doesn't contradict the possibility of OMVs, but doesn't logically prove anything either. So Premise 2 remains unproven. As long as it's unproven, Craig cannot claim his conclusion proven, even if you both know in your minds that it's true. Even if you're right in your knowledge that god is real, you have to admit that this particular formulation of the argument fails to prove it.

Back to the aside
I would say though that if you accuse some of having beliefs which lack evidence, and you yourself have beliefs that lack evidence, then there is indeed a parity, no matter how internally consistent you believe you're being.

You've misread my statements. I first said that disproven beliefs/theories are not on par with unproven beliefs/theories. Demonstrating that my theories aren't proven (or even provable) doesn't make them equal with beliefs that cannot be rationally held. Then I said that many believers annoyingly think it's a victory to point out that my beliefs aren't provable in response to my doing the same to theirs, when I had never made any claim that mine were absolutely true, but they had.

And by "evidence", I'm going to infer from the context that you mean "proof". Scientific theories are not proven, and most are unprovable, but there's mountains of objective evidence that "suggests" scientific theories are true, but none whatsoever to suggest any single religious belief is true. Sometimes the theories change too as their early incarnations are proven incorrect or incomplete, as Einstein did to Newton, and as the folks at CERN may be doing to Einstein right now. That's the way of science, and it's the strength of science, not the weakenss. What I'm not comfortable with is religious beliefs/theories that are internally unchallengeable due to a part of the theory itself -- it's own infallibility. Imagine if science was based on the premise that by definition none of it's theories are false. Laughable, right? That's what I think of religion.

Your beliefs lack proof. But you claim yours have proof. I claim yours don't. This is the main issue raised by this video, and the only one I'm interested in laying to rest. Everything else in the other several comment threads you and I have going is just conjecture, an exchange of ideas. It's not logically sound of me to say that your beliefs are unproven simply because I have different ones. Mine might be total crap and not stand up to any scrutiny, so I don't present them here.

That's twice now that someone has brought up this bizarre "equivalence" notion. Is someone teaching this nonsense somewhere? We already have an equivalence relation on the real numbers. It's called "equal."

When you define the value of a limit, you aren't defining a new hitherto unknown equivalence relation on the reals. You are defining a new function, whose output gives an actual number (where defined). These numbers are equal to other numbers, or they are not.

By the way, I've reverted to discussing the actual definitions of mathematics as they exist today. Some people still seem to want to discuss what math is real and what math isn't. Ask a mathematician, and they'll likely say "all of it" or "none of it" and direct you to the philosophy department.

Religious people may not be idiots (and there are many cases of known historical, very intelligent figures, who were also religious).

HOWEVER, they have a complete lack of coherence and are completely intellectualy dishonest, and that's just fact. If you rationalize even a part of the myths from your religion, and set some of them aside as being not real, you are being incoherent with your so called faith.

Either you believe your religion to be what it is, and what it was, and that ALL the religious books it's based on are real and the absolute truth, or you're not really believing it, just making a version you feel confortable with.

So, there are actually only 3 possible stands on religion: You are either a zealot (and unfortunately there are a lot); you are a complete incoherent intellectualy dishonest person; or you are an agnotic or atheist.

Honestly I just think people are a bunch of cowards. Mind you I AM afraid of death. I just don't let that fear cloud my judgement and reasoning. People are too afraid to face the reality of their own mortality and dismiss the inherent bullshity nature of religion.

Feelings come and go..if it was just feelings I wouldn't have the faith in God that I do..there were many times it would have been much easier not to believe..and many feelings that came along that were powerful and should have swept my belief in God away if that's all my faith was about..but God has always been there, eternal and unchanging..providing stability in the midst of the chaos..providing truth that is real and tangibly useful in life.

It depends on what you think the nature of truth is..whether it is relative or absolute to you..because in the relative truth world, feelings are king..you are always running a race you can never win. in the world of absolute truth, feelings are like shifting sand..they aren't a foundation for what is real..you must plant yourself on a rock to be well grounded

In reply to this comment by Crunchy:
>> ^shinyblurry:

Well, if I am psychotic I don't have any symptoms. I don't have hallucinations or hear voices, nor am I at all paranoid. My thoughts and feelings are organized and stable. I obey all laws, those of society and those from God. I have empathy for others, compassion for their plights, and generally love and care for my fellow man. I am emotionally stable and can relate to others and form relationships. If I am psychotic, I am the rare well adjusted empathetic type.
My initial experience opened me to an awareness of the spiritual. It started out as an awareness of energy. That in the moment, one could perceive the energy which was flowing through all things. Through other people, through objects, through the room or space you are in..that there was a tangible vibrational signature to everything. This is somewhat described in much of the new age literature.
After getting used to this, God unequivicably showed me He was there. He did this by instructing me in the Spirit about who He is. He showed me how He had always been there my entire life, and that He loved me. He showed me His omnipresence in the moment, that He was always working behind the scenes to bring all things together to His will..and by all things I mean everything, everywhere. He showed me He was the unifying principle underlying reality.
He also taught me He is the God of the bible. He taught me He is a triune God. He taught me there is a messiash, ie, someone whose job it is to save the world. He taught me about good and evil. He showed me that Satan is real and that he has a host of demons which suborindate people to his will and can even possess them utterly. That and many other things before I even knew anything about Christianity.
I couldn't ignore God if I tried..it would be a joke. I would have to pretend He didn't exist. Even still, all I would have to do is look outside and the illusion would be shattered. It is true what this scripture says:
Romans 1:20
For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.
So that's a little bit about it. The most important thing I learned is that God loves us and wants to give us a real future, ie eternal life. All he requires is that we turn from our evil and acknowledge our responsibility to Him to live a moral life. Two things make someone a Christian and saves you..believing in your heart that Jesus rose from the dead, and confessing that He is your Lord and Savior. He died for our sins so that we could be redeemed, and because of that, is worthy of all praise.

<em>>> <a rel="nofollow" href='http://videosift.com/member/shinyblurry#comment-1231303'>^Crunchy</a>:<br />Hi, big fan... Ive seen your comments on some sifts and well... they've been interesting and when reading your profile i came across this <BR><BR>"10 years ago I was where you are now. I've was agnostic for the majority of my life. I thought truth was relative, humanism was superior, and was a strict materialist who saw no evidence for spirit or God. Then God woke me up and showed me He is there. God is more real to me than my own reflection in a mirror. I'm here because God commanded me to preach the gospel, and because I care about my fellow man. I am here out of love for God and love for people, and that alone. "<BR><BR>What scared me is that you say that you've been "one of us" and then god appeared and gave commands directly to you, point being you experienced something supernatural.<BR><BR>Now my first reaction was, oh god i hope i dont become bat shit and experience "supernatural" things one day, which seemd plausible since you said you've been one of us.<BR><BR>But then i remembered what i know about the human mind and psychosis. When a person is in a psychosis he/she is deemd mentally insane and has lost contact with reality. "Funny" thing is though, that the person is not aware of it, and so does not feel that there is anything wrong with him/her and might get frustrated about why people think he/she is insane.<BR><BR>Now there are alot of things that can create a psychosis but im not gonna start listing, if youre interested you can google it.<BR><BR>There are no hard lines when it comes to the human mind, theres no 100% insane or 100% sane, everyone have most of the mental illneses to some small extent. And we can witness symptoms of these diseases in most people to some extent. (Denial<BR><BR>The mind is a tricky thing, it has lots of funny defence mechanisms (you guessed it, psychosis), and if you dont know enough of your brain and how it functions, it can royally screw you over one day.<BR><BR>So... to me it sounds like you've experienced something traumatic and suffer from a psychosis, I am however interested in hearing about what turned you religious, how did god wake you up and show you that he is there, and i notice you write he with a capital H so why is he a he <IMG class=smiley src="http://cdn.videosift.com/cdm/emoticon/tongue.gif"><BR><BR>Im sorry to say but if you dont tell me more about your experience, in other words convince me that what you experienced wasnt a mental brakedown, im gonna continue believing that youre bat shit and ignore you<BR><BR>You can always argue that im the one who is psychotic, but then you cant convince my because im in denial<BR></em>


The thing is that emotions are much stronger in controlling trains of thought than logic, why is why depressesion is so common and when in a depression you think of only sad things, which is why medication is prescribed, its not to make people numb (which alot of people seem to think) but to ease the pain temporarily so the person can think logically and not in the same trains of thoughts. And from my point of view it seems like you've confused emotions and mechanisms of your brain with the presence of a god (stephen fry talked a bit about this in the infamous stephen fry on god and gods video didn't he ?)

Now that is my opinion, ive created that from the experience and "knowledge" ive gathered in my lifetime regarding the human mind, philosophy and religion etc. Its gonna take alot to change my view on this, and I think it might be even harder to change your view of what really happend and what is going on, with the god and what not.

So, I guess we can just agree to disagree?

http://videosift.com/video/It-Gets-Better-Gets-Real-you-tell-it-woman

my new favorite....

I'm trying to figure out whether you are being ironic or not. My first instinct was for irony, but reading your other posts I am no longer sure. If you are for real you are a sad indictment of the educational system you mocked in another post.

>> ^TangledThorns:

This is dumb beyond belief. Sarah Palin is an intelligent patriot, Gina is not and a bad actress to boot. Problem, Videosifters?

>> ^Drachen_Jager:

The motion blur on the ball is completely different from the blur on the other objects in the first camera's field of view. Also, when the camera moves rapidly you can see the field lines on every object but the floating ball.
Conclusion: it was added as a post effect by someone who wasn't terribly skilled. Probably the other video has a similar story but once one is debunked, why bother with the other.
I do like how the guy in the second video says, "whoa!" an instant BEFORE it moves.


I was going to point this out as it wouldn't be hard to figure out the velocity of said object. It appears to be different when falling and shooting up on both. As noted the second had an edit which I would assume, if real, you'd keep (might have been the news station, but they never said why).

P.S. - Shooting up on the second, it would certainly have issues with an inertia change of that magnitude. Otherwise I'm going for a retarded ball lightning that is amazingly stable!

>> ^Mcboinkens:

I'm not sure why people would fear death. Do any of you remember what it was like before you were born? No? Exactly. It would be much more useful fearing an accident that leaves you permanently injured, or slowly growing crazy as you age.


Hasn't it always been a more intellectual fear, not one of pain, but of being non-existent. Sure the bits of matter you were comprised of will be around, but everything that made you, you will be long gone. Even the memories people have of you will no do the real you no real justice. I don't have the view myself, but I understand it for what it is.

But back to the video, the WHOLE time he was being inflammatory(hilarious), I don't know why you would single out one event over another. I mean, just the phrase, "Thank God I am an atheist" is hilarious(inflammatory), he couldn't of been serious, it would defy the sentence (that is an awesome version of the lier's paradox actually).

>> ^Gallowflak:

>> ^Jinx:
Man, I wish so much that wasn't recorded with a fisheye lense. Kinda spoiled it for me tbh.

Are you for real? You live in an age where you get to see that and you're fucking complaining?

Yeah, yeah I am. Next time your computer crashes mid essay remember not to complain ok honey.

Oh, and its the fact its such an amazing sight that makes the distortion all the more frustrating.

>> ^Jinx:

Man, I wish so much that wasn't recorded with a fisheye lense. Kinda spoiled it for me tbh.


Are you for real? You live in an age where you get to see that and you're fucking complaining?

>> ^Chinspinigcra:

Anybody else annoyed at the fact that some people think this is real? Learn about what happens to the human body while quickly rising and lowering in deep water. Look up human body density and how close it is to water. Then you simply must say eureka as you uncover the workings of flotation. Honest to god, just being afraid of swimming in water, at all, is complete nonsense. That is like a bird being afraid to hop around on the ground.


Um, have you SEEN actual free diving, people ACTUALLY do stuff like this. People DO dive to stupidly deep depths unaided by and breathing apparatus, just look at the records 124 Meters is the record for a dive with no use of adding and then removing weights... They DO do things like this.

As he said, this isn't real, you can tell by the watch and the weight on his back that is there sometimes and not in others.

But it's still showing REAL descents and ascents here.

Learn about reality before spouting off shit next time.

Allow me to answer.

When you are saying that the universe is controlled by a zombie vampire that demands cannibalize of all his worshipers on Sunday, YOU are under the burden of providing proof of such a silly explanation of how the universe works, not me.

Just as Dawkins says, why not Vishnu, why not Xenu, why not the Magic juju at the bottom of the ocean, why not the Flying Spaghetti Monster? See the problem with you "faithful" people is that you want to put the burden of proving that something by definition magical and unprovable on me the rational person.

Sorry, if you are going to believe that the tooth fairy is real, YOU have to show me the tooth fairy DNA. I don't have to WASTE my time searching for evidence in YOUR particular delusion when the world is FULL of other, funnier ones I'd rather search for if I was forced to.

As for re-inventing the wheel, I'm not saying we need to do that. If you re-read my post you'll see that I have no problem with secularizing the good teaching and removing them from all the mumbo jumbo. Be nice to each other, check. Don't kill people, check. Worship the magic doodaddie or you go to the magical pit of fire for all eternity... sorry, no check for you.

Anything else?

>> ^SDGundamX:

>> ^ponceleon:
Sure it is fair to dismiss ALL religion. Just because you are a little crazy in that you believe in magical forces controlling the universe doesn't make it ANY more legitimate.
[edit]
I do good things because it is better for all of us to be good to each other, not because some magical being threatens me if I don't do what he says. Who is a better person, the one who does good deeds because he wants to do good deeds, or the one who does them because he's afraid of the consequences if he doesn't?

I'm only going to address these two parts of your post, so sorry for the edit.
First part. Do you have any legitimate proof that magical forces aren't controlling the universe? I highly doubt it... you would have published said proof and won the Nobel prize by now.
What science has given us are facts about the world we live in, but that collection of facts can be interpreted in multiple ways. Where some people see only random chaos others see intelligent organization. Clearly, your interpretation of the facts is that there cannot possibly be any divine being or beings or any "mystical" forces. And that's fine! But surely you must realize that this is your interpretation? That other interpretations are possible? Were you to demand everyone to believe your interpretation (as Dawkins does) you would be no better than the Fundamentalists that both you and he despise.
Second part. What exactly is "doing good things?" That is precisely the question most religions strive to answer. You feel you can come up with the answers for yourself. I respect that! But others feel: why re-invent the wheel? People have been exploring this question (and many others like, "What is the meaning of life?") through religion and philosophy for centuries. They choose to look to other places for answers and they should be free to do so. In fact, I think we all should do a bit of introspection on questions like this more often and instead of blindly trying to force others to see our opinion, engage others in open and honest dialogue. Most hostility towards religion comes precisely because there are those who refuse to engage in honest dialogue, thereby giving themselves and religion in general a bad name.
In closing, I just want to say that nobody thinks unquestioning belief is a good thing. Faith is not the same thing as unquestioning belief. Faith is trust, and trust comes from experience. You yourself, ponceleon, have faith--faith in yourself and your own moral code that I'm assuming stems from your own personal experiencese. That is exactly the same way it is for the bulk of religious people (with the exception of the radicals and fundamentalists I mentioned earlier). Most religious people believe not because of some threat or because they no longer question things, but because their experiences in life have given them confidence that their interpretation of things is correct.

>> ^choggie:
"corporate think tanks, blogs, public relations firms" are the same places that fuel both sides dystop....you have made no point, you simply react to a nay-sayer with the same bullshit script-This is NOT an issue about anything else BUT, "follow the money"....Al Gore would have been the same brand of turd as any of them, creating empire and wealth and consolidating it for those who run the show.
Global Warming....Climate Change, no matter what the fuck you call it, it's obvious on this site and many others that there are still folks who think they have a clue as to what the fuck is going on based on the so-called findings of so-called experts.....Why not ask yourselves the questions instead of parroting answers. Could the nuclear furnace that appears on the horizon everyday have anything to do with climate change?? Could it be possible that pumping megawatts of energy into the ionosphere by the Dept of Defense have anything to do with erratic weather conditions? Could it all be a fucking hoax designed to further enslave the gullible populace(s) worldwide with the burden of so-called, carbon emission taxes?
There's a reason why carbon is not taxed yet....because people with a clue stand against the absolute absurdity of it. Want to eliminate the carbon footprints you leave??? STOP BUYING WORTHLESS PLASTIC SHIT, STOP EATING NON-NUTRITIVE FUCKING FOODS, AND FILLING YOUR HEADS WITH FUCKING INFOTAINMENT!!


There is consensus on this, regardless of how it fits into your world view. No internationally recognized scientific body holds a dissenting view on the reality of climate change. Not that there aren't exaggerated claims, politics and falsehoods from those who support the science side of the argument, but their actions do not discredit any of the standing research or the overwhelming consensus that climate change is real.

You are correct in saying I am ignorant of the specifics (as are you), which is why I choose take my 'bullshit script' from the 'so called experts' who have dedicated their lives to the study of climate change. You are free to take your 'bullshit script' from 'non experts' if you like, but it comes at the cost of your credibility, and doubly so when you make goofball AlexJonesian claims about ENSLAVING THE WORLD!!!!1!!

On the surface, a phony global climate change scare would seem to be a pretty complicated and esoteric means of enslaving the world. Don't you think there might be better, more efficient ways of putting us all in bondage? Buying governments? Building high tech mercenary armies? Destroying economies and then offering aid at a large premium? Destroying democracy under the banner of 'individual rights' and then picking off those powerless 'individuals' one by one? Creating massive unemployment to exploit the existing labor force via supply and demand? Creating some kind of deadly plague with an expensive proprietary antidote? These are just off the top of my head, but all of them would seem to be simpler, more logical, more direct avenues for world enslavement. I don't know, I'm no expert on world slaving.

I've got some logical issues with the conspiracy theorists that maybe you can help me clear up:

-How can you 'follow the money' and end up siding with industrialist polluters who stand to lose a lot of money if they are forced to clean up their act?

-How were the masterminds of this nefarious plot able to coordinate and control the research of many thousands of scientists from all over the world over many decades?

-How do you get from 'climate change' to world enslavement?

-Are the underpants gnomes somehow involved in this conspiracy?

1) Create a global climate change scare
2) ??????
3) Enslave the world

These conspiracy theories are vague, illogical and contradictory. In your response you throw out several possibilities a) It's real and caused solely by the sun (which is like saying tornadoes are caused solely by wind and have nothing to do with weather fronts) b) It's real and was intentionally created by the military (for some mysterious reason) c) It's a hoax to enslave the world through carbon taxes (but only polluting corporations pay these taxes).

It all comes out like a bunch of hastily though out nonsense, especially coming from someone who seems to think he has a monopoly on the truth. I'd love to hear an attempt to fashion these random bits into something vaguely plausible. Who might have engineered such a plot? How did they get the ball rolling? What was their overall plan from start to finish? How specifically might they parlay this into mass slavery? What do they intend to do with this massive slave force?

hmmmm village1diot-I ain't the least bit patriotic in a traditional sense and my spirituality???...Do ya even have a clue? If you knew half of the real, you'd perhaps have some perspective worthy of sharing with the world regarding religion. You can't simply stop a machine that large with name-calling and teasing-same with the contrived and controlled so-called economics of the planet. Clever avater you got there-

Did you design that for the edification of the masses or as a preachy little jab at those you feel are beneath yourself in ultra-awareness of the phenomenological world?

So religion is a tool...so's Madison Avenue, professional sports, and Hollywood; agenda-oriented tools of control for gullible meatbots.