Dude_Doc

Wouldn't this present a new set of problems? First of all, the Bible would be void, since all things yet to come would have ended. The devil (if there is one) would've lost. Second, we don't know anything about the "outside" of the universe, or if it is indeed possible to break physical laws. If we are to take miracles into account, then it is possible. The question would then become if miracles can only be done by the divine, or by any intelligence. Or, can intelligence itself become divine?

Why not, as I have proposed before, prophecy? Let's say I predict that, say, President Bush comes out of the closet on November 5, 2008, at 12:34 pm and announces that he has always been a homosexual. This would give people every reason to "believe" in me and any future prophecies I may have - would it not?

But power plants takes years to build. Not to mention all the uranium needed for them - and the risks. Apparently, hydrogen doesn't create anything, it's a sort of transporting "substanse"? Besides, who are going to test hydrogen cars? Etanol wouldn't work either, whole countries must be converted to etanol fields. And now we have the expensive food crisis too.

But isn't the scenario more serious than "just" an economic depression? Many things are made of oil - plastics, chemicals etc. And what about energy? None of the new, environmentally friendly fuels would work on as large scale as oil has. It seems it will be more like a new dark age...

Does anyone believe "in" the peak oil scenario? Now, I'm sure it will happen some day, after all, since our planet is finite, so must everything else be, including oil. Here is a "pro-peak oil argument" site: http://www.lifeaftertheoilcrash.net/ So, is it just a new form of hype? Or will it happen in our lives? According to the link above, we may even experience blackouts and such this year...

I guess if Mugabe doesn't step down, there could be similar violence as there was in Kenya.

But, what if there is one way? If I could predict the future, then that would prove that I am telling the truth. So, in order for the Bible to be true, the prophecies in there must also come to pass. No? Unless you take the Gnostic demiurge into account...

So, how does that apply to atheists? To an atheist, all religions have the same value. And, as Edric said in another thread, why would atheists (and for that matter people of other religions) believe that this is the Christian miracle? Why couldn't this be aliens, with very advanced technology, posing as angels? I mean that you would still have to have a reason to associate this to the Christian belief. I don't know, it appeals to a Christian, but otherwise you would have to believe in the Bible to make those quotes true. I mean, Islam is the fastest growing religion - logically, that could be seen as proof that Islam is the true religion, right?

Yes, if the Christian God exists. Which seems quite impossible. The only way to find out is through faith. Except that the food in question can be found (since it can be eaten), identified and warning signs and such can be set up to warn people of the food. It can be taken into a lab, and we can find out what makes the food dangerous. But how can you do that with something supernatural? It defies every mathematical formula, physics, biology, chemistry. I mean, what are angels made of? Building upon that, say the angel told us that it was made of some sort of supernatural fabric, something that is not part of this universe. If it isn't then we can't research it. We would have to trust the angel and what it told us. And how would we know the angel is telling us the truth? Through faith. So, in short, we can't really find proof. It has to be through faith.

That is assuming that the miracle can be captured on video, or audio, or can be researched on. But it seemed true enough for many people to believe it, even base entire empires on. You heretic! :D Really, I don't think there can be any physical structure that could maintain such an intelligence. I remember the BBC documentary "Parallel Universes", where they mostly talk about dimensions etc. I believe that someone in that documentary mentioned something about how gravity "leaks" into our universe. Anyway, everything is made up by a huge membrane of strings. Maybe the cosciousness in question is something similar as that?

But, we have no proof, so what is so wrong with thinking that we are the only ones? Imagine that there are only a couple of planets in the whole universe that supports life. Imagine also that those planets are so far appart, that whatever technological level we come to, we can simply never reach those planets (nor can the aliens reach us, or even know we exist). My meaning here is that we can never determine that there is or isn't life out there just because we haven't encountered any yet. Unless, of course, we know everything there is to know about life, how it is created, how it works etc. But would you still believe that miracle 10 years into the future? Would your children believe in what you experienced? And for that matter, how do you know miracles didn't happen as described in the Bible?

Interesting enough - most scientists see the possibility of intelligent life on other worlds as a possibility (if not a probability) - yet, there is no single proof of any alien lifeforms out there. My point is, we can never know until we explore the whole universe.

No, I don't believe in the WTC conspiracy, nor have I seen any convincing evidence for a conspiracy in the JFK assassination (although, I haven't read much about the conspiracy theory). I mean that while they formally speak of protecting people, they are doing many things contrary to that - like supporting oppressive regimes all over the world. It's the hypocracy of saying that one supports "freedom and liberty", while actually doing everything opposing that. It's the support for Saudi Arabia and making enemies of Venezuela.

Or, so we are told. ;)

How would Reagan be able to do that? He was just as anti-communist as the previous presidents, no? I would say that the Soviet Union got shaken from inside by it's own people, who were disappointed of the direction of the union. It was the longing for more openness and less police state, I think. But I don't believe it was anything economical, I mean, Cuba and North Korea runs by the same economics as the Soviet Union did, although they are not as rich since they no longer have "a union" to trade with.

Now that I think of it, isn't Putin involved in Gazprom too? Also, the Russian law forbids the president to hold another post, so maybe there are something in the minister post after all.

I found this online video: http://www.thestumblingblock.com/ (click on "The Movie" on the left side to see it) It is pretty long, 2 hours and 40 minutes, and has a lot of annoying moments (like screaming into the microphone, irritating language and one and the other "untasty" picture/s), but other than that the guy makes some interesting comments. Mainly he explains how Jesus preached to rebel against our "kings" (because you can not have alligience to two kings) and that he was pretty much a "liberal" guy, also that Christianity itself was made to rebel against "the system" but instead became the system. He also mentions other things, like how the Genesis describes two "gods", one wanting Adam and Eve to eat of the apple and spread across the world, while "the other" do not want them to eat of the tree and instead take care of Eden. Also, that the beast may be civilization itself etc.

Scientology makes the Rael cult seem like a rational and realistic organization.

An interesting angle of the Tree of Knowledge, is that intelligence of humans surpasses all other animals (that is not to say that other animals are stupid or something). With that knowledge, humans are able to do many interesting things, but also a great deal of bad things - like wars, starvation, dicease, pollution and so on. For example, what other animal could possibly contaminate this world as much as we have done? Industry may have created good stuff, but the cost of those things can and is causing us harm. Living could be another example. We can choose to live in harmony with our environment and "regulate" ourselves, or we can desolate an area and move to the next, without taking responsibility for our movement.

You could always upload on www.archive.org, though your file will be aviable to everyone.

But haven't they also peaked? Interesting. The last oil will be spent in wars to get some drops more.

Peak oil/peak oil production?

Poverty comes from globalization and exploaitation. Like I said, as soon as a country begins to nationalize it's industries and create social programs, the rest of the world are made to believe that they've become "dangerous" and shouldn't be spoken to. How long have people donated to charity now? What, 50 years? How long are they to remain poor? But they aren't poor - the people are. It isn't easy to begin industry as long as you don't own any of your wealth. So you mean that, despite decades of charity, a simple thing as farming can't be teached to the African people? On the contrary, the West is very interested in Africa - only in a different way. They're interested in cheap labour, in non-existant environmental and social laws, and in the resources. The point is that Africa shouldn't really become anything more than it is. Capitalism would want to see weaker governments and harder property laws. They would always support that kind of system. The US is basically turning into a new China, for example, but both are competing on certain grounds. Why would they ever support a democracy, where people can oppose corporate rule?

Well, of course not every second of life, but most of it. Like I said, it decides most of your life. Politics control what you can and can not do, for example. You, as an induvidual, has to follow those rules in the entire time of your life. It decides how much time you can spend with your family, or how your job will turn out, and so on. Now, politics can also be the cooperation between people, like deciding basic laws - but such a cooperation can only come if everyone knows and can act upon it. Politics, in real life, doesn't do that. People can never agree on one issue, because that issue is never discussed (and we have the media to thank for that). If people do not know, then they will not act. Water that has been polluted by the international corporations that control the pollutor, i.e. the factory? We always hear about the wonders of globalization, but that same globalization has turned villages into shanty-towns, forrests into wastelands and a lot of other things that the mighty gains on. Africa is a very rich country, but it's people are poor. Poor by the material conditions that comes from unregulated capitalism. Those who dare to regulate it are called "rouge nations" and "undemocratic", and "a threat to stability". Those countries are also often candidates for coups, that usually end up in violent dictatorships that lasts for years. Are you suggesting the "white man's burden"?

I disagree. Politics have everything to do with how humans live, and where they end up. People in Africa aren't poor just because they somehow lack "daily effort", they are poor for a reason, the politics of capitalism.