@shinyblurry

Therefore, the question is, how would you tell if you're in a Universe that God designed?

I would test it, if I could. By “God”, I’m assuming you’re still talking about Yahweh specifically, and not just any random god-type entity. If that’s the case, then I’ve already falsified the claim that the Bible is perfect, so that argument is gone. If you’re merely making a deist claim, then I can’t argue with you. I take no position on deism other than if some deity created the universe and set it in motion, I have no reason to believe it cares about humans, and it certainly has made no edicts that I perceive as to how I should live my life.

The real question is, why is either possibility more or less likely than the other? … leap of faith in favor of your atheistic naturalism... you have to discard your assumptions about what you have seen or haven't seen and think about this on a deeper level.

You’re not listening to me. Seriously. I do have ways of determining which story is more likely. Occam’s razor is the best for this problem. The complexities introduced by faith in Yahweh and the Bible are necessarily more complex than the problems they solve. They are also blind faith (I'm talking about the vast majority of the faithful, and about what you're recommending I do), which is willful self-delusion. The theories that physicists and biologists have come up with are quite convincing, especially if you understand how science works.

A created being should expect to find himself existing in an environment capable of creating him.

Agreed. I find myself in an environment in which my species was capable of evolving. It says nothing of how statistically improbable it is.

In the same way, you should be surprised to find yourself to be a created being in a finely tuned Universe. A finely tuned Universe should tip the scales of that evidence, if you are being honest about what you can really prove.

Disagree. I’m lucky that of all the possible combinations of molecules that could have come together to create our terrestrial environment, the right ones came together to create life, then the right DNA strands combined to eventually create me. I’m lucky, sure, but given the length of time we’ve had, there’s no reason I should be surprised, especially when there's no reason to assert that this is the only universe. You ask why multiple universes are more likely than a deity? Because you and I both know for sure there is at least one universe, so positing some more of them is less of a stretch than asserting a self-contradictory entity, alien to our objective experience, defying any consistent and meaningful description, so vastly complex that it cannot be properly understood, and so full of human failings that it looks man-made.

[me:]… it could be that 10^one trillion universes with different physical properties have formed and collapsed, and when a balanced one finally came out of the mix, it stuck around, and here we are.

[you:] It could be, except there is no evidence there is. Why is it you that can imagine an infinite number of hypothetical Universes with no evidence, but you object to supernatural creation as somehow being less plausible than that.

I’m sceptical of all your claims because that’s how I roll. I’m sceptical of everything, especially big claims. It’s the smartest way to avoid being duped. You have been telling me that I must believe in the one true thing that is true that is Yahweh and the Bible and creation because it’s true because it’s true because it’s true because it’s the only possibility. Now, I conceive of another possibility: my 10^trillion universes. You agree it’s possible, so there’s no reason for me to believe yours is necessarily true. If I have to choose between them, the one that doesn’t require the further explanation of a sentient deity more complex than 10^trillion universes is simpler. And even then, I DON’T HAVE TO CHOOSE one or the other. I can remain sceptical. To me, it’s foolish not to.

While we’re talking about being honest with ourselves, I’d like to hear it from you that the following things are *at least technically possible*: that Yahweh doesn’t exist; that your relationship with Yahweh is an illusion created by you inside your head because you are human and human minds are prone to occasional spectacular mistakes; that the Bible was created by deluded humans; that the universe is around 14 billion years old; that the Earth is around 4.5 billion years old; that life on Earth started 1-2 billion years ago; and that all species evolved from primitive life forms. To be clear, I’m not asking you to accept them as true or even probable, just state whether this collection of statements is possible or impossible.

Notice what George Wald said?

I notice that you only quote scientists out of context, or when they’re speaking poetically. I guarantee he never said that in a scientific paper. Life may be a wonder, not a miracle.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/physics/blog/2012/03/is-the-universe-fine-tuned-for-life/

Near the end, you’ll find this gem: “The history of physics has had that a lot, … Certain quantities have seemed inexplicable and fine-tuned, and once we understand them, they don’t seem to [be] so fine-tuned. We have to have some historical perspective.”

If you haven't done so already, watch the first 10-20 minutes of this: http://videosift.com/video/The-God-of-the-Gaps-Neil-deGrasse-Tyson. It's "creationism/intelligent design" laid bare as a position of weakness. Your "fine tuning" trope is part of "intelligent design" and has the same historical flaw.

They acknowledge there are only two possibilities, one being God, but since they hate that possibility more than they hate embracing the anthropic principle, they go with that instead, having absolutely no evidence to base that conclusion on. They simply don't want to acknowledge the obvious, which is that a finely tuned Universe is *much* stronger evidence for an omnipotent God than it is for multiple Universes.

What do you mean, “they hate that possibility”? Why should a scientist hate any possibility? If there were science that pointed to the real existence of God, that’s exactly the way their investigations would go. That’s what motivated early modern scientists – they believed unravelling the laws of the universe by experiment would reveal God’s nature. It was only when the scientific path of experimentation split conclusively away from the biblical account that anybody considered that religious faith and scientific endeavour might become separate enterprises.

As for the “much” stronger evidence, as stated in the article, every time scientists solve a mystery of something they thought was “finely tuned”, they realized that there is a much simpler explanation than God. Evolution, for instance, eliminates the question of "fine tuning" in life. “God” is a metaphor for “things outside my understanding”. Once they move within our understanding, nobody claims that they’re God anymore. And FWIW, some of the most famous scientists ever came to the same "Because God" conclusion, which held until someone else got past it and solved what they couldn't.

So to your conclusion, how do you figure that the appearance of fine tuning—which seems to go away when you look close enough—is stronger evidence? What is your rationale for the weighting so strongly in favour of God? Couldn't it be that we simply don’t know yet how the universe came to be the way it is? To me, that’s actually the most likely scenario, since that’s what’s happened with so many other erroneous theological claims, including by some of science’s greatest minds ever.

A limited temporal creature, trying to disprove Gods existence with his own corrupt reasoning is kind of laughable, isn't it?

Eh??? But in your last nine paragraphs, YOU yourself, a limited temporal creature, have been trying to prove God’s existence with your “fine tuning” argument (corrupt reasoning, like you say), even after you've repeatedly asserted in the other threads that the only possible evidence for God is that he’ll answer our prayers. Why are you bothering? It is laughable how inconsistent you’re being here.

Or perhaps He had sovereignly arranged for only insincere prayers or prayers outside of His will to be prayed for at that time which would give the results of the test the appearance of randomness.

Keep fishing. Either the patient being prayed for recovers or doesn't recover. If not, the sincere prayers weren't answered. Unless you’re suggesting God secretly removed the free will of the scientists and the people praying so that the tests would come back negative? Gimme a break.

The Jews are historically from Israel, and there is archaeological evidence to prove this. The reason they came back to Israel is because it is historically their homeland. Given the opportunity, they would have come back to Israel with or without the bible saying they were entitled to. The point is that they were predicted to come back, not only around the date that they did, but their migration pattern was in the exact order, their currency was predicted, their economic and agricultural condition was predicted, and many other things.

And all of this was written only after the prophesy was fulfilled. A little too convenient.

The 70 weeks are not concurrent, first of all.

I know. I'm assuming they were consecutive. How could 70 weeks be concurrent? That makes no sense at all. Even if you meant to say “not consecutive”, what does it mean to declare a time limit of 70 weeks if they're not consecutive? It means nothing. That time limit could extend to today. What's your source for saying they're not concurrent/consecutive/whatever?

Second, Jesus is the one who predicted the fall of Jerusalem:

Again, conveniently, this “prediction” doesn't appear in writing until after the fall of Jerusalem.

I'll rephrase this by saying, that Jesus fulfilled dozens of prophecies about the coming of the Messiah. Clearly, the impact of that Jesus has had on the world matches His claims about who He is.

Which clearly defined prophecies did he fulfil, not including ones that he knew about and could choose to do (like riding on a donkey)?

Christ speaks, however, and from that moment all generations belong to him.

Except for all the religions that aren't Christian. They don’t belong to him, and they have surely had enough time to hear his voice.

The other founders of religions had not the least conception of this mystic love which forms the essence of Christianity.

You really think that’s unique to Christianity? Do you know much about Islam? And I don't mean Western stereotypes of it. I mean, really know how normal Muslim people live their lives.

The metaphor that is used for testing is that of impurities being refined out of gold or silver. Tests are to prove your sincerity, not necessarily what God knows.

I get it. It’s a test of sincerity. For whom? Who is going to read and understand the results? To whom is the sincerity proven that didn't know it before, requiring a test? I think you’re avoiding admitting it’s God because that would mean there’s something God doesn't know.

What's the stuff about 'reclaiming their homeland'? I thought they were just going for the loot.

You tell me that you understand science, and were once very scientific, then you drop --excuse me-- a giant turd like this. I could as easily say, "If the Theory of Evolution is correct, then all living creatures are evidence of Theory of Evolution's correctness," and it would still be a meaningless statement because if we already know something is true (as in the premise), then evidence is redundant. It's precisely when we don't know something that evidence becomes useful. This is probably the hardest part about talking to you -- your weak grasp on how science and logic work. And don't take this as an internet ad hom. I'm being straight with you, really. It's not your strong suit. Own it.

Actually, I think that it is you who is demonstrating a weak grasp of logic here. It seems that what I was getting at went right over your head. What you've done here is rip my statement out of its context, and then claimed I was using it in a meaningless way that I never intended. It is a straw man argument, really, and yes you did use ad homs. A giant turd? Saying that its really hard to talk to me because of my weak grasp of science and logic? Come on. I had thought that our dialogue had transcended these kind of petty caricatures.

In context, the statement is designed to get you think outside the box you're in and weigh both sides of the issue equally. It's not an argument in itself. The statement that if God exists, everything that exists is empirical evidence for God is a logically valid statement. If God exists, everything you're looking at right now if proof that He exists. Obviously, this statement by itself doesn't help you determine whether God actually exists or not. You could just as easily say that if God doesn't exist, everything that does exist is proof that He doesn't exist. Therefore, the question is, how would you tell if you're in a Universe that God designed?

The real question is, why is either possibility more or less likely than the other? You haven't addressed this, but simply have taken a leap of faith in favor of your atheistic naturalism. You say, I don't see the Planner, and I didn't see the Planner make this Universe, therefore it is not designed until proven otherwise. The problem with this is that you can't even begin to justify this assumption until you can explain why either possibility is any more likely than the other. You can't say you don't see any empirical evidence because it might be staring you in the face everywhere you look. To analyze how either possibility is more likely than the other you have to discard your assumptions about what you have seen or haven't seen and think about this on a deeper level.

Taking it a step deeper, the fact is, you would only expect to see exactly what you do see, because you are in fact a created being. A created being should expect to find himself existing in an environment capable of creating him. The crux is though that this environment is also finely tuned. You should expect to see what you do, but you should also be surprised to find that it is finely tuned. It a bit like being taken out for execution in front of a firing squad of 100 expert marksmen 3 feet away, and finding yourself alive after all of them opened fire. You should not be surprised to find yourself alive, because obviously you would have to be alive to find yourself alive, but you should be surprised to find that 100 expert marksmen missed you from 3 feet away. In the same way, you should be surprised to find yourself to be a created being in a finely tuned Universe.

What you have on your hands is a Universe full of empirical evidence that it was or wasn't designed. There are only two possibilities; the Universe was either planned or unplanned. Again, how would you tell the difference? What would you expect to see which is different from what you do see? What would make either possibility more likely? That is the point. A finely tuned Universe should tip the scales of that evidence, if you are being honest about what you can really prove.

Supernatural creation is easier to understand, but just about any other explanation is as or more plausible. When you consider some of the extreme coincidences that are required for us to exist, it stretches the mind. But we've had billions of years to evolve, and if we're talking about the whole universe, it could be that 10^one trillion universes with different physical properties have formed and collapsed, and when a balanced one finally came out of the mix, it stuck around, and here we are.

It could be, except there is no evidence there is. Why is it you that can imagine an infinite number of hypothetical Universes with no evidence, but you object to supernatural creation as somehow being less plausible than that? There is no evidence that it is less plausible, you simply assume it is. Sure, if you use your magic genie of time and chance you could imagine just about anything could happen. Scientists agree:

Given so much time, the impossible becomes possible, the possible probable, and the probable virtually certain. One has only to wait: time itself performs the miracles.

George Wald, Nobel Laureate, Harvard
Physics and Chemistry of Life p.12

The odds of any of this happening by itself far exceeds the number of atoms in the Universe, and there is no actual proof that it actually could happen by itself, but you still believe it to be more plausible. Why is that? In the end, why is it plausible that anything would exist at all? Why isn't everything equally unlikely in the end? Notice what George Wald said? He said time itself performs the *miracles*. He said that because the existence of life is nothing short of a miracle, but even knowing that, you would still say God is implausible. I think these arguments are what is implausible.

Look at how these scientists come to the same conclusions as you have:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/physics/blog/2012/03/is-the-universe-fine-tuned-for-life/

They acknowledge there are only two possibilities, one being God, but since they hate that possibility more than they hate embracing the anthropic principle, they go with that instead, having absolutely no evidence to base that conclusion on. They simply don't want to acknowledge the obvious, which is that a finely tuned Universe is *much* stronger evidence for an omnipotent God than it is for multiple Universes.

I would take a declarative statement about him, and see what implications it had, what predictions it made, then see if they were testable, either theoretically or practically. Like theoretically if God is omniscient, it means he knows everything, and if I can find an example of something he absolutely cannot know, then I've proven he's not omniscient.

What God says is that as the Heavens are higher than the Earth, so are His ways above our ways, and His thoughts above our thoughts. He also calls the wisdom of this world, foolishness. So God has directly said that it is only by His revelation and not our understanding that we can come to know Him. A limited temporal creature, trying to disprove Gods existence with his own corrupt reasoning is kind of laughable, isn't it?

In any case, it's easy to think of things God doesn't know or can't do. God doesn't know what it feels like to not exist. God can't remember a time that He didn't exist. God can't make a square circle, or an acceptable sin. This doesn't prove anything. A better definition would be, omniscience is knowing everything that can be known, and omnipotence is being able to do everything that can be done.

Or practically, if God answers prayers, then I can test that statistically. Now, you say that God refuses to be tested, but that also means that if people are sincerely praying, but someone else is measuring the effects of those prayers, that God will choose not to answer those prayers, "Sorry! I'm being tested for, so I can't help you out today." This puts the power of denying God's prayers in the hands of scientists -- ridiculous. So there's two tests for God.

Or perhaps He had sovereignly arranged for only insincere prayers or prayers outside of His will to be prayed for at that time which would give the results of the test the appearance of randomness.

This is self-fulfilling prophecy. The only reason the Jewish people came back to form a country again is because their holy book said they were entitled to do so, divine providence. Like Macbeth likely never would have become king of Scotland if he hadn't been told so by the Weird Sisters.

The Jews are historically from Israel, and there is archaeological evidence to prove this. The reason they came back to Israel is because it is historically their homeland. Given the opportunity, they would have come back to Israel with or without the bible saying they were entitled to. The point is that they were predicted to come back, not only around the date that they did, but their migration pattern was in the exact order, their currency was predicted, their economic and agricultural condition was predicted, and many other things.

I'm no biblical scholar, but I found three places where the destruction of Jerusalem is predicted. The first is in Micah 3:11-12, where it simply states that it will happen at some point. It doesn't say when, nor describe any of the circumstances. The second one I found is Daniel 9:24-26, where there's some detail that sounds kinda like Jesus, except that it was supposed to happen within 70 weeks (16 months) of when God spoke to Daniel, roughly 530 years BC. Or if you understand that the signal to begin the 70 weeks hadn't been issued yet, then Jerusalem was to have been build a mere 16 months before it was destroyed by Titus, which clearly isn't the case either. It also predicts the end will be by flood, but it was by fire, and then manual labour of soldiers, if Josephus' account is to be believed (he wasn't impartial).

The 70 weeks are not concurrent, first of all. Second, Jesus is the one who predicted the fall of Jerusalem:

Luk 19:41 And when he drew near and saw the city, he wept over it,
Luk 19:42 saying, "Would that you, even you, had known on this day the things that make for peace! But now they are hidden from your eyes.
Luk 19:43 For the days will come upon you, when your enemies will set up a barricade around you and surround you and hem you in on every side
Luk 19:44 and tear you down to the ground, you and your children within you. And they will not leave one stone upon another in you, because you did not know the time of your visitation."

I would have to accept Jesus as messiah before I could accept this argument. And if I had already accepted him as messiah, then the argument would be meaningless, just like the one about the universe as evidence for God's existence.

I'll rephrase this by saying, that Jesus fulfilled dozens of prophecies about the coming of the Messiah. Clearly, the impact of that Jesus has had on the world matches His claims about who He is. Consider this quotation by Napoleon:

"What a conqueror!--a conqueror who controls humanity at will, and wins to himself not only one nation, but the whole human race. What a marvel! He attaches to himself the human soul with all its energies. And how? By a miracle which surpasses all others. He claims the love of men--that is to say, the most difficult thing in the world to obtain; that which the wisest of men cannot force from his truest friend, that which no father can compel from his children, no wife from her husband, no brother from his brother--the heart. He claims it ; he requires it absolutely and undividedly, and he obtains it instantly.

Alexander, Caesar, Hannibal, Louis XIV strove in vain to secure this. They conquered the world, yet they had not a single friend, or at all events, they have none any more. Christ speaks, however, and from that moment all generations belong to him; and they are joined to him much more closely than by any ties of blood and by a much more intimate, sacred and powerful communion. He kindles the flame of love which causes one's self-love to die, and triumphs over every other love. Why should we not recognize in this miracle of love the eternal Word which created the world? The other founders of religions had not the least conception of this mystic love which forms the essence of Christianity.

I have filled multitudes with such passionate devotion that they went to death for me. But God forbid that I should compare the enthusiasm of my soldiers with Christian love. They are as unlike as their causes. In my case, my presence was always necessary, the electric effect of my glance, my voice, my words, to kindle fire in their hearts. And I certainly posses personally the secret of that magic power of taking by storm the sentiments of men; but I was not able to communicate that power to anyone. None of my generals ever learned it from me or found it out. Moreover, I myself do not possess the secret of perpetuating my name and a love for me in their hearts for ever, and to work miracles in them without material means.

Now that I languish here at St Helena, chained upon this rock, who fights, who conquers empires for me? Who still even thinks of me? Who interests himself for me in Europe? Who has remained true to me? That is the fate of all great men. It was the fate of Alexander and Caesar, as it is my own. We are forgotten, and the names of the mightiest conquerors and most illustrious emperors are soon only the subject of a schoolboy's taks. Our exploits come under the rod of a pedantic schoolmaster, who praises or condemns us as he likes.

What an abyss exists between my profound misery and the eternal reign of Christ, who is preached, loved, and worshipped, and live on throughout the entire world. Is this to die? Is it not rather to live eternally? The death of Christ! It is the death of a God."

Nope. Eternal means within all time. It implies that such an entity wouldn't necessarily exist outside of time. Maybe you meant a different word, but "eternal" doesn't describe whoever created time, if words have meaning.

Words do have meaning. Check any dictionary; the definition I used is there:

e·ter·nal/i't?rnl/
Adjective:

Lasting or existing forever; without end or beginning.
(of truths, values, or questions) Valid for all time; essentially unchanging.

What is this (especially the bits in bold) based on? It this biblical? Your intuition?

Isaiah 29:13

The Lord says: "These people come near to me with their mouth and honor me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me. Their worship of me is made up only of rules taught by men

1 Samuel 16:7

But the LORD said to Samuel, "Do not consider his appearance or his height, for I have rejected him. The LORD does not look at the things man looks at. Man looks at the outward appearance, but the LORD looks at the heart

You can give God all of the lip service you want, but He is only interested in what is in your heart.

Yes, the Lord will test your sincerity:

1 Peter 1:6-7

In this you greatly rejoice, though now for a little while you may have had to suffer grief in all kinds of trials.

These have come so that your faith--of greater worth than gold, which perishes even though refined by fire--may be proved genuine and may result in praise, glory and honor when Jesus Christ is revealed.

Also, if God knows everything, then what could he possibly be "testing" for? You only need to test things if you don't already know. And if he does know, the he's just messing with my head, in which case, it's not a test.

The metaphor that is used for testing is that of impurities being refined out of gold or silver. Tests are to prove your sincerity, not necessarily what God knows.

>> ^messenger

Hm. Ok. I should have guessed that because I singled out African Americans and my assumption that some, being unable to know where in Africa their ancestors were abducted from, tend to see a continent of 57 Nations and dozens of ethnicities and religions as "their homeland", I would be called a racist.

That's the internet for you. :-)

Have you ever even considered that I was trying to comment upon a feature of some people that I did not understand because I don't share it? I do not feel any connection to any place my ancestors might have lived in the same way that I am not proud of any of their achievements and not ashamed by any of their failings. They are not me.

I'm Black and I don't have much interest in where my ancestors came from. My brother & sisters don't either (& I mean my actual brother & sisters). I can't think of any of my black friends who have any interest in a pilgrimage to their homeland. Some of them pop back to see the relatives sometimes, but that's about it.

However if I go to any big city over here in Europe it's brimming with, mainly American, people who've come to the old country to trace their roots. And I've met people of many shades and nationalities who've arrived here to do that. It's not the bastion of any one race. Don't take a common human impulse you've observed in people who by coincidence are black and tag it to them alone to form part of a 'but black people is weird innit' narrative. This kind of thing makes me sleepy.


>> ^wraith:

A question that always bothered me and that has almost nothing to do with this video: Why do so many African Americans think they have to go to Africa to find their roots? In Europe, in all countries except France, 99% of African people are really first or second generation immigrants from one of the dozens of Nations in Africa.
They have relatives living there.
I understand that.
African Americans have their roots as much in "Africa", as I have my roots in....I don't even know...Germany? France? Russia? Hungary?
I don't even know where my ancestors lived three hundred years ago.
And I don't care.
I don't get it.

In reply to this comment by wraith:
A question that always bothered me and that has almost nothing to do with this video: Why do so many African Americans think they have to go to Africa to find their roots? In Europe, in all countries except France, 99% of African people are really first or second generation immigrants from one of the dozens of Nations in Africa.

They have relatives living there.

I understand that.

African Americans have their roots as much in "Africa", as I have my roots in....I don't even know...Germany? France? Russia? Hungary?

I don't even know where my ancestors lived three hundred years ago.

And I don't care.

I don't get it.


I live in England and we are full of Americans & others who's ancestors came from here returning to trace their roots. Same in Scotland, Ireland, Wales and everywhere. It's not a black phenomenon. I as an official negro have no desire to return to my 'homeland'. But it's a pretty common unremarkable and universal human desire.

>> ^direpickle:

>> ^wraith:
A question that always bothered me and that has almost nothing to do with this video: Why do so many African Americans think they have to go to Africa to find their roots? In Europe, in all countries except France, 99% of African people are really first or second generation immigrants from one of the dozens of Nations in Africa.
They have relatives living there.
I understand that.
African Americans have their roots as much in "Africa", as I have my roots in....I don't even know...Germany? France? Russia? Hungary?
I don't even know where my ancestors lived three hundred years ago.
And I don't care.
I don't get it.

Your ancestors (probably) weren't torn away from their homeland unwillingly, and you did not grow up somewhere just a hairsbreadth away from deep, institutional racism. Have you ever spent a lot of time somewhere where you were a minority? It's not always terribly comfortable.
That said, someone already mentioned that Chappelle didn't go there for that reason. I don't know if anyone actually does. Is it a thing? But I can absolutely see why someone growing up in America might feel that they need to try to find some connection to where their ancestors came from.
Just guessing. Mostly from Irish/German stock, here. But many generations removed.


You mean like the Puritans, the Protestants, the Irish, the Germans, the Chinese, or any of the other religious or ethnic groups that were forced out of their countries?

>> ^wraith:

A question that always bothered me and that has almost nothing to do with this video: Why do so many African Americans think they have to go to Africa to find their roots? In Europe, in all countries except France, 99% of African people are really first or second generation immigrants from one of the dozens of Nations in Africa.
They have relatives living there.
I understand that.
African Americans have their roots as much in "Africa", as I have my roots in....I don't even know...Germany? France? Russia? Hungary?
I don't even know where my ancestors lived three hundred years ago.
And I don't care.
I don't get it.


Your ancestors (probably) weren't torn away from their homeland unwillingly, and you did not grow up somewhere just a hairsbreadth away from deep, institutional racism. Have you ever spent a lot of time somewhere where you were a minority? It's not always terribly comfortable.

That said, someone already mentioned that Chappelle didn't go there for that reason. I don't know if anyone actually does. Is it a thing? But I can absolutely see why someone growing up in America might feel that they need to try to find some connection to where their ancestors came from.

Just guessing. Mostly from Irish/German stock, here. But many generations removed.

>> ^swedishfriend:

shinyblurry! So who was the riddle about? What is the name you think fits best?


It is still a mystery that has yet to be revealed. The antichrist is said to be a world leader who comes about during the end times and will seize power during an economic crisis. He is also said to negotiate a 7 year peace deal with Israel. He will consolidate his power and become the head of a one world government and economy, having authority over every nation and the ability to regulate all commerce. Midway through his rule he will declare himself to be God and cause the entire world to worship him in a one world religion. He will also have a supernatural power to back up his claims.

The major sign we are in those times is the reformation of the nation of Israel. That the Jewish people are back in their homeland after 2000 years is the definitive sign that we are in the last days. An additional sign that this is getting close is when the Jews build the third temple. Right now, they are in the preparation stage, having already built the implements for the temple and also training priests to serve there. There are many other signs..here is a good video describing some of them:

>> ^oritteropo:

What do you mean by "people like you"? Who are you lumping me in with? How does it affect you, personally, if politicians in a far off land make decisions that neither of us would agree with in our homelands?
Please either mark your other profile comment as private or edit it to remove my comment or delete it, I didn't want my comment public or I would not have ticked the private box.
>> ^coolhund:
>> ^oritteropo:
Have you ever studied the French Revolution? Ron Paul's policies didn't go so well for Turgot, and haven't for anyone else who has tried them since.
I guess since neither of us are U.S. based we can always sit back and watch the spectacle from afar, eating popcorn, no matter what they try
Looks like you have studied the french revolution, but not what Ron Paul actually wants to do, or rather will be able to do.
And yes I guess its easy to sit back and eat popcorn for people like you.



Why does it have to affect me personally? I mean it affects me, but not directly (thankfully I dont live in one of those countries where it would), though there is no denying that the US has a huge influence on my country aswell. I can think around the next corner. I know how decisions in foreign policy of a superpower affect people on the whole world. You can see it every day. You want to tell me that it doesnt affect the whole world how the US has treated the middle east for the last 5+ decades? Do you really think they hate the US and their supporters because they are "free"? Do you think they wont forget that the US and other western countries supported the "Israelis" all the way where they are today? What would you do if someone took a good chunk of your property and just give it someone else? And a few decades later all you have left is only a spot for you to sleep and defecate on, because everything else has been taken by those, and you are treated like criminals by them and the majority of the world, because they control media in said superpower and you dont. Who would you blame for that? Only the one taking your land or also the one who allowed them to take it and continue to support them?
Or are you hiding behind your hypocrite ethics and moral by saying "thats not an excuse"?

The Vietnam war, based on lies, the attack on Iraq 2003, based on lies, etc, etc, etc, didnt affect the world??? It didnt affect me? How can you think that? Do you really think other regimes dont look at the USA and think to themselves, if they are the biggest hypocrites on this earth, why cant we be? There are enough examples for that, even in Europe. European governments suddenly made as bad and audacious decisions in foreign and internal policies and were inspired by the sudden and open showing of totalitarianism. Some even follow the US like they are their lapdogs. That doesnt affect me or anyone in the world?

Sorry, but if you dont realize how a superpower like the US acting with such massive and audacious hypocrisy, for every human on this earth with an IQ higher than 50 to see, then I have nothing else to say.

>> ^messenger:

The plot thickens. Frankly, I was wondering how Mel Gibson was allowed not only to participate, but to lead off after the horrible things he's become famous for lately.
Could this be early 2000s, like soon after 9/11 when "Homeland Security" was starting? I don't know of anything that Clinton did that would piss off actors (dems) so much they'd put something like this together. Surely it wasn't just educational?
Either way, I'm glad they did because I know for sure I'd never been exposed to the entire document before. Worth having heard. Nicely done, except for the bit about the Natives.>> ^shuac:
>> ^messenger:
@artician @charliem
"Either way, what struck me in hearing it this time is how much of it is a reaction to exactly the same behavior the US is showing today. Hilarious."
I'm guessing that's why this was done.
Not sure what Graham Greene was doing there. Was a Canadian the only native person they could find?

But I can tell by the faces that this was made in the 90s.



No, not the early 2000s. Look at Michael Douglas's neck. Look how lean Kevin Spacey's face is.

Hey, some guys know who played 2nd base for the Pirates in 1967 and the like. I know movies. This was made in the mid-to-late 90s.

The plot thickens. Frankly, I was wondering how Mel Gibson was allowed not only to participate, but to lead off after the horrible things he's become famous for lately.

Could this be early 2000s, like soon after 9/11 when "Homeland Security" was starting? I don't know of anything that Clinton did that would piss off actors (dems) so much they'd put something like this together. Surely it wasn't just educational?

Either way, I'm glad they did because I know for sure I'd never been exposed to the entire document before. Worth having heard. Nicely done, except for the bit about the Natives.>> ^shuac:

>> ^messenger:
@artician @charliem
"Either way, what struck me in hearing it this time is how much of it is a reaction to exactly the same behavior the US is showing today. Hilarious."
I'm guessing that's why this was done.
Not sure what Graham Greene was doing there. Was a Canadian the only native person they could find?

But I can tell by the faces that this was made in the 90s.

I'm surprised they weren't all arrested by homeland security.

>> ^criticalthud:

This is one big reason:
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=afghanistan-holds-enormous-bounty-of-rare-earths
rare earth.


I knew they has some sort of exploitable resource,but didn't know what. Usually its Oil,but that is nearly as good: some neccessity for keeping industry going and profits up.If America wants to be the New Rome and spread Pax Americana across the world,then they should follow the Roman idea through and kick back some of those spoils of war back to the homeland where all the cannon fodder comes from. Who will buy all this crap we import from China if noone has jobs? Greed will be their downfall,that and an embaressing short sightedness that hopefully won't doom the rest of us along with them.

>> ^quantumushroom:

Why should I heed a lecture by slaves with no freedom of speech, who can be executed without trial and are barred from having more than one kid in their homeland about freedom?
Lucky for them, their American kollij professor is likely a communist who spews the exact same rubbish.
I mean, have you ever considered that some people may LIKE living under a murderous dictatorship? (It's true, the dictators sure are happy)! What an easy "A".


QM, sometimes you have a truly fascinating way of agreeing with everyone on a thread, and then calling them stupid.

Am I wrong, or is renatojj the only person here who's saying that China is "freer" than the United States? (cause he seems like the exact opposite of a kollij professor)